Belfast Telegraph
An edited version of Secretary of State Peter Hain’s address to an invited audience at the Science Park in Belfast today
21 September 2005
When I first envisaged speaking to you today, I planned to focus on the challenges facing Northern Ireland in the next two decades and how we can become a world class society with a world-competing economy.
I still plan to do that, because it is in no-one’s interest for the Government to be deflected from preparing for that future, however great the present political difficulties may be. Whilst there are disputes about marches at home, globalisation is marching relentlessly on and quite simply we cannot postpone difficult policy and structural reforms in Northern Ireland.
Today’s five-year-olds, who will be completing their education after 2020, deserve to enter a thriving job market and need to be equipped with the skills that will be demanded in that dynamic economy. It will be no consolation to say to them in 15 years’ time that Government was too preoccupied with past or present political disputes to plan ahead for their economic security and social future.
Nonetheless I need to address the very serious recent events in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland, partly because they are uppermost in all our minds at the moment, but also because I think there is a link between them and Northern Ireland’s ability to face the global challenges of the future.
Indeed, unless we can address these problems we will not be in a position to face that future with the purpose and drive required. Be under no illusions: the recent riots and violence, as well as wasting public money, have shaken an international confidence that was viewing Northern Ireland with increasing optimism.
For most people across Northern Ireland, the events in Belfast over the past two weeks have been a deeply unwelcome throwback to the past. The horrific violence and vicious attacks on the police were doubly shocking precisely because we have grown used to the normality that has returned to almost every part of Northern Ireland in recent years. We have grown used to hard-won peace.
I have listened to the many grievances put to me in recent days. I do accept that there is a sense of frustration and anger within unionism, which has been expressed very forcibly to me by Dr Paisley and Sir Reg Empey, leaders for whom I have the greatest respect.
I want to address the other issues that have been put to me, in the terms in which they have been put to me.
What has unionism got from the Agreement? I don’t regard that as a rhetorical question: there is an answer. For the first time in the history of Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic has dropped its constitutional claim over the territory of Northern Ireland.
For the first time in the history of Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein has accepted that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom until and unless the people of Northern Ireland decide otherwise.
For the first time in the history of Northern Ireland, the IRA have accepted that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom until and unless the people of Northern Ireland decide otherwise.
For the first time in the history of Northern Ireland, the principle of consent is enshrined in an international agreement. Now anyone who knows the history of Northern Ireland and of unionism must appreciate the great significance of this.
To those who say that the principle of consent should always have been there, we always have to deal with what is and not what should be: you can’t rewrite history but you can make it.
In short, it seems to me that the two fundamental demands of unionism throughout 30 years of the troubles have been met: peace - the end of the terrorist campaign - and the securing of the union.
I think many unionists do see that the Northern Ireland of today is a much better place than it was.
But I accept that there are unionists who are deeply suspicious of the outworking of the Agreement and part of that is because movement on IRA decommissioning and the ending of paramilitary activity has been so slow. Even after a statement from the IRA that is unusually clear, they wonder whether it will be carried through in action or whether hopes will be dashed once again.
I also want to see the IRA deliver on its promises. I understand the scepticism of unionists given recent history and I know that the Northern Bank robbery in particular reinforced the suspicion that promises made to them were not for real. It is precisely to ensure that decommissioning is for real that we have General de Chastelain’s Decommissioning Commission and to ensure that there is no overt or covert paramilitary activity that we have the IMC. These are two independent bodies which will call it as it is. They will tell us what is for real.
To the many people who have said to me that the riots, while wrong, are an expression by loyalists of their belief that violence pays, I would simply say that the lesson of the last 30 years is unequivocal: violence does not pay. Republicanism made no significant political headway whatsoever until the IRA called a ceasefire; it will make political progress in the future only in proportion to its adherence to peaceful and democratic means.
That is why the IRA has set aside the armed struggle and that is why the British government, unionist leaders, the Irish and American governments and the overwhelming majority of people from all communities in Northern Ireland attach so much importance to the verification of the promises which the IRA made in July.
Violence is wrong - from wherever it comes: it does not pay and the recent violence has imposed a heavy cost on the communities in which it was carried out. The choice for loyalist paramilitaries is clear: play the political role that you claim as your motivation or face the rigour of the law as the mafia organisations into which you seem to have degenerated. You will not be allowed to terrorise your own communities.
I have a message to those former paramilitaries who want to move forward to build a better Northern Ireland: leave violence and criminality behind and join the rest of us who want to create a new prosperous Northern Ireland.
But I do accept that in many working class unionist and loyalist areas - as well, of course, as republican and nationalist areas - there are very real problems of social disadvantage, poverty and exclusion.
But let’s be clear, poverty knows no boundaries. In a few minutes I want to mention some of the successes of the past eight years, one of the most visible of which is the Laganside project. I recognise that people in disadvantaged communities, whether loyalist or nationalist, have a right to ask when their own Laganside will come?
I do not pretend that there are easy answers to the complex problems of these areas, many of which experienced the very worst of the Troubles and yet - despite considerable investment - have felt themselves to be the last to benefit from the increasing normality.
But significant progress has been made, not least by elected representatives, community leaders, churchmen and other faith leaders, and heroic individuals, many of whom I have been privileged to meet.
But despite what has been achieved, I am conscious of the criticism that our own efforts as a government could be better coordinated, and services more closely connected to disadvantaged communities, and I do acknowledge the particular needs of loyalist communities. To tackle this I want to embark upon a process of intensive engagement with elected representatives and civil leaders from the Protestant community.
I want to ensure that we reach a mature and informed understanding of the complexity of concerns and to formulate appropriate responses on the basis of partnership and within the broader context of a shared future for all in Northern Ireland. I have asked David Hanson to take the lead in this.
But I want to make one thing absolutely clear. I have asked for this work to be taken forward on two clear principles. First, that the focus of Government support and funding must be guided by and through elected representatives, civic and church leaders, and established and proven community workers, of whom there are many.
I have heard, loud and clear, the disgust of the good people of these communities who perceive public money being channelled into community projects under the influence of paramilitaries who speak the words of community work while undermining those very areas with racketeering and organised violence. Their perception is their reality: and I can understand that concern.
The second underlying principle of this work must be a commitment to cross community partnership. A “Shared Future” will be at the heart of Government policy and spending priorities.
I say this not because I want to implement a nice sounding or neatly bureaucratic strategy but because I believe very simply that a shared future for Northern Ireland is the only viable future, the only one worth having for the next generation, and the only way we will be able to compete in the face of the fierce winds of global competition.
Based on these two principles, we will draw together the existing work by Government and consult with elected and community representatives to accelerate and expand it. It is clear to me that the vision of a new Northern Ireland - prosperous, dynamic and at ease with itself - cannot be completed until the weakest areas have begun to enjoy the benefits of peace.