INAN Bashir was 29 years of age. He ran a small newsagent's kiosk at South Quay in Canary Wharf. He was a well known face to hundreds of office workers who bought newspapers and snacks from him before commuting home. His brother described him as "a lovely man". He is dead today, killed by the IRA.
John Jefferies was 31 years of age. He was helping Mr Bashir, his friend, because Friday was his busiest day. He was a keen musician who would occasionally sing songs to amuse customers. He lived at home, the only child of a widowed father, in Bromley, Kent. He too is dead, killed by the IRA.
Inan Bashir and John Jefferies died because of republican violence. What did these two young men ever do to Ireland, or do against Irish republicans, to deserve such a death? Who has a right to decide that Inan Bashir and John Jefferies should die for Ireland?
Barbara Osei is 23 years of age. She is still in hospital suffering from horrific injuries caused by flying glass. Over 100 other people were injured in a shower of flying glass, masonry and metal.
These people did not deserve to suffer. To all who know any of those killed or injured at Canary Wharf, I say the overwhelming majority of Irish people, at home and abroad, share deeply in your grief.
The tragic deaths of loan Bashir and John Jefferies on Friday last are a terrible waste of young lives. I extend my deepest sympathies on behalf of the Irish Government and the Irish people to the relatives of both men.
There are many questions still to be answered about the IRA bomb on Friday. Who authorised it? When did they decide? Who knew in advance that it was going to happen? Who knew when it would happen? Who knew that it would happen, but was not told the exact date? Who speaks for those who knew? What would they have to say now if they met Mr Bashir's brother or Mr Jefferies' father? Would they even have the moral courage to meet them? Would they be able to look into the eyes of the bereaved?
It is of course, as I have said many times, true that some could have done more to underpin the peace. It is also true that others did more than could ever have been expected. I do not propose to attempt to spread the blame.
I have made my position clear. The blame for the suffering and deaths of innocent people rests solely on the shoulders of those who agreed to, who knew about and those who planned and planted the bomb at Canary Wharf.
Democratic politics is about the resolution of conflict. There is a deep and fundamental difference between the normal human errors that democratic politicians might make and the use of violence to achieve political ends.
There is no moral equivalent, between killing people to achieve political ends and making mistakes in the course of non violent, politics.
I believe the British government did make a mistake in its response to the Mitchell report. I believe the unionist parties made a mistake in not sitting down with Sinn Fein and asking them the hard questions face to face. But I do not believe that any comparison can be drawn between political mistakes and a response to those mistakes that took human life.
No government can allow murder, or the threat of murder, to set the political agenda.
As leader of the opposition, before I became Taoiseach, I made an act of faith when I said that I believed in Sinn Fein and that I was willing to believe that the IRA had ended the killing for good. That act of faith has now been thrown back in my face by the IRA.
I ask Sinn Fein to tell me how we can restore that faith. Let Sinn Fein tell the Government this, publicly, because this is the public's business. Let Sinn Fein say what they have to say to all the Irish people, not just to me.
I still want to talk to Gerry Adams about peace. I share the frustration that he, and others, feel about the pace of political progress in Northern Ireland.
But I cannot do so until Sinn Fein persuade the IRA to say, and prove by what they do, that violence has no place in the political process. Sinn Fein has influence with the IRA. Sinn Fein and the IRA are part of the one republican movement.
Sinn Fein can, from time to time, speak authoritatively for the IRA. They did indeed persuade the IRA to stop the killing 17 months ago. I believe they can persuade them to do so again.
Let me make it clear. We have not shut any door on Sinn Fein. But we will not meet them at ministerial level until the IRA campaign is called off.
Our decision puts down a moral marker on what Irish society considers to be civilised behaviour. It puts down a political marker in relation to what we expect of Sinn Fein.
The Government's door is open to Sinn Fein. I will talk to Gerry Adams and his colleagues as soon as they go to the IRA and succeed in getting them to say that they will stop killing people. In the meantime, Government officials are in daily contact with Sinn Fein and reporting to me on what Sinn Fein has to say.
The Tanaiste and I are willing to authorise a face to face meeting at official level with Sinn Fein. This meeting can take place on the basis that Sinn Fein would bring forward their ideas on how the ceasefire can be restored.
We appreciate the fact that there are people in the republican movement who believe in peaceful politics and who are using their influence to get the IRA to stop killing.
If the IRA clearly state that the cessation of violence is restored, the Government will resume full political discussion with Sinn Fein.
I urge the leadership of Sinn Fein to think strategically as well as tactically. All democratic politicians have experienced tactical setbacks. I believe and have said, that recent British government responses were tactical setbacks for the Irish Government. But such setbacks have not and will not deter us from our strategic goal of agreement between the people on this island.
