Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas Next - Ar Aghaidh

Seanad Éireann - Volume 155 - 22 April, 1998

An Bille um an Naoú Leasú Déag ar an mBunreacht, 1998: An Dara Céim. - Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1998: Second Stage.

An Cathaoirleach: I welcome the Taoiseach to the House.

Tairgeadh an cheist: “Go léifear an Bille don Dara hUair.”

Question proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

The Taoiseach: I welcome the opportunity of bringing both the legislation and the Agreement before the Seanad. I thank the Members for their welcome. Some of what I wanted to say to the Upper House I have already said in the Dáil but much of what I will say today I did not have time to say in the Dáil. For those who are following our proceedings outside, the second half of my speech contains what I have not previously said.

I am laying before the House a settlement for peace in Northern Ireland. The political agreement concluded between all the participating parties on Good Friday, 10 April, represents a major [100] breakthrough in terms of consolidating peace and ending 30 years of conflict. The Agreement is historic in the true sense of the word. It not only supersedes previous initiatives, it replaces both the legislation and the settlement of 1920 and 1921. In its place is an agreement capable, for the first time, of winning the support of both traditions in the North and the support of North and South as well as enhancing co-operation between these islands.

It is the culmination of many years of effort devoted to the peace process and of the three strands talks which began in 1991. Both have come together in one agreement. Many people have contributed to this achievement and shown real statesmanship in the process. I would like to salute the political courage and leadership shown by John Hume and Gerry Adams and their close colleagues and also the priests who brought parties together during the early years. The Ulster Unionist leadership under David Trimble made an indispensable and courageous contribution by their participation in negotiating and concluding this Agreement.

Lord Alderdice of Alliance, the loyalist leaders, the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition and Labour in Northern Ireland also played a valuable role in supporting accommodation and bridging difference. The commitment of the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who put his full weight and presence behind negotiations, was obviously of huge importance as was the courage and perseverance of his Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam and her deputy, Paul Murphy. I would also like to pay tribute to the essential groundwork of his predecessor, John Major.

I would like to pay tribute to my predecessors, Charles Haughey who was Taoiseach when the process started, Deputy Albert Reynolds who concluded the Downing Street Declaration and who made the first historic breakthrough towards ending violence and made so much of the early running in bringing the parties to work together. I certainly appreciate the involvement of Deputy Reynolds and his advice over the past months and we worked for the conclusion of the Agreement.

Deputy John Bruton helped set the parameters and ground rules that started the talks in their most recent phase since June 1996. Deputy Bruton also concluded the work on the Framework Document which was so important. Deputy Dick Spring, under successive Governments, oversaw the preparation of the Framework Document.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, also deserve our warmest thanks for the leadership they gave the Irish Government team in the talks since last summer, as do the other Ministers and Ministers of State who attended on a regular basis over many years and particularly since 1996. The Attorney General, Mr. David Byrne, provided a vital input into key parts of the Agreement. The interdepartmental team of officials and advisers also deserve our gratitude for helping to pull the strands of the [101] Agreement together, as do the officials attached to the British side and to the different party teams, as well as the staff working with the talks chairmen. I thank all the officials who, over the past decade, have done an enormous amount of work under successive Governments and in the true tradition of the Irish public service to ensure continuity throughout the process.

I congratulate Senator George Mitchell and his colleagues, former Prime Minister Harri Holkeri and General John de Chastelain, on their great achievement and I thank them for their wisdom and patience. I look forward to seeing Senator Mitchell at the end of next week when, as he informed me today, he intends to visit Ireland for a few days.

I have already conveyed my warm thanks to President Bill Clinton whose support and encouragement for all participants was a key element in this process. The US Ambassador, Jean Kennedy-Smith, also played a special and historic role during her period of office. I also wish to thank the EU Commission President Santer and Regional Commissioner Wulf-Mathies for the generous material support they have given to peace and reconstruction in Northern Ireland and the Border areas. I spoke to the Regional Commissioner on the Monday following the conclusion of the Agreement and she told me she would try to secure an additonal 100 million ECUs for next year to continue that work. Before I arrived in the Seanad today I was informed by Commissioner Flynn that the Commission had cleared that funding this morning to ensure continuity in cross-Border activities. That resource is now assured for next year.

Our immediate task is to have the Agreement approved on both sides of the Border. This will represent a concurrent act of self-determination by the people of Ireland for the first time since 1918. Such a vote will remove any false vestige of democratic self-justification for further acts of violence from any quarter, Republic or Loyalist. All remaining paramilitary groups should cease armed activity forthwith.

The basis of the settlement is the recognition that we must live together on this island. For that we need peace, stability and reconciliation. Neither tradition has the means to impose its will on the other. An accommodation is essential for the well being and prosperity of all. Inevitably, this will involve, for everybody, changes in our ways of thinking, greater tolerance and generosity and a more sympathetic understanding of the needs of others. We must foster confidence in all sections of the community.

This Agreement is first and foremost a balanced constitutional settlement that provides a peaceful method of resolving fundamental differences in the future while creating a basis for practical partnership and co-operation now. Real balance, which we have sought since 1992, has been achieved with fundamental and important changes in both British and Irish constitutional [102] law. We are reformulating Articles 2 and 3, not abolishing them.

If the Government had declined to enter into discussions on our constitutional position, there would have been no multi-party negotiations, no agreement and no peace. We took the same view as the Secretary of State, Dr. Mowlam, that the status quo is not acceptable and, therefore, some movement was required on all sides, including ours.

The purpose of the changes is to reinforce the principle that in Ireland, North and South, it is the people who are sovereign and who have shared ownership of the territory of Ireland. Any British territorial claim of sovereignty, made without reference to consent, going back to the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the Act of Union or for that matter to 1170, will be superseded in the British Act and becomes irrelevant for the future. The principle of consent is paramount. From now on, everything will hinge on that. This represents a substantial change. Moreover, consent is now, for the first time, formally recognised to be a two way process. The importance of this cannot be emphasised enough.

The foundation stone of this State, as well as of the peace process, the right to national self-determination in its full political, social and cultural meaning, remains untouched in Article 1, to which de Valera attached most importance and would not let go even in the context of a united Ireland.

The reformulation of Articles 2, 3 and 29 reflects modern, progressive republican thought that is truly pluralist and keeps faith with the inclusive tradition of Irish nationalism, stemming from Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen. The nation is defined in terms of people, but people related to a specific territory, the island of Ireland. Henceforth, we do not insist on pressganging those who are determined that they are not a part of the nation. As a consequence of that, we no longer say, or appear to say, that the territory is ours, not theirs, but rather that it is shared by all of us.

For the first time, we firmly anchor in the Constitution and, very importantly, in international law, the Irish nationality and citizenship rights of everyone born on the island who wants to avail of them. There is no question of anyone being made an alien in their own country. The nation is not territorially disembodied. It is defined in clear terms as a Thirty two county entity. The State remains as it was interpreted to be in the McGimpsey judgment in 1990, a Twenty Six county one. On a different level, we also recognise for the first time the Irish diaspora which played its own notable part in the peace process.

A nation normally has, other things being equal, a right to statehood. Our position, as reiterated in the proposed Articles 2 and 3, is that the Thirty two county Irish nation has a right to statehood, but we recognise that for that to come about the consent principle must first be satisfied. The firm will of the Irish nation to unity is [103] expressed in the language of the 1967 Constitutional Review Committee but it can only be achieved by consent, North and South.

The words “in harmony and friendship” apply to the process of seeking unity. Whereas under the present Articles 2, 3 and 29, Northern Ireland and the unity of Ireland are treated as issues to be settled between the British and Irish Governments on their own, without necessarily any reference to the wishes of the people in Northern Ireland and, therefore, demonstrably lack effectiveness, the new Articles provide a realistic mechanism for bringing about Irish unity by agreement between the people of Ireland, North and South.

The consent principle reflects the political reality that we have long accepted for all practical purposes. As far back as August 1921, de Valera declared that “we do not contemplate the use of force”, and in 1957 he told the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis that a forced unity would ruin national life for generations. What is contained at present in the Irish Constitution was inserted in 1937 as a protest against the Boundary Agreement of 1925, and as a reassertion of the essential unity of Ireland in circumstances where Northern Nationalists had been entirely abandoned to the mercy of an unsympathetic and often hostile Stormont Government. In the opinion of many lawyers, it is questionable whether Articles 2 and 3 ever had much standing in international law, given that the 1925 agreement was registered at the League of Nations, but they were certainly a challenge to the legitimacy of Northern Ireland. In the present negotiations it would have been illogical to seek fundamental changes in order to secure a new, fair and equitable political dispensation if we were still determined to deny the result of any democratic legitimacy.

If we want civilised relations on this island, which we do, and the ultimate coming together of the people of Ireland, which we do, we do not need, nor is there benefit from, any claim of right to include the people of Northern Ireland in a united Ireland against the will of a majority there. Equally, however, Unionists now increasingly accept that the consent of Nationalists is needed for stable government in Northern Ireland.

The first Hume-Adams statement of April 1993 stated that while the Irish people have the right to self-determination, they are divided on its exercise. Article 1 of the new British-Irish Agreement, which will be binding internationally, recognises that it is for the people of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts but without external impediment, to exercise that right of self-determination. In the context of a new and fair dispensation, where jurisdiction is to be founded in rigorous equality, as stated in Article 1 of the new British-Irish Agreement, we are prepared to recognise the legitimacy of the right of the people of Northern Ireland to choose whether to belong to the United Kingdom or a united Ireland. As the late Mr. Paddy McGrory, [104] the Belfast solicitor in the Gibraltar Three case, wrote to Gerry Adams in May 1994, there is a crucial difference between consent imposed by the British and consent freely accepted as a condition for unity by the Irish people themselves, as expressed in an act of collective and concurrent self-determination.

The new position is more in keeping with our dignity as a people and, if the people of Northern Ireland have the freedom to choose, a majority may some time in the future decide to become part of a united Ireland.

None of us can pre-empt what decisions will be taken by people in the future, and it is they, not us, who will decide if the present Agreement is to be a transition to a united Ireland or the basis for a continuation of the Union. For our part, we can work to make such unity as attractive a proposition as possible by developing our economy and improving our society in every way, including its pluralism and its respect for the diversity of identities and traditions on the island.

