Fellow party members and distinguished visitors, It's good to be back. I have to admit, it has been a fairly tough few months. But I've drawn huge comfort not just from the ceaseless support of Pat and my family, but from the good wishes of my friends all over the country and of course in particular from you, my friends in the SDLP.
I was determined that nothing would stop me from being here today. This is the 20th occasion on which I have spoken to you as party leader of this great party. And once again we meet at a time rich in both challenge and in opportunity - at a time when our vision and determination are needed more than ever.
A huge amount has happened in the 20 years since I was elected leader in 1979. For too long during those years we continued to experience the awful consequences of violent conflict. Many people thought that no escape from our bitter divisions was possible. But we in the SDLP knew they were wrong. There was a way forward. We had a vision, not just of the future we wanted, but of how it might be brought about.
W B Yeats once said that in dreams begin responsibilities. The SDLP had a dream - a dream which still inspires us. And the realisation of that dream will mean, for us, new and exciting responsibilities. Those responsibilities will fall to us as we take our place, our rightful place, at the core of the government of Northern Ireland and at the cutting edge of the creation of a new relationship among the people of our island.
Yes, we had, and we have, a dream. And that dream is on the verge of becoming a reality - a reality founded on our enduring values as a party.
Time and again, it was we who thought the unthinkable, and said the unsay-able. We said it first. And we were the first to get it right. Let me give a few examples - not to boast, but to emphasise the unswerving consistency of our fundamental approach.
We began back in 1972 by emphasising that there could be no solution to our difficulties without "a genuine analysis of the constitutional and institutional difficulties, which have led to the present situation." Analysis had to come before prescription. In our analysis, we recognised the fundamental problem was not the division of our country, but the division of our people: not the line on a map but the line in out hearts. I said in 1993: "It is people who have rights, not territory, not land, and when people are divided the requirement for solution is agreement not victory." And, in 1985, "so long as the legitimate rights of both nationalists and the unionists are not accommodated together in new political structures acceptable to both, the situation will continue to give rise to conflict and instability."
We have always known, as we put it in 1979, that division can only be overcome through "partnership between the differing traditions in the North, and partnership between both parts of Ireland."
We recognised, moreover, that our problem was complex and has many dimensions. The solution had to be found through a pro cess which recognised and reflected all of the relationships which mattered: that between people in Northern Ireland, between people in Ireland, and between people in our islands. The problem we in the North had to overcome was by no means all of our own making. Therefore it was quite unrealistic to think we could solve it on our own.
As early as 1979, the SDLP called for a joint Anglo-Irish political initiative. Throughout the two decades since then, through all the lengthy preparations for the Good Friday agreement negotiations, we continued to insist on the need for the two governments to be centrally involved. And early on we recognised the value and importance of the American dimension - which today has found such remarkable expression in the continued support of President Clinton, and the extraordinary dedication of Senator George Mitchell.
The example and the context offered by the quest for European union, led by the bitterest of past enemies, has also been an unfailing inspiration.
It was the SDLP who, in 1981, insisted that the outcome of round-table talks would "have to be ratified by two separate referenda, one in the North and one in the South". This became a reality last year.
All the way along, we have, as a core value, totally and completely opposed violence for political ends. We knew it was absolutely wrong. We also knew that it was utterly counter-productive. Even at the most difficult of times, we have stood proudly and firmly by the principle of non-violence. This wasn't easy. Many of the people in this hall have had, in the course on their political careers, to endure vilification and intimidation - from many different quarters. But we weren't deflected from saying and doing the right thing.
At the same time, while opposing violence in all its forms, we knew that a political alternative had to be on offer. Yes, we rightly had to condemn. But we also had to understand that violence had deep roots in the political culture of the island, and in both traditions. A viable path out of the morass had to be mapped. We in the SDLP took on the task of showing republicans, through patient analysis and argument, that there was a better way. We stuck at it when the doubters and detractors howled scorn. And throughout we have argued that the political process had to be open to those who had committed themselves to exclusively political and democratic means.
We also stand for inclusivity - for using the talents and abilities of all sections of our people.
There's much more that could be said about the evolution of our party's policy. But I think I've said enough. We can all agree it's not a bad record. In fact, it's a record we can all be proud of.
I said earlier that a huge amount had happened in the past 20 years. In 1979, would it have seemed likely that the leaders of the republican movement would have committed themselves to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, and would be pressing for an executive to be set up? Would it have seemed likely that the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party would be committed to a fully inclusive partnership approach, and would have negotiated meaningful North/South structures? Would it have seemed likely that the British Prime Minister would be working closely and deeply in co-operation with the Taoiseach and the US President? Would it have seemed likely that every party in Ireland, North and South, with a nationalist tradition, would accept the principle of consent?
When I first spoke to Gerry Adams in 1988 it did not seem popular. Now his meetings with David Trimble have become an almost everyday occurrence.
There are times when dreams do come true. At times it might seem that everyone has joined the SDLP and shares our vision.
The Good Friday agreement belongs to all of our people, North and South, But the method of its negotiation; the method of its ratification; its emphasis on partnership and reconciliation; the interlocking three-stranded institutional structures: all of these find their origin in our party's thinking and in our party's advocacy.
That's why we, alone of all the major parties, were able to welcome the agreement unreservedly. And it's because we are so firmly committed to everything the agreement promises and stands for that the stalemate of the past year has been so deeply