The republican movement must understand that a peace process cannot be just a tactic, something to turn on and off to relieve the frustrations that will arise as part of any political process. The republican movement must come to understand that all democratic politics, anywhere, are based on the principle of consent not to use violence, consent to accept the same rules as apply to others, consent to abide by collective decisions.
Sinn Fein did not make a mistake when it embraced the peace, process. The peace process was working.
More than that, last week had been characterised by a considerable intensification of the political track.
As such progress was, being made, the IRA decided to ignite a bomb in London.
Let me tell the House what we have been working on, and continue to work on, with the British government.
We are working on an inclusive, democratic mechanism that will be ready and waiting for Sinn Fein and the republican movement as soon as the IRA renounce violence. We want to build a vehicle that will accommodate the two governments, the unionists and the nationalist communities in all party negotiations.
We want Sinn Fein to be part of that. They have much to contribute. But before they join us in rebuilding the peace process, they must get the IRA to stop killing for political purposes.
For our part, the Government will do everything possible to get the peace process back on track. In particular, we will work closely with the British government to steer the process through this difficult stage. I had a very constructive telephone conversation with the British Prime Minister on Sunday evening. We agreed on two key objectives
First, to bring an immediate end to violence and secure a restoration of the IRA cease fire
Second, to persevere with our work towards the commencement of all party negotiations.
With a view to advancing those objectives, the prime minister and I agreed to meet as planned later this month. There is much for both governments to build on. Progress at times since the end of August 1994 may have been slow, but set against the history of three centuries of fundamental political division in the ancient province of Ulster, the pace and nature of work in the last two years towards a lasting, all inclusive settlement, was quite unprecedented.
Imaginative intergovernmental understandings were reached. The Joint Framework Document set out for the first time a shared British Irish model of a possible agreement that was designed to give impetus, focus and direction to all party negotiations.
The US administration led by President Clinton was and still is an active participant in the peace process.
The Mitchell report on decommissioning offered new and challenging insights on the way forward to immediate political negotiations.
The work of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation was providing clear focus on realities, principles and requirements.
And most recently, of course, we launched our proposal for proximity talks as a mechanism in achieving the firm aim of all party negotiations set out in the November communique.
The British Prime Minister has said that his mind is not closed. Nor is mine. In that spirit, and following on my phone call with him on Sunday, I put a series of particular issues to him on which work needs to be undertaken before our planned meeting. The matters I suggested we consider together are the creation of a way forward "that Sinn Fein could honourably join and into which they would be accepted by the other participants, once the IRA campaign is over.
Whether and how an elective, process, which is broadly acceptable and fully within the three strand structure and which followed from proximity talks, might lead directly and speedily, without equivocation, to all party negotiations.
. In that context I welcome John Major's openness to the ideas of others in finding the way to a restoration of the ceasefire. I note his statement that elections would give the electoral mandates and confidence which could lead straight, and straightaway, to negotiations.
. The way in which proximity talks, which would enable the two governments to clear up doubts and misunderstandings in the minds of the participants about all proposals, might be helpful how these talks could enable us to be as clear as possible in advance on how the principles and modalities of the Mitchell report would fit into any selective process/all party negotiations" proposal.
This could deal with the real danger that because of lack of proper procedural understanding, an impasse over decommissioning could unexpectedly paralyse negotiations at any stage.
I made very clear the Irish Government's view that the presentation of any way forward must take account of the justifiable fears of nationalist politicians in Northern Ireland. Neither the elective approach, nor any other approach, should be presented as a foregone conclusion or as a policy to be imposed.
This preparatory work for our meeting must also now take on board
. first, the proposal from John Hume for referendums North and South. We believe this proposal has considerable merit as it would afford all those on this island the opportunity to state in an unique way their opposition to violence and their wish for all party negotiations. It would show that the only electoral mandate any of us have is to use exclusively peaceful methods. It would end the theology of violence, and would endorse the demand for talks without threats.
The Government would be prepared to give top priority to the necessary legislation, if agreement is reached on the terms of such referendums.
. Second, the issue of how best to avail of President Clinton's offer, when I spoke to him on Friday night, of his support and that of his administration for the restoration to the ceasefire.
To sum up, I am satisfied that a viable basis exists, despite the terrible act on Friday, to restore peace to the people of these islands and this time to underpin it on a democratic basis, provided that Sinn Fein use their influence for peace and the IRA clearly say that a total cessation is again in place.
I will end by asking the IRA to think again. Violence is a bankrupt substitute for peaceful persuasion and patient negotiations.
I would urge every deputy in this House and everybody in Ireland to join me in an unambiguous call for the restoration of the IRA ceasefire.