The proposed new Article 3, taken in conjunction with the changes to take place in British constitutional legislation, with the new British-Irish Agreement and with elements of the multi-party Agreement accepted by the pro-Union political parties in Northern Ireland marks a change of immense positive significance for the aspiration towards Irish unity in that it establishes a legal mechanism whereby the reunification of Ireland can come about without the interference of any person outside the island of Ireland. In this respect, the new Article 3 represents a considerable improvement over the existing Articles 2 and 3, which provide no such mechanism.

The mechanism that will now be established under the new Article 3 is the consent of the majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both parts of the island and thus reflects the agreed approach to self determination and consent, set down in the Downing Street Declaration of 15 December 1993.

The implication of the acceptance of this proposed provision of the Constitution by the British Government as well as by Northern Ireland parties supporting the Union — the Ulster Unionist Party, the two Loyalist parties and the Alliance Party — is the recognition, not only of the separate existence of Northern Ireland for as long as a majority of its people wish it to continue, but also of the right of Northern Ireland to become part of a united Ireland if a majority of the people of Northern Ireland so declare. The achievement of a united Ireland is made entirely conditional on decisions made by people on the island of Ireland, and it would no longer, for example, be possible as a legal proposition for a majority of the electorate in the United Kingdom or a majority in the United Kingdom Parliament to block a united Ireland if a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wanted it. This is an important change in the existing situation and, as a matter of law, the British Government will now be bound by a solemn treaty obligation as well as [105] by its own legislation, once the agreed changes in that are made, to give effect to the wishes to the people of Northern Ireland should they decide in the future that they wish to become part of a united Ireland.

It is proposed to insert a new second section into Article 3. This will enable the creation of institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between the two jurisdictions on this island of Ireland and will enable them to exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island. There is a complementarity between this provision and the new provision which is proposed to Article 29.7.2º.

The focus in the proposed new Article 3.2 is to enable the exercise of executive power in the island as a whole, notwithstanding the limiting provisions in the proposed Article 3.1 on the exercise of jurisdiction outside the area of the State, whereas the proposal in Article 29.7.2º has as its focus permitting all-island institutions to operate in the South, notwithstanding the existing constitutional provisions conferring legislative, executive and judicial powers exclusively on the organs of Government established under the Constitution. It has to be borne in mind that the North-South Ministerial Council and its related implementation bodies will operate in both parts of the island and people in the South will have to accept that these bodies will be exercising functions which heretofore have been reserved to institutions established under the Constitution. The proposed new Article 3.2, in conjunction with Article 29.7.2º, will for the first time permit the exercise of governmental functions by all-island bodies — something which is not envisaged under the existing Article 3, which contemplates no all island arrangements short of eventual unification.

Time constraints in either House do not permit a full outline of the provisions in the multi-party Agreement. In the Dáil yesterday I concentrated on Strand One and Strand Two arrangements, in addition, of course, to the constitutional issues. Today in this House I wish to focus on Strand Three and on the other vitally important sections of the Agreement. However, before I do so, let me touch on one innovative element, in the Northern Ireland context, in Strands One and Two.

One of the most positive new developments to emerge in recent years in Northern Ireland are the new voices of reason — voices of women, of community groups, of the business sector. These people have sensible views which they want heard. They also want peace. Their contribution to making this Agreement work has perhaps not been as widely recognised as it deserves to be.

We in the Republic have long recognised the importance of social inclusion. We have given this institutional expression in the form of national agreements which have worked very well for us and also through the National Economic and Social Forum. When the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, who have been like a refreshing [106] breath of fresh air in Northern Ireland politics, recently sought the support of my Government for the inclusion in the Agreement of a consultative forum to give a greater and stronger voice to civil society, I was pleased to give that support.

I am delighted that this provision has been included in the Agreement and I am convinced that this new body, by giving community stakeholders a voice, will strengthen democracy in Northern Ireland society into the 21st century. This far sighted provision has, I believe, the potential to empower those men and women working in various fields on the ground and simultaneously to feed into democratic institutions valuable informed opinions. It can help, I believe, to foster a consensual and co-operative approach and to inject a dynamic into the new institutions in all three strands. The forum will operate as a consultative mechanism on economic, social and cultural issues. It will be made up of representatives drawn from the business, the voluntary and trade union sectors and such others as may be agreed and it will have appropriate administrative support.

In Strand Two, the Agreement provides that consideration will be given to the establishment of an independent consultative forum to be appointed by the two Administrations also representative of civil society, comprising the social partners and other members with expertise in social, cultural, economic and other issues. Such a body, I believe, holds out the same prospect for acting as a source of creative initiatives and I very much hope that it will be agreed finally to establish this proposed forum.

The key to the Agreement is that it addresses all three relationships — those within Northern Ireland, between North and South and between these two islands. The Irish Government has always recognised the importance of addressing the relationship between these two islands. We believe that the Agreement fully achieves our goals in this regard. It involves essentially the establishment of two new institutions. The first of these is the British-Irish Council to bring together representatives of the British and Irish Governments, devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, when established, and, if appropriate, elsewhere in the United Kingdom, together with representatives of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Its role will be to promote the harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of relationships among the people of these islands.

The Council will meet in different formats — at summit level twice a year, in specific sectoral formats on a regular basis, with each side represented by the appropriate Ministers, and in an appropriate format to consider cross-sectoral matters. A range of issues has been identified as being suitable for early discussion in the Council including transport links, agricultural issues, environmental issues, cultural issues, health issues, education issues and approaches to EU [107] matters. The role of the Council will be largely consultative although it will be open to the Council to agree common policies or common actions. The Government sees the Council as offering a very useful forum in which to consider a range of east-west issues without detracting from the centrality and independence of the North-South Council. We will take every opportunity to explore its full potential to the mutual benefit of the people of these two islands.

The second element of the Strand Three arrangements will be the establishment of a new British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference which will subsume both the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council and the Intergovernmental Conference established under the 1985 Agreement. It will cover all matters of bilateral interest but will have a special focus on Northern Ireland issues. The main differences from current arrangements are that many of the issues now considered by the Anglo-Irish Conference will have been devolved and that Northern Ireland representatives will be involved in meetings of the new conference. These arrangements are in line with our long held view that once arrangements for devolution were agreed, new intergovernmental arrangements would also be necessary.

Yesterday in the Dáil I outlined some of the balances which will ensure that consensus will operate in the context of a new Northern Ireland assembly; I focused in the main on institutional aspects. Today I want to focus on some of the other major advances which this Agreement will confer in the areas of rights, equality and social justice, including policing aspects. We want to bring about a situation in which people living in Northern Ireland can enjoy life in the same way as those of us living in Dublin or in London. That will involve many changes. This Agreement sets out to create the conditions to bring about that change.

The Agreement we have negotiated is broad based and far reaching. In it, we recognise the central importance of the equality agenda. The Agreement includes a major section on human rights protection, social, economic and cultural issues, including the Irish language. We have made provisions to recognise all identities and to ensure equality, fairness and a voice for all.

The British Government will complete the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic legislation and my Government will bring forward measures to strengthen the constitutional protection of human rights so as to ensure that human rights protection will be equivalent North and South of the Border.

In addition, the two Governments have agreed the establishment of new Human Rights Commissions in both jurisdictions. They will advise citizens on their rights and can bring court proceedings where they believe breaches of human rights have occurred. The new Northern Human [108] Rights Commission will be asked to advise on the scope of a new Bill of Rights which it is envisaged will include additional rights to those contained in the European Convention on Human Rights, and which will reflect the principles of parity of esteem. There will be a new statutory obligation on all public bodies in Northern Ireland to promote equality of opportunity.

For the first time there will be real recognition for the Irish language in the North. Resolute action will be taken by the British Government to promote the language and remove restrictions which would discourage or work against the promotion of the language. Financial support will also be given for Irish language film and television production in Northern Ireland. The Irish language community will be consulted and the authorities will investigate any complaint which they receive from it. These initiatives represent an unprecedented advance for the Irish language in Northern Ireland.

All of us know how divisive and emotive symbols can be. This is particularly true in the context of Northern Ireland. That is why in the Agreement we have agreed on the need to ensure that symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division. Arrangements are to be made to monitor this issue and consider appropriate measures or actions as would appear merited.

Taken together, the developments I mentioned — and those I mentioned are not exhaustive — represent potentially hugely significant progress in meeting the long standing and just needs of Nationalists in terms of the principles of equality, but on a basis which threatens no one and is fair to all.

Equality is so paramount that it is dealt with in the first Article of the Agreement. I quote from Article 1, which affirms that equality and impartiality:

… the power of the sovereign Government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities

Progress on decommissioning will play a vital role in building up the trust, which will be crucial to making the institutions and arrangements provided for in the Agreement work effectively for the good of all of the people of Ireland. Both Governments will take all necessary steps to facilitate the decommissioning process. We want to see decommissioning achieved as quickly as possible.

Under the new Agreement Northern Ireland will be different. A different more peaceful society requires a different policing response. The [109] RUC will need to change, and that has been recognised in the multi-party Agreement. Provision has been made for this. Perhaps one of the most visible changes will be the removal of military trappings, as in a peaceful environment a police service should routinely be unarmed, as ours is.

The parties have agreed the principles which must govern policing in post-Agreement Northern Ireland. The police service must be representative of the entire community; it must be professional and seen to be so; it must be effective and efficient, fair and impartial; it must be accountable and it must have public confidence.

We have agreed to establish an independent commission with expert and international representation to make recommendations on appropriate future policing arrangements for Northern Ireland. The remit will be to consult widely, including on the aspect of how to ensure widespread community support, and to report by the summer of 1999. To ensure the reformed police service will have the widespread confidence and support of the community, it is envisaged that the independent commission's proposals will cover important aspects, such as the recruitment, training, culture and ethos of the service. It will focus also on the issue of symbols.

For the first time in modern Irish history, working together the various traditions on this island have come up with a fair and balanced Agreement which all of us can support. The consensus of support which we are witnessing proves that this Agreement is a balanced one. It is a very real victory for ordinary people, for democracy and for the level-headed representatives who have negotiated it on their behalf. I am not saying that everyone will like everything in the document because I know that is not so, but what we must do is look at the package as a whole. What the people are being offered is a finely balanced package. That is why it will get the support it requires from the people. The very fact that both Unionists and Nationalists are supporting and campaigning for this agreement shows how fair and balanced it actually is.

Besides proving — as it has already done — that representatives of all of the traditions on the island can sit down and work together to come up with a workable plan on which they agree, this Agreement also sets out how in the future we can peacefully resolve differences, and it creates — right now — a practical basis for co-operation. By recognising and enshrining in the Agreement the supremacy of consent the negotiators have ensured that never again will supremacy or second-class citizenship characterise the Northern political landscape.

Mr. Manning: I sincerely welcome the Taoiseach. The applause he has received is an eloquent expression of the gratitude we feel for his efforts on our behalf during a difficult personal period. He is a generous man so he would be the first to accept that our applause is also a tribute [110] to the work of the Taoisigh who preceded him in the last 30 years — the late Seán Lemass, Mr. Jack Lynch, Mr. Liam Cosgrave, Mr. Charles Haughey, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, Deputy Reynolds and Deputy Bruton — because their efforts played a vital part in bringing him to the point where he was able to conclude this Agreement on our behalf on Good Friday. As the Taoiseach did, I also pay tribute to the work of Deputy Spring, who was Minister for Foreign Affairs during much of the period leading up to the final settlement.

Many people deserve praise for what has been achieved. Some have worked from the beginning, like Mr. John Hume, Mr. Séamus Mallon — one of the great unsung heroes of recent times — and Lord Alderdice. These people said consistently that only through accommodation, tolerance, peaceful methods and compromise would a solution such as we now have be possible. They have been proven right. What they were prescribing 20 years ago now appears in the Agreement. Great credit is also due to those who turned their back on their pasts, who have accepted that the only constant in life is change and have changed themselves. Mr. David Trimble's courage must be saluted, as must be the willingness of Sinn Féin and Mr. Gerry Adams to move towards democratic politics and an acceptance of that essential concept of consent without which no democratic structure can long survive.

We should also thank the many midwives of the process — the wonderful work of the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair; the unceasing efforts of Dr. Mo Mowlam; the extraordinary, sustained, practical commitment of President Clinton; his great gift to the Irish people of Senator George Mitchell, a supreme negotiator whose dedication and resourcefulness must never go unrecognised. We also owe thanks to the many American politicians who have worked hard to bring this about, especially the US Ambassador to Ireland, Mrs. Jean Kennedy-Smith, who played a vital part in bringing us towards where we are today.

We must also remember, as the Taoiseach did, the work of our civil servants in his Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs. They worked hard through the most difficult and despairing of times, never giving up hope that a resolution could be achieved, and for the most part they have received little public acknowledgement of their great efforts. I thank them on behalf of all of us.

However, it would be wrong to be carried away by a false sense that all is now over. The gap between where we are and we want to be is still considerable and there are many dangerous problems to be surmounted before we get there. The alternative to success was seen all too vividly last night in the murder of Adrian Lamph. It was callous, brutal and demonic but done for a sinister purpose — to stir up fear, to provoke retaliation, to inflame sectarian passions and to force people back into entrenched tribal positions. In short, it [111] was done to create a situation where a no vote would triumph. That is why it must not succeed and why their efforts will not succeed. Let us offer sympathy to the family of Adrian Lamph and hope that he will be the last innocent victim of these terrible troubles.

It is rare in history to live at a time when a country has such a clear choice of future direction as this country has now. Not since the Treaty debate of 1922, or our decision to stay out of the Second World War in 1939, or our decision to join the then European Community in 1972, have we been at such a crossroads. What we are now faced with is not a choice between two broadly similar packages. This time, as it was in 1922, 1939 and 1972, the choice before us is a fundamental one.

One road, that signposted by the Agreement, offers peace, civilised politics and a chance to develop the potential of both parts of this island. It offers political maturity by allowing the people the most fundamental of all democratic rights — the right to choose their own destiny. It offers recognition in diversity and space for all groups. It creates a stakeholder democracy where everyone is involved, where everyone has a stake and where no single group or individual has ownership or domination. It offers people space and time to heal wounds, to reconcile and to forgive. Most of all, it offers peace: no more killings, no more fear, the rule of law without fear or favour, the freedom for people to go about the ordinary, everyday things of life and the freedom to live ordinary lives without risk or fear. That is what this document offers. It may not be perfect, but that it exists at all is in its own way a miracle, and it is one for which we have every reason to be profoundly grateful.

The alternative to this document is to admit that normal, democratic, pluralist politics, the politics of any civilised, developed country at the end of this century, are not possible in Northern Ireland. That is at the centre of the choice the people of Northern Ireland must make for themselves. The further alternative to this document is a return to violence, to bullyboy or winner take all politics, to the nightmare of the past, to make ourselves once more prisoners of history and a return to evil times. That is the alternative and, when we see it, there is no choice. We can choose to go forward with hope and belief or we can go back. There is no in between and that is why there is a solemn obligation on all political parties in this House to campaign hard for the acceptance of this Agreement.

My party will be unequivocal. We will campaign on the airwaves, in the newspapers, at public meetings and on the streets for the highest yes vote in the history of this State. I hope, believe and know that all other parties will do likewise. There can be no ifs or buts, no picking and choosing, no winks or nods. It is the Agreement, the whole Agreement and nothing but the Agreement. Anything less would be a betrayal of this [112] Taoiseach and those Taoisigh who have gone before him. It would especially be a betrayal of people such as John Hume, Séamus Mallon and others who have long provided the ideas which are the core of this Agreement and who have laboured so hard to bring us to where we are today. I will not tell the people of Northern Ireland what to do, nor will I parse or analyse the Agreement. However, having listened to the Taoiseach today and having read the Agreement, it is obvious it is of extraordinary substance and imagination and is pregnant with possibility. I believe it to be as fine a political document as has been produced over the 75 years of our independence and it is a document which will stand the test of time.

I welcome the removal of Articles 2 and 3. To my mind, they have achieved nothing and for years have given recalcitrant Unionists a ready excuse for not doing business with us. Few of us here saw them as a threat to those Unionists, yet many in the North genuinely saw them as such. The existence of these Articles did not do a single thing over the past 50 years to advance the cause of Irish unity, to promote a meeting of minds or to advance understanding on this island. If we judge Articles 2 and 3 by what they have or are likely to achieve, apart from giving a false sense of comfort, often to people who never actually read them but resorted to them mantra-like as a substitute for informed debate, I believe the case for their replacement is well made. The case is even more emphatically made if we add the fact that they represented an obstacle to real progress.

I do not wish to be negative. I rejoice in the eloquence and the wisdom of the new Articles 2 and 3 that we are being asked to endorse. Article 3 sums up my aspiration to unity as the old Articles 2 and 3 never did. This aspiration is unity by peaceful means, by consent, by democratic means, unity in harmony and unity respecting the diversity of all identities. That is a novel and a noble statement and it is a prize worth fighting for. It is generous, realistic and democratic. There is no threat implied in the new Articles. Let us embrace these changes with enthusiasm. They will enhance the already noble document that is our Constitution and they will be seen as an earnest of our willingness to embrace change and to face up to the new realities.

There are and there will be problems, including that of prisoners. I welcome the statement by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that there will be no question of releasing those charged with the murder of Garda Gerry McCabe. I hope the cases will be examined on a case by case basis. I do not wish to see the “Border Fox” or psychopaths who masqueraded as political activists let loose. I wish to see care taken in the prisoners process. I believe that care will be taken and, much as we may not like it, we have to face the fact that the question of prisoners is an inescapable part of any settlement.

There will be other problems. There is the question of whether Sinn Féin has the capacity to bring all its members along the democratic route. [113] I wish to salute the leadership shown by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. I was impressed by many of the speeches at last weekend's Ard-Fheis. There is a genuine desire to move into mainstream, democratic politics. Ironically that feeling is more pronounced among Northern than Southern delegates. We should take comfort that it is there and give every encouragement to Sinn Féin to move into full, mainstream democratic politics.

We will also face problems caused by the negative and destructive talents of Dr. Paisley and Mr. McCartney. However, against that we must place the courage shown by David Trimble, John Taylor and others over the past few difficult weeks. Most difficult of all the problems is the continuing evil of the gunmen who are ready the strike and murder in a foul cause. When a settlement is reached there is no doubt that one of the biggest problems to be faced North and South will be that of dealing with the gunmen who refuse to accept democracy and the rule of law. When that happens we must be clear that the only law will be the supremacy of the State, the safety of its people and the right of a democratic state to defend itself against those who would subvert it. That is why the referenda will be crucial in solving this problem.

We are privileged to live at a truly historic moment. This generation has a chance to make this historic opportunity work. It must work and that is why there is an obligation on all to campaign as we have never campaigned before for its emphatic acceptance. We are privileged to have this opportunity. I think of many who have given so much and who would wish to be where we are today but have not lived to see it happen. We must not let them down. We must not let down the relatives of the people who have been murdered and maimed and whose lives have been made a misery over the past 30 years. Those of us in this part of the country will not let those people down. Fine Gael and all Members of this House will be campaigning hard for the acceptance of this document. I commend the motion to the House and I congratulate all of those who made it possible, especially the Taoiseach.

Dr. Haughey: I welcome the Taoiseach to the House and congratulate him. This is a day of immense constitutional importance to all of Ireland and to its present and future inhabitants. When history is written this legislation will be ranked as the second step in the formation of this State.

The motion before the House is unique in that it is endorsed by all the parties. The Taoiseach, his team of negotiators, all the parties involved, including Sinn Féin, the Ulster Unionist Party, the Alliance Party and all others, must be congratulated. They demonstrated skill, patience and courage in arriving at this accord. Tony Blair, as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has made, and I have no doubt will continue to make, an outstanding contribution to this process.

[114] I am proud to echo my support for this very fair and practical initiative in the presence of the Taoiseach. In doing so I believe I speak for the vast majority of people. From the founding of the State almost 80 years ago there has been differences of opinion to such an extent that lives have been lost, buildings destroyed and great sadness visited upon families. Let us hope that Good Friday, 1998, was the dawning of a new era, not of blood and sacrifice but of true comradeship between the people of these islands and the statesmanship of its leaders. We have proved that Ireland can produce people, none more so than the Taoiseach, who can rise to any challenge. Our economic performance is exemplary in Europe and I believe it will be the centrifugal force which will bring Unionists into this State by agreement rather than bloodshed. The Agreement is a blueprint for democracy and a recipe for opportunity and better understanding.

I have lived in Northern Ireland for almost 40 years. I know the people and understand their psyche, attitudes and fears. On analysing the past one can demonstrate good reasons for what has taken place. However, let us not dwell on the past, but rather on the future to which we should all look forward. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said he felt the hand of history on his shoulder. I feel the cloud of suffering over our island beginning its ascent. Both parts of the island have suffered because of the unfortunate circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that the South has suffered economically because of the situation in Northern Ireland. Its people must be congratulated for their enormous ability to continue to grow, develop and build the economy we now have in the face of these troubles.

Think of our future if the image of Ireland, North and South, was of a peaceful, tranquil island, with its people considered the friendliest in Europe, its fields the greenest in Europe, its air the cleanest in Europe and its people the best educated in Europe. This is the future we can have and which we rightly deserve.

The proposed changes to our Constitution are proper and sensible. Most accept that one million reluctant people cannot be forced against their will into renouncing their own self determination. By the same token, the Nationalist minority of Northern Ireland must be allowed the right of self determination. They must be protected by the Constitution and have the right to an Irish passport, a document of which we are all very proud.

The EU and our membership of it has, in some way, helped to unite our people and thinking and free us from the shackles of political hatred. To quote Pádraig Pearse, “shameful manacles have bitten our wrists too long”. This Agreement will undergo trials and tribulations; it will be discussed, praised and criticised and those who are party to it will be equally scrutinised. I have no doubt that its fundamental portent will prevail and that its architect, the Taoiseach, will be recorded in history [115] as the person who made the greatest contribution to peace on this island. He has helped to heal the wounds caused by more than 800 years of strife and has helped to sweeten the bitterness caused by the loss of more than 3,000 lives which were sacrificed for the cause of peace.

A number of people deserve praise for this Agreement but I cannot mention them all. It would be foolish to think that questions are not being asked about this because, as with any agreement, nobody will get everything they need. People have asked whether it is possible to have cross-Border bodies with administrative and legislative powers. The Taoiseach answered that question in his speech. People also asked why it was not possible to have a mandatory plebiscite on the Border every ten to 15 years. I believe such a move would only serve to widen, rather than narrow the gap between the communities. The Agreement offers the greatest recipe to date for a peaceful future on this island. I congratulate the Taoiseach and thank him for his efforts.

Mr. B. Ryan: Cuirim fíorfháilte roimh an Cháipéis seo. Gabhaim comhghairdeachas leis an Taoiseach, an Rialtas agus na Taoisigh eile a chuaigh roimhe seo. Ar leibhéal pearsanta, gabhaim comhghairdeachas don Taoiseach as an éacht atá déanta aige.

Tá athrú bunúsach tarlaithe dúinne. Tá rudaí nár cheapamar riamh a fhéadfadh tarlú tar éis titim amach. Tá daoine i dTuaisceart na hÉireann go speisialta ag déanamh feachtais le chéile ar son réiteach don fhadhb is mó a bhí, agus atá fós, ag an tír seo. Tá daoine nach raibh in ann labhairt lena chéile roimhe seo sásta an taobh amháin a ghlacadh. Tá siad cinnte go bhfuil siad ar an taobh céanna.

In 1981, the then Taoiseach, Dr. Garret Fitzgerald launched a constitutional crusade out of which, in a semi-controlled fashion, spun many interesting ideas. As a less mature individual than I am now — even though I have never claimed maturity and poise among my stronger qualities — I recall saying something then which I would love to have thought of myself but which James Connolly said. He said that Ireland, without its people, meant nothing to him. If ever a phrase encapsulated the philosophy of this Agreement, it is that. It is extraordinary that that was said by a man who was viewed as a revolutionary and a Marxist and who was both. However, James Connolly's focus was always on the people of this island, not on its territory. He encapsulated that view in many an acerbic comment on the colour of post boxes and other matters.

This Agreement concerns people and it is one in which holes could be picked. However, I have no intention of referring to anything which I do not like in the Agreement as it is far too important. The Agreement represents the coming to fruition of ideas and values on which people took a long time to agree. We now communicate with each other on this island and we communicate [116] with the people in both communities in the North who, I believe, were treated as pariahs for a long time. We communicate with Sinn Féin and with those who have connections with Loyalist paramilitaries. People to whom we refused to talk in the past are now part of politics on this island.

My own education was advanced both by visiting Northern Ireland and by the profound wisdom of a man who was a colleague of ours in this House for many years, John Robb. He was a man of impeccable Unionist roots whose grandfather, when elected in 1918, was invited to become a Member of the first Dáil. Not surprisingly he declined the invitation. John Robb was a man who, from his position as a Unionist and Protestant, could provide one with a wonderful insight into the complexities of the North and the solution which was required. He spent a considerable time during his political career listening to the people who voted for Sinn Féin at a time when they felt nobody else was listening to them. He believed that changes to Articles 2 and 3, while appropriate, could not be made in isolation because of the possibility of a counterproductive effect. He feared such changes would serve to further alienate those who were already alienated and who gave effect to their alienation by voting for Sinn Féin, thereby implicitly supporting the IRA's campaign of violence.

The commencement of dialogue with Sinn Féin signified the beginning of the process of resolution towards which we are moving. We have not reached a resolution yet as there are still far too many obstacles in our path. However, we have put together an extraordinary balance of institutional and constitutional change based on the fundamental, simple principle enunciated by James Connolly that this Agreement is about people, not territory, ownership, flags, emblems and symbols. It is about people's space and aspirations and their feelings about the way in which they want to live.

My views on Northern Ireland have been somewhat chequered because of my long held conviction that it was necessary to listen not necessarily to Sinn Féin but to the people who felt obliged to vote for them. I found myself in situations where the gardaí, who were doubtless only doing their duty, observed me with more enthusiasm than I would have liked as I attended meetings. I do not know whether I was right or wrong but I came to the increasing realisation that the sense of alienation had to come to an end if agreement was to be reached. The alienation of a section of Northern Nationalism could not be ended simply by generating the alienation of an equally significant part of Northern Unionism.

The Taoiseach mentioned the need for comprehensive consent. It is not a question of one community's consent or even of 51 per cent consent. I would not want Irish unity based on a 50.5 per cent vote of the people of Northern Ireland anymore than I would want anything else in such a manner if the other 49.5 per cent were hostile. We have to move forward from simple head [117] counting, although it is important, into a meeting of minds. That is about trust. While institutions cannot create trust, we cannot have trust without them. The extraordinary institutional innovation in this document will not of itself create trust but it will create the space in which trust can develop. Already one can feel a degree of trust in the way people talk about each other which was not evident two or three weeks ago. There is a certain sensitivity in the language people use, there are issues being talked about by Nationalists which were not addressed before and there are issues being talked about by Unionists which they did not feel they could address before. This is a considerable political achievement.

If the principle of comprehensive consent is enshrined in the Agreement, then we must also say that we recognise that it involves recognising realities. The most fundamental reality is that, for whatever reason, a significant majority of the people of Northern Ireland do not want to become part of this State in any form. The difference now is that the choice between union and unity is, as the Taoiseach said, a decision for the people on this island in a format which we all agree and, I hope, which we will all support. There is no longer room for ambiguity or ambivalence, there is no ogre in Westminster interfering in our affairs, it is exclusively our affair on this island to be resolved peacefully and by consent.

For that reason what is being asked of us in terms of Articles 2 and 3 is not only acceptable, but necessary and desirable. As one who through a succession of votes in this House, some them moved by my colleagues on the Independent benches, opposed unilateral changes to Articles 2 and 3, may I say that, with the same enthusiasm with which I opposed the amendments when they were unilateral, I now endorse their amendment and replacement. The Taoiseach is right; whatever their emotional resonance, they had no legal or other significance. As Senator Manning said, they were a nuisance and a stick which could be used to beat us. We will be well rid of them and I am happy with those changes.

I was involved in issues to do with Northern Ireland in a personal capacity, issues such as prisoners and human rights abuses in places like Aughnacloy; I gave lectures to republican prisoners in Port Laoise prison because they asked me to and I opposed extradition. I say now to the people in Sinn Féin, who are the people whom I met most in these areas, that there are people in this State and in this Parliament who stuck their necks out when nobody else would talk to them. Now they are part of the process, it is time for Sinn Féin to take risks as well. I say unequivocally, as one who was closer to them and their problems in the 1980s than many others, that I now believe it is time for an unfudged acceptance of this Agreement, whatever limitation they may see in it. I heard Deputy Blaney express his support for the Agreement, reluctantly he said but support nevertheless. I do not [118] care how reluctant Sinn Féin are, I want them to say yes on both sides of the Border and to work from there. I want to make it clear that the world has changed and people cannot fudge anymore. There is now so much political, institutional and constitutional space that the old argument that they were, as they had been, in a cul de sac of repression and violence feeding off each other is now gone. The only cul de sac into which people who have resorted to violence in the past can go now will be a cul de sac of their own making. There are institutional and constitutional changes and a framework within which to operate. I will be doing anything I can to have this Agreement accepted. It is not the end of our problems but it is a wonderfully promising route towards a final solution.

I have two issues which I would like clarified. I agree it is time for the question of decommissioning to be addressed but it is a valid question when people living in Northern Ireland ask what is going to be done about demilitarisation. A police force which is four times larger than the state needs is not acceptable if there is a peaceful solution. The alarmingly high numbers of privately held weapons in Northern Ireland is not something I would associate with a peaceful state. Without in any way pointing fingers and saying we want or you want — that is behind us — we do have to face not only decommissioning but a genuine demilitarisation of society.

Where cross-Border institutions make a decision which impact on an individual, what resort to the protection of the courts will an individual have in that case? It should never be possible that a citizen would be a victim of arbitrary power without the protection of a constitution and a judiciary. I am not talking about judicial challenges to the institutions, I am talking about the possibility of institutions impinging on people's other constitutional rights. There is no all-Ireland court but we should work out a process so that we do not end up with institutional arrangements which are devoid of the necessary balance which an independent judiciary makes up.

Mar a dúirt mé ar dtús báire, cuirim fíorfháilte roimh an Chomhaontaithe seo, déanaim comhghairdeas leis an Rialtas agus le gach éinne a bhí páirteach ann agus pé rud, beag nó mór, gur féidir liom a dhéanamh chun cabhrú leo, déanfaidh mé é le gach píosa fuinnimh atá fágtha agam.

Mr. Cassidy: I welcome the Taoiseach to the House on this historic occasion and, with all the other Senators, I congratulate him for the great work he has done.

Three weeks ago I had a discussion with the Taoiseach about requests from all sides of the House for a debate on Northern Ireland. He said that whether the talks were successful or not, he would come to the House to address us on the first week after Easter. How wonderful it is that he is here today with the Agreement intact, looking [119] for our approval. I also thank the Leaders of the various parties in the House for their signatures to the motion. This has never happened before.

The new Article 2 reads:

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation… furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.

Article 3 reads:

It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and 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 the majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions on the island…

If this text had been presented to Members at any stage in its history, does anybody think it would have been rejected? If this proposition had been put before the people of Ireland while they struggled so long for dignity and recognition, would they have turned their backs on it today? If these words linked with a promise with an end to violence were addressed to any country suffering conflict for generations, do you think it would say no?

This is the content of the new Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution which will be before the electorate on 22 May. It is an extension of the meaning of statehood and an affirmation of Irish citizenship. It signals an understanding of all our people, residing here or living abroad, which we have never been in a position to articulate so fully before. It is a recognition that sovereignty comes from the people and not from objects, wealth or arbitrary power.

A Northern Ireland settlement, of which this referendum is an essential part, has been a dream for so long that we had almost begun to doubt it would ever come to pass. We hoped but we dared not count on it. The fact that it has now become a reality is due to the courage and perseverance of many men and women, living and deceased, who not only believed it could happen but continued to work against all the odds to make it happen and to bring us to where we are today. Their courage and sacrifices should not be betrayed. However, it is not sufficient for us to agree that the referendum should be put before the people and to compliment those who made it possible. We must remind them of the long road ahead and the pain and suffering that will have to be assessed. We must also remind them that this is the first essential step towards the peace and reconciliation for which the people of Ireland have waited so long. As I watched the televised [120] broadcast of the peace negotiations all through Holy Thursday night and well into Good Friday, the words of W. B. Yeats echoed in my mind. He wrote: “For peace comes dripping slow, dripping from veils of mourning to where the crickets sing”. Although we live in an entirely different time to when these words were first written, these words of a former Senator summed up for me the unbelievable efforts which were being put into this Agreement and the essential commitment and courage of our Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern. Our Taoiseach, with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, and all the political leaders present wrestled all night with the shadows of the past and together they stood shoulder to shoulder and confidently faced a new dawn for Ireland.

I, like every Member, know that here at home and all around the globe Irish people of many generations were waiting with bated breath for that special moment of history many thought impossible, such has been the pain, violence, bigotry and anger of those long dark years. In many ways the world of the Irish stood still. In the small hours of Holy Thursday night and Good Friday morning, as our leaders struggled without sleep to find the hidden words that would bring public agreement, perhaps many of them were reminded of the words penned by Mr. Seamus Heaney, a recent winner of the Nobel peace prize. He wrote: “And yes, my friend, we too walk through the valley, once in darkness, with all the street lamps off as danger gathered and the march dispersed”. They bravely stuck to their task without dispersal and the gods smiled on their efforts. The Agreement reached on Good Friday, 10 April 1998, will transform the prospects of this nation and of everyone who lives and loves to live on this ancient island of Ireland which has seen so much glory and suffered so much pain.

The nation owes a debt of gratitude to our Taoiseach, his Ministers and officials, to the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, Dr. Mo Mowlan and their advisers, to the indispensable Senator George Mitchell and his two co-chairmen, to our dear friend President Clinton and his energetic ambassador to Ireland, Mrs. Jean Kennedy-Smith, and of course, to the courageous political leaders in the North who bravely agreed to change the flow of history and direct its future towards harmony, equality and mutual respect. These are proud days to be Irish, proud too of the political heritage passed down to us from Wolfe Tone, Charles Stuart Parnell, the leaders of the 1916 Rising and the political leaders since our Independence because the road is now clear to begin afresh and work towards binding our nation together for the betterment of all people. In days to come people will speak of these achievements in hushed tones such was the challenge, such was the risk and such was the happy result.

Mr. Cosgrave: I wish to share my time with Senator Coghlan.

An Cathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed.

[121] Mr. Cosgrave: I acknowledge the presence of the Taoiseach and thank everyone connected with this Agreement for the work that has been done, particularly in the final hours of negotiations when the Taoiseach had suffered a bereavement.

When discussing the Agreement it is important to remember the need for this to work and it will only work if all the signatories representing political parties recommend it to the people they represent. Leadership means leading from the front and accepting responsibility for the signed Agreement. It does not allow for any ambivalence. It is not good enough to wait to see how some people will react before accepting the obligations and terms of the document. Verbal patriotism or written affirmation may be emotionally satisfying but will not result in progress or peace without a verbal commitment to implement the terms in practice.

More talk will not necessarily solve the problems in the North. What we need now is action and talk can be an easier option compared to the hard sustained action required to make the Agreement effective. A moratorium on talk might be a great help in ensuring that the Agreement works, particularly if the moratorium was for the duration of the referendum. Verbal restraint can be of great benefit to all sections and extreme care should be taken to ensure that gestures are helpful rather than harmful.

I support what the Leader of my party said about prisoners, etc. It is important to acknowledge that the Garda Síochána and Army have faithfully rendered patriotic service to the people here since the establishment of the State. This service is gratefully and rightly appreciated by all and should not be forgotten. No action should be taken, for any reason, which would in any way cast doubt on the immense debt the country owes to the members of the Garda Síochána and Army, some of whom have made the ultimate sacrifice so that the Irish people could live in freedom.

I agree with what the Taoiseach said in relation to the many new voices of reason which have emerged in the North and who, until a few years ago, were not involved in the political process: I refer to members of the business community, the voluntary sector, the trade union movement, the Women's Coalition and others. It is important that we acknowledge the work these people have done.

I hope the Agreement will work. I will be recommending support for it. The signing of the Agreement marked the end of the beginning and much work remains to be done by all if its terms are to be implemented.

I conclude the words of a former President of the United States, “Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure than to take rank and file with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat”. In the [122] days ahead we, among others, must respond to the inheritance we have taken on. I hope that what we are starting here will lead to the day when people of all persuasions can live in harmony in this country.

Mr. Coghlan: I join with my colleagues in welcoming the Taoiseach to the House. I thank him for his thoughtful contribution and, more importantly, for his tremendous effort in helping to bring about this Agreement.

This Agreement must be hailed by all democrats as the only possible means of satisfying both traditions on this island. In accordance with its terms the people can regard it as a transition to a united Ireland or as the maintenance of the union. The Good Friday Agreement is truly the greatest landmark of our time, if not of all time in Irish history. It replaces and updates all previous initiatives and the legislation and settlement of 1920 and 1921. The referendum on 22 May to approve this Agreement will be the first time, as the Taoiseach said, since 1918 that people North and South will have the opportunity to vote together on the same issue affecting the national question. The ensuing result will, please God, finally remove, once and for all, any false beliefs some have held of a mandate for acts of paramilitary violence. I hope that all former paramilitaries will abandon violence and all associated acts for good. The new aspiration of building a structure of co-dependence that will make conflict impossible is the only sensible way forward. The proposed replacement Article 3 is a wonderful new Article, properly respecting our diversity and respect for one another.

Great credit is due to all who were associated in any way with the negotiations which led to this Agreement, to our Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, Prime Minister Tony Blair, the leaders of all the Northern parties, Senator George Mitchell and his co-chairmen, former Taoisigh Liam Cosgrave who negotiated the Sunningdale Agreement, Jack Lynch who preceded him, Charles Haughey who followed him, Garret FitzGerald who negotiated the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Deputy Albert Reynolds who assisted with the first IRA ceasefire and with the the Downing Street Declaration, Deputy John Bruton who, with John Major played a John the Baptist role in preparing the way for the Agreement and all of their teams, President Bill Clinton and his administration for all their help and generosity, people like David Trimble, Deputy Dick Spring who assisted under various Administrations, Séamas Mallon, Mo Mowlam, David Irvine, Gary McMichael, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. These last mentioned deserve our thanks and great credit for the courage they have shown in choosing the democratic route.

If one person stands above the others for his dogged and determined patience and persistence regarding the goals enshrined in this Agreement that must be John Hume. How many times have we heard him call for precisely what this Agreement [123] represents, the enhancement and recognition of the traditions of the two communities while threatening neither. He was largely instrumental in persuading the British Government to declare that it had no selfish, strategic or economic interest in remaining involved in Northern Ireland. It was he who set out to engage Sinn Féin and others with paramilitary links, believing that dialogue and democratic means alone would win peace. It was he who devised and recommended the idea of an all-Ireland referendum to ratify any settlement, to properly give ownership to the people as a whole and to recognise and promote the fact that the people are sovereign. It was he who, most of all, mobilised international, and particularly American, opinion behind the ongoing peace process. We must all be very grateful that his persistence endured and survived all the obstacles to the achievement of this Agreement.

I believe that people on both sides who have held allegiances blindly in the past are now coming to accept that a no vote in the referendum would lead all of us into a political cul-de-sac. I heard a lovely story yesterday of a little old lady in east Belfast making a very spirited criticism of the Rev. Ian Paisley and his stand against the Agreement. That is a sign of hope.

I look forward to compaigning for the overwhelming acceptance of this Agreement by the people.

Mr. Dardis: Cuirim fáilte roimh an Taoiseach. Molaim an obair atá déanta aige agus ag daoine eile ar son na síochána agus ar son mhuintir na hÉireann.

I was conscious as I came to the House this afternoon that I was passing under the portraits of Tone and Emmet. I wonder what they might think of what we are discussing. Is it too much to believe that Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter may live in peace and harmony? What we saw on Good Friday was momentous and historic. The word historic is often used in the House but it sits comfortably and well in this context. That was a historic day. A surge of emotion gripped us as saw what had been thought impossible come to fruition and agreement between diverse strands of political opinion in Northern Ireland become a reality. As we watched history unfold on our television screens it was difficult for many of us to believe what was happening and that such ground for hope and optimism existed.

We have had grounds for hope and optimism in the past. One such occasion was the first IRA ceasefire in Northern Ireland in 1994. There were those who counselled caution then and they were prudent and well advised. I believe we can be genuinely hopeful that what was achieved on Good Friday will bring us the peace we all wish to see.

We have all too often had to record mad deeds in Northern Ireland. Since I came to this House in 1989 we have had to record and condemn such madness in Loughan Island, Greysteel, the Shankill [124] Road, Warrington and many other places. I hope we have come to the end of that condemnation, although even today we must record our condemnation of the events which took place yesterday in Portadown. Democratic politicians in the Republic, Britain and particularly in Northern Ireland deserve our gratitude for never losing faith during those black, dreadful days, for never abandoning hope and for remaining focused on the elusive prize of peace. They dedicated themselves to achieving it.

Like the Taoiseach, I pay tribute to all those involved in this and in previous Governments in the Republic and in the United Kingdom for their efforts. The Taoiseach listed their names and I do not intend to repeat them. However, the officials in both the Taoiseach's Department and in the British Foreign Office have played an outstanding role over a long period in achieving this solution and their contribution must be acknowledged and saluted. It is also in order, on a partisan basis, to salute the role the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, played in the process. She performed a good task.

Good Friday was unique in the affairs of Northern Ireland because, for once, the politics of accommodation and agreement took precedence over the politics of division and difference. However, this is only the beginning. There will be hiccups, but we must be prepared to see them through in order to proceed to the promised land, if I can use that phrase.

The task facing Members of the Oireachtas and of other elected chambers throughout the country is to convince the people of the Republic of the merits of the Agreement so there is no doubt in anybody's mind about the wisdom of a yes vote. The alternative to the Agreement is almost too horrible to contemplate. Those who see fit to vote no should be conscious that it could provide encouragement to groups which see democratic politics as unnecessarily restrictive and who believe the bomb and the gun are more straightforward tools to achieve their goals.

We are well aware of the sheer mindlessness of this attitude and we have recorded it in the House on many occasions. Yesterday in Portadown we saw its latest manifestation. A Catholic council worker was gunned down in a cleaning depot. Our litany of sympathy and of condemnation unfortunately continues. That is the type of future some people, a small minority of evil minded people, want for this country. Thankfully, they are a minority but let us not forget that a modest or small vote in favour of this Agreement would give comfort to those who wish to return to the bad old days.

The potential for a lasting political accommodation is now greater than ever. Many people believed the circle could not be squared and that there was no room for compromise between the competing allegiances of Unionism and Nationalism. The years of bitter conflict acted as a difficult backdrop to the talks process. All the time the questions of trust and confidence were essentially [125] the heart of the matter. It is an extraordinary achievement, given the background of more than 3,000 violent deaths in Northern Ireland, that people of such diverse opinions and views could sit around a table and reach an agreement of this nature.

The Agreement underpins the position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom and ensures that its status will not change without the consent of a majority North and South. The Taoiseach eloquently described that aspect of consent which is so critical to the Agreement. It is worthwhile to read the relevant provision. It states:

… British-Irish Agreement…will:

recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;

That was a sticking point in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. It is an important aspect of the document.

For the first time Northern Ireland gives true and proper recognition of the Nationalist aspirations of a growing number of its citizens. That is also embodied in the document, as it should be if parity of esteem is to mean anything.

Articles 2 and 3 are of spiritual and ideological significance but they do not have relevance to, or advance the cause of, a united Ireland to any degree. A nation is more than a piece of earth. The new words to be inserted in the Constitution, if they are adopted in the referendum, articulate the concept of a nation extremely well and in far better terms than just a territorial claim to a piece of earth.

Nobody can claim outright victory as a result of the Good Friday Agreement, although one understands the hyperbole used by some party leaders in trying to sell it to their constituencies. It is an even handed, fair and balanced agreement which offers us the opportunity of a new political order and a lasting peace. The devil, of course, is in the detail. However, it is a monumental achievement to have an agreement which draws support from all ends of the political spectrum.

Those who are uneasy at the prospect of a new Northern assembly, particularly Nationalist parties, can draw comfort from the substantial and meaningful cross-Border element of the Agreement. The cross-community dimension is also expressly contained in the Agreement. It is evident that the majoritarian model of democracy is not suitable for the situation in Northern Ireland. Other models from the European experience which feature weighted majorities have been included in the document and they are welcome.

[126] The Unionists' misgivings about the cross-frontier element are assuaged by the reaffirmation of their position in the Union which is underpinned by the principle of consent. The tragedy of Northern Ireland for too long has been the absence of proper democratic structures. In the Republic we take such structures for granted and we are often critical of how the Houses of the Oireachtas conduct their business. However, in this instance, we have been the haves and the people and politicians of Northern Ireland have been the have nots.

The day for democratic politics in Northern Ireland has come and we should cherish it. When we go to the polling stations on 22 May we must think of the fundamental change in people's lives which this Agreement has the potential to achieve. In that context, there should be a ringing endorsement of the Agreement not just by a majority of the people who vote but by the total poll being greater than it ever has been in any referendum in the history of the State. The will of the people should be expressed comprehensively in the referendum. This is a chance for those who marched and wore ribbons for peace and those who were active in the peace movement to express their will in the ballot box. It is a chance which must be grasped with both hands.

There are elements in the Agreement which cause unease. I share the concerns of my party colleague, Deputy O'Malley, about the prospect of murderers being released from prison within the two year timeframe. The memory of the appallingly cold blooded murder of Garda McCabe is still fresh in our minds and it is inconceivable that anybody convicted for it would come within the remit of the Agreement. I am glad that both the Tánaiste and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform made it clear that anybody who is convicted of that murder will not fall into the category of qualifying persons, although one wonders what is the qualitative difference between the murder of a garda and the murder of another human being.

The spirit of compromise was eloquently described and articulated by the Taoiseach. In that context I am prepared to accept that prisoner releases are part of this process. Everybody must be prepared to make those compromises in the interests of peace. The Ulster Unionists made that compromise in signing up to the Agreement. It is unpalatable and must be extremely difficult for the victims of violence to accept the release of prisoners. The Progressive Democrats are prepared to take a leap of faith on the issue. However, we should not rush into a programme of releases which could undermine other key elements of the Agreement. The review mechanism should be used carefully.

I also hope to see a swift move toward the process of decommissioning by paramilitary groups and a democratic adherence to the Mitchell principles of non-violence. The declaration of support in the Agreement states:

We reaffirm our total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful [127] means of resolving differences on political issues, and our opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose, whether in regard to this agreement or otherwise. That is an extremely important statement. I also welcome the inclusion of a bill of rights and the adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights as part of the document.

I believe the groups in Stormont with links to paramilitary groups are genuine in their desire to embrace democratic peaceful politics exclusively. Tangible evidence of that commitment in the form of decommissioning would assist in the process of peace and reconciliation. There is an onus on all supporters of this Agreement to do all they can to promote it between now and 22 May. There is no inevitability about its success on polling day and any complacency on our part could spell disaster. As I stated, I do not want to see a narrow margin of victory or a low turnout.

Mr. Cassidy: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dardis: I want to see an overwhelming turnout and a massive vote in favour of this Agreement, to leave no doubt in the minds of our Northern neighbours that we see in this an opportunity for a bright new future and to draw a line under the bloody conflict of the past. The twenty second of May is truly our date with democracy when we will be given a chance to give others the freedoms, entitlements and opportunities for participation and involvement in normal political structures which we have enjoyed — and sometimes take for granted — in this State since its foundation. It is a day when we can bring down the barriers of misunderstanding and suspicion even further and vote for a closer and more harmonious relationship between the peoples on this island.

Dr. Henry: I wish to share my time with Senator Quinn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dr. Henry: This Agreement is the result of an enormous amount of work and the Taoiseach deserves our congratulations for bringing together the work of so many other people. My only regret is that the late Senator Gordon Wilson is not with us today because if there is one man whom one could say worked himself to an early grave in his search for peace it was him. He and I entered this House on the same day and I never ceased to be amazed by the Christian charity with which he went to speak to those who had been responsible for the death of his daughter and so many others. I wish he were with us today but I am sure he knows what is happening.

I am delighted the Taoiseach spoke about the new positive developments which have emerged in recent years in Northern Ireland. I am also [128] delighted he included in the voices of reason women, community groups and the business sector. The emergence of the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition was extraordinarily important in the development of the present Agreement. They were a truly refreshing breath of fresh air in Northern Ireland politics. Women have not had much success in Northern Ireland politics. I often feel the attitude of most male politicians there is rather similar to what one might have encountered in the Republic in the 1950s. I look forward to a dramatic improvement for women in politics there.

It is extraordinary how many women have been important in bringing forward this peace Agreement. President McAleese has made it perfectly clear how important it is to her that both communities in Northern Ireland should be given a warm welcome here. Former President Robinson took incredible risks when she went to the North as President by extending the hand of friendship to Gerry Adams when very few others were so doing. Mo Mowlam and Jean Kennedy Smith have already been congratulated, but Veronica Sutherland, the British Ambassador, has also been extraordinarily important. Martha Pope was Senator Mitchell's assistant for two years, which is a long time to be away from Washington. The Taoiseach rightly singled out the Women's Coalition. Monica McWilliams, Pearl Segar, May Blood, Brona Hynes and others put up with an enormous amount of abuse within the talks process from some of the more ungallant members and I salute their persistence and sense of humour.

Moving words have been said by many people in Northern Ireland about the desire for a cessation of violence. However, the woman whose words moved me most was Rita Restorick, the mother of the murdered soldier, Stephen Restorick. When she spoke in Derry her words would have melted a heart of stone. It is important not to forget the many other mothers of members of the Defence Forces who were murdered in Northern Ireland. We can but hope we saw the last victim of sectarian murder last night. I particularly remember a young widow called Pauline Hegney who began the group Widows Against Violence many years ago. There are also our Nobel Peace prize winners, Mairead Corrigan and Betty Williams. The list is very long and it would be wrong to single any of them out.

Another group which should not be forgotten is all those who have prayed for peace. Those of us who believe in the power of prayer believe this has been very important in bringing forward such a strong and fair Agreement, particularly on a Good Friday. While the churches do not advise their members on how to vote, it might be worthwhile to look at the Presbyterian document entitled “Assessing Political Accommodation”. It makes very sensible suggestions, such as the need to beware of a sinful tendency to see things from only one point of view and to resist supporting or being influenced by any threats of violence or [129] civil disorder. It asks us to exercise responsibility by voting in any referenda held in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland because it is important to remember God loves all the people of these islands.

It is extraordinarily important that we go out and, and as everyone has said, not just give this Agreement a lukewarm acceptance but ensure it is resoundingly supported North and South of the Border. I congratulate the Taoiseach and all who worked with him.

Mr. Quinn: I thank Senator Henry for sharing her time. I congratulate the Taoiseach. This is a historic day, not just for him but for all who played a part. It is also an emotional day for me and many others. Twenty five years ago I had to knock on the door of my sister's home to tell her that her husband had just been shot dead, leaving her seven children without a father. Her first words to me were that two year old Ronan would never know his father. We hope this Agreement will mean that no more doors will be knocked on and no more widows will think of children who will never know their fathers. We hope this is a step in a direction which will bring peace. Over 3,000 people suffered death from the bullet or the bomb of a terrorist who had an objective which was perhaps understandable, or perhaps not.

We must remind ourselves of the object of the peace process. It is not simply to achieve an end to violence, desirable as that is in itself. The main point is that we use the end of violence and the creation of the new institutions as facilitators towards a more important and wider embracing future. The real aim behind the process, the institutions and what has been put together in this document is to build confidence between the two communities in the North. That is how we should judge its success and the work of all those involved, including the Taoiseach, in the years ahead. The Agreement places a huge responsibility on the Taoiseach and all those who share that burden with him; may they fare well.

Mr. McGowan: I join with the rest of the House in congratulating and thanking the Taoiseach. I believe an Agreement was reached largely because of the generosity he has shown and that took all his energy. Those of us who watched anxiously were very proud of him. It was a tense situation and we all realised the strain, stress and difficulties under which he operated. Despite this, he was generous to give credit to those who were engaged in the negotiations prior to his involvement.

The Taoiseach went the necessary extra mile and it paid off. Every reasonable person owes him a great debt of gratitude. In view of his efforts and the efforts of others, I find it difficult to stomach those who are using the Agreement as a political platform. It is evident that small groups are less than enthusiastic and are using the situation for their political ends but they will not fool anybody.

[130] I have lived close, indeed too close, to the Border for most of my life. In 1968 I enthusiastically built a small hotel on the Border at Strabane. We enjoyed the glory of a prosperous business for a few years. However, after the Troubles broke out we lived on the edge of a volcano. Every time there was a dance or a function involving cross party or religious groups somebody demanded that they be allowed to make a political speech. In attempting to stop them I was told I would be dead the next time I was in Strabane. Others who had to survive close to the Border endured similar experiences. In view of this the House can imagine our joy and enthusiasm over the Agreement.

We employed 36 people. When a senior member of staff, a supervisor, went for a walk to Strabane she was shot dead in a battle between the British Army and the IRA. I attended her funeral. There was a wreath from both organisations, which were very unwelcome.

I would not claim to have borne any greater burden than others living in the Border areas. It has been a difficult time, yet we have neglected those who lived on the southern side. For example, approximately 11 major trade delegations from America visited the North. While it was right and proper for them to focus attention there because of the loss of life, I found it difficult to understand that not one member of any delegation stopped in the six southern Border counties. I attended a meeting in Derry with the late Ron Brown and, while his delegation and others included the southern Border counties in their remit, they never focused any attention on them. Their only involvement in the South was dinner in Dublin Castle. The Taoiseach will, therefore, understand the enthusiasm with which we in the southern Border counties have sought a settlement.

We must be seen to make it very unpopular to oppose this Agreement, both North and South. I have had much contact with the Protestant community in the southern Border counties, including my county where there is a large Protestant population. They are enthusiastic about the Agreement and will work to support the Taoiseach on polling day.

The Taoiseach has succeeded where others have tried for more than 25 years. For example, in 1987 a British-Irish cross-Border study was announced. Paragraph 3 of the announcement stated:

Both Governments have decided to press ahead with this study because they recognise that the problems of the area are enormous and cannot be effectively tackled by either Government acting in isolation.

I hope this problem will now be resolved. Given that the Agreement means so much to us, we should all work hard, North and South, to totally isolate those who are opposed it.

The economic and social committee of the EU undertook a study of the Border areas in 1981. [131] The report depicted a black area which included my county. I hope we will be able to encourage people to start again where we left off 27 years ago and rebuild that area. I ask the Taoiseach to keep the generous promise he made at Glenveigh when he said he would focus on and support the Border counties. I have confidence he will do so because it is so necessary for the future. His continued commitment to solving this problem is our best hope. However, the problem will not be solved in a couple of days. For example, it will take years to build the infrastructure which has been needed for the past 27 years. I wish the Taoiseach the health, energy and courage to succeed in the job he has undertaken.

Mr. Costello: I congratulate the Taoiseach on his tremendous work on behalf of the peace process, especially at a time of difficult personal circumstance. I also commend his team for their good work on the Agreement and on this Bill. I am pleased to lead this debate on behalf of the Labour Party and am delighted to have the opportunity to give our approval to the Agreement reached in the Multi-Party Negotiations in Belfast on 10 April 1998, the Good Friday Agreement as it is being called. I also offer our full support to this Bill which provides a constitutional framework to some of the terms of the Agreement.

I congratulate all the participants in bringing about the peace settlement. It would be almost invidious at this point to name them. The Taoiseach and other spokespersons named them in the other House and it is an honourable roll call. However, I wish to include all the political parties, North and South and in the United Kingdom, the United States Government and the European Union for their tremendous support and the assistance and resources they provided through the years for the peace process.

The peace process has been in gestation for almost as long as the 30 year phase of conflict in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the vision of those who worked for peace during that period. I pay tribute to the vision of the Labour-Fine Gael Government which put forward the ground breaking power sharing Sunningdale Agreement of 1974 which, unfortunately, fell on the issue of an all-Ireland dimension. I pay tribute to the initiative of the Labour-Fine Gael Government in producing the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985 which emphasised the role of the two sovereign Governments in the affairs of Northern Ireland. It has now been replaced by a new improved British-Irish Agreement and Intergovernmental Conference. I also pay tribute to the increasing interest shown in Northern Ireland in the 1990s by the Irish, British and United States Governments and to the greater sophistication and more holistic approach which marked that interest and focus.

The three strand approach to the totality of relationships which was spelled out by Mr. Peter [132] Brooke in 1991 has informed all thinking in this decade. The Joint Declaration Document of 1993 and the Framework Document of 1995 are elaborations of the three strand approach underpinned by the crucial principle of consent. This was emphasised particularly by Deputy Dick Spring when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The Agreement has a long and honourable genesis. It is the product of sweat, tears and endurance by those who embraced democratic politics from the outset. It is also the product of those who left democratic politics 30 years ago for the gun and the bomb and who later grasped the Armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other. They are now prepared to lay down the Armalite and resort exclusively to the ballot box. Their progress too is colossal and it must be commended.

The Agreement is the product of those who suffered in Northern Ireland, the Republic and the United Kingdom. Thousands lost their lives through the bomb and the bullet and tens of thousands were injured and maimed. Whole communities lived in fear of sectarian strife or paramilitary violence for three decades. Their courage must be saluted and their suffering must be acknowledged.

The Agreement is also the product of the most courageous people of all, the cross-community workers and activists. They dwelt for decades in a no man's land, in a type of twilight zone, keeping the spark of decency, humanity and community alive in a suspicious and divided society. I also mention the trade union movement in that regard. It led many campaigns for equality and anti-sectarianism in the workplace and the community in Northern Ireland. Its role has not been sung to a great extent but I consider it an honourable one throughout the period of conflict in Northern Ireland. They all deserve our full acknowledgement and praise for their generous work on behalf of the people.

The Labour Party supports the Agreement in full and will campaign for a successful outcome in the referendum on the Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution. I wish to deal with a number of the constitutional and structural proposals. Articles 2 and 3 will be substituted by a new set of Articles in the Constitution. As the Taoiseach said, there will be a reformulation. The territorial claim to the entire island has been at the core of nationalism since Partition in 1922. Enshrined in the Constitution this was the holy grail and the justification for all the armed struggles since then. It will require enormous heart searching by many as they consider their voting position in the coming referendum. It would be a tragedy if decisions were taken on the basis of arid legalities and property, or land in this case, was put before people.

The constitutional changes bring us back 200 years to 1798 and the principles of the United Irishmen whose objective was to unite all Irishmen, Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter. They bring us back to the future. The new Articles [133] could have been written by Wolfe Tone as they contain the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity among the people on this island. They also bring us back to the early years of this century and the joint founders of the Labour Party, James Larkin and James Connolly. They argued that national identity cannot be separated from or be secondary to matters of social, economic and cultural identity. James Connolly put it succinctly:

Ireland without its people means nothing to me. The man who is “bubbling” over with enthusiasm for Ireland and can yet pass unmoved through streets and witness all the wrong and suffering, the shame and degradation wrought on the people of Ireland, wrought by Irishmen upon Irishmen and Irishwomen, without burning to end it is, in my opinion, a fraud and a liar in his heart no matter how he loves that combination of chemical elements that he is pleased to call Ireland.

All parties should remember that the Agreement is based on the totality of relationships and that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. It would be hypocritical for any group to campaign for the Agreement in Northern Ireland and to oppose it in the Republic. Sinn Féin, therefore, should not align itself with the DUP as the only two partitionist parties on the island.

Regarding the Northern assembly and the North-South Ministerial Council, quality of life for the people of Northern Ireland and the entire island is paramount. In this context an assembly with Executive and legislative authority operating on a cross-community basis is necessary to fill the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. The formal linking of this assembly with the Irish Government through a new British-Irish agreement will bring together consultation, co-operation and action on a cross-Border and all-Ireland basis. Implementation bodies with a budget and secretariat will be established and this is most important. I do not share the pessimism of some commentators who think the North-South dimension will become bogged down in controversy and be ineffective. It will be the success story of the Agreement because it is apparent to all but the blind that there is enormous potential for mutual social, economic and cultural development on the island.

I have taken a keen interest in the transfer of prisoners from Britain to prisons in the Republic and Northern Ireland since the announcement of the first ceasefire in August 1994. Together with my Labour Party colleagues, Deputy Tommy Broughan, former Deputy Declan Bree and former Senator Seán Maloney, I visited prisoners in Britain and Northern Ireland on many occasions. We campaigned for the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Bill which was eventually passed in November 1994.

The issue of prisoners was always likely to be difficult and delicate. The Government in the Republic has been releasing prisoners on a piecemeal basis since the first IRA ceasefire. I and my [134] party welcome the latest release of nine Republican prisoners last week. However, we are aware of the concerns surrounding this issue, particularly of those who have suffered at first hand the violence of the past 30 years. One problem is that the vast majority of releases thus far have been of Republican prisoners. The Loyalist parties for whom the release of prisoners is as crucial an issue as it is for Sinn Féin have little to show on this score for their commitment to the talks process.

The Agreement would never have been signed were it not for the prisoners' involvement and the determination of both Governments to act in concert on this and other issues over the past four years. I welcome the commitments in the Agreement on prisoner releases and I urge the Governments to press ahead on their joint commitments as a matter of urgency. I acknowledge the remarks the Taoiseach made in this regard.

Likewise, my Labour Party colleagues and I have taken a keen interest in the issue of parades in Northern Ireland and have regularly attended in a monitoring capacity at the flashpoints in Drumcree, the Lower Ormeau Road and Derry. The success of the Parades Commission in rerouting the first major march of the season from the Lower Ormeau Road is significant. Like the issue of prisoners, the marching season has huge potential to spark conflict and to derail the Agreement and it must be constantly worked at by both Governments.

We have got this far despite the enormous difference between all sides at the beginning of the process. By harnessing the spirit which has informed the Agreement before us, we can resolve the difficulties which lie ahead. The Labour Party will campaign for a “yes” vote in the referendum to change our Constitution and to give Ireland's assent to the contents of this Agreement on 22 May. However, we recognise this is merely a new beginning and that an important amount of work has yet to be done. That work will not be easy and we will have many crises and political impasses which will test all the skills and commitments of all the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Republic. The assembly elections which will take place before the end of June will be critically important. It is essential Sinn Féin is an active participant in these elections and that it is committed, if successful, to a taking its seats in the new assembly.

Proposals for a bill of rights, for incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern Ireland legislation, for an unarmed police force in peace time and for the establishment of civic forum are the stuff of long-term reform for a stable and pluralist society in Northern Ireland. Indeed, we would do well in this Parliament to study carefully and take to heart many of the reforms proposed in the Agreement. I hope our work today will give us a new deal for a new millennium.

[135] Dr. M. Hayes: I welcome the Taoiseach and congratulate him. It is a great parliamentary occasion in that few of us in our lifetime are allowed to share in the sense of a nation examining itself, about to change gear and move into a new and forward drive. As Séamus Heaney said, once in a lifetime the confluence of the tides of justice rise and hope and history rhyme. We are in that type of situation today thanks to the Taoiseach, his colleagues and all those who took part in the negotiations.

I suppose I am in an odd situation in that I do not representative anybody but reflect the views of many people. The views I reflect are those of the ordinary people one meets on the streets, in shops, in queues and on the factory floor across the North. Those people are hungry for peace and the Taoiseach has helped to assuage that hunger. Those people caused the politicians to come together and to reach agreement. I pay tribute to politicians in Northern Ireland who we have all seen grow and develop in recent months. People who were merely representatives have shown themselves to be politicians and people who were politicians have shown themselves to be statesmen. The Taoiseach played a key role in that because what he and Tony Blair did over Holy Week was to conduct a master class in politics as the art of the possible and in negotiation as the art of compromise.

The Taoiseach, quite rightly and with great generosity, paid tribute to his predecessors and others who were engaged in the process and I do not propose to go through the litany again, except to endorse it. I would, however, like to add the name of Peter Brooke who was one of the more subtle and perceptive of the Secretaries of State. I am delighted the Taoiseach saw fit to pay tribute to the Women's Coalition, because the women were the secret weapon driving towards peace in Northern Ireland, and to the contribution made by people on both sides who have been in prison. Some of the most interesting and innovative political ideas came from people who had been through the mill in the prisons. Those people, more than any others, as well as the victims knew the cost of violence and the importance of dealing with it. That is why we should not be too ready to anathematise prisoners.

I am glad the Taoiseach paid tribute to the Civil Service. There has been a sustained and brilliant performance by teams of civil servants. As a former civil servant of some experience and evaluation of their work, it is right the House should pay tribute to them. I have a slightly nostalgic feeling because I spent most of my professional life trying to push this great stone up a hill and watch it roll down again. For once, we have got it up that hill and let us hope it stays there.

It is not the end of the story but the end of the beginning. We are through to the playoffs and there are tough matches ahead and the first of those is the referenda, the next is the elections to the assembly and then making this work. It will be a bumpy ride and this Agreement will be [136] assailed by violence from both sides. It will take all the courage and fortitude that people have shown up to now to carry it through. I have great faith in it because those people who brought it off in concert with the Taoiseach and his colleagues have learned in that there has been a bonding experience and they have a commitment to it. Those people have the will, ability and commitment to carry it through to success. We are carrying through the possibility for peace and a new life for this island.

The Agreement which has been achieved is a remarkably subtle document because it enables us to harmonise two concepts which were regarded as totally exclusive until now — the idea of the United Kingdom and the united Ireland. The situation in Northern Ireland has often been described as two minorities — a Nationalist minority in the North with a possible majority in the island as a whole and a Unionist majority in the North but a potential minority in a united Ireland. Both have shown the insecurity of a minority while at the same time showing the arrogance of a majority. Any change in that would only exchange one problem for an equal and opposite one, which is as bad.

Northern Ireland is place where Britishness and Irishness overlap and where people live regarding themselves as British and as Irish. The challenge was to find a constitutional envelope which would enable those two groups to live together in peace and harmony, which is what the Taoiseach has done in the Agreement. It makes both groups secure in themselves, their tradition and identity. As long as they were insecure or alienated, there was no hope of them ever taking their defences down.

We are seeing the beginning of the build up of trust. One of the most remarkable examples of the build up of trust was the confidence which the Taoiseach was able to engender in the Unionist community and in a Unionist leadership which had been deeply suspicious of any politician or statesman from this assembly. I think that is a great personal triumph and I hope it is an omen for better times ahead.

What we need to do now is to ensure the referenda are carried North and South by huge majorities. I will address myself mostly to the referendum in the South. Like so many seminal ideas in the peace process, the idea of having two referenda on the same day throughout the island was first proposed by Mr. John Hume many years ago. His reasoning was that this would delegitimise violence. The will of the Irish people for a peaceful settlement and against violence would be completely and unequivocally expressed and in doing so they would cut any shred of legitimacy from people on both sides who claimed a mandate from any sizable group of people, North or South, for the pursuit of political ends by violence. That remains a hugely important purpose of the referenda. It is why we require a huge turn-out and a huge “yes” vote to establish that point beyond peradventure and, even more [137] importantly, to assure those people who are frightened and doubting among the Unionist community of Northern Ireland that we really mean it.

The second purpose of the referendum is thrust upon us by the need to make constitutional change. As the Taoiseach has said, without constitutional change we would not have had agreement and without agreement we would not have had peace or the prospect of peace. People in Northern Ireland coming to this Agreement have all found something they disagree with and something they accept. It is a model of compromise in that no party came away from the table without something or without paying a price. There was gain for all and pain for all. I do not like every part of it — there are things I would like to see in it and other things I would like not to see there — but it is a package which was painfully achieved, with great skill and assiduity, and it goes to the people as a package. As against the pain of people in the North, what is the pain for people in this part of the country in supporting a reformulation of Articles 2 and 3? There are gains in it. First, it restates the idea of citizenship and of the nation in a much better way than in the current Articles. Second, the current provisions, if they mean anything, could only be achieved by consent, so what is lost by writing the principle of consent into them? It is that principle of consent which is the keystone for everything.

I was delighted to hear the tenor of the speeches today and was extremely pleased that every party spokesman called for a “yes” vote because that is the hope for the future. If we do not ask for such a vote we are asking people in the Northern Ireland to go back to where they were. We shall replace the hope that has welled up with despair; we will send them back down a road with no turning. What happened in the North was that both communities had virtually fought themselves to a standstill. They were like the women in O'Casey's play, mothers on either side of the scales of sorrow weighed down by the bodies of their suffering sons. The great hope of this Agreement is that no other sons or daughters need lower those scales — people can begin to live together, to pick up their lives and to build trust bit by bit as they work together for the future in the new institutions. We should have the courage to set them free to do so and to let the future look after itself.

Each of us has made sacrifices of different sorts. I am not particularly enamoured with the idea of releasing prisoners because I do not think there is any such thing as a political crime, but it is an essential part of this Agreement. I have sat with people on both sides who have killed some of my best friends. Some of those people have made crucial, critical and positive contributions to the search for peace, so I am prepared to put up with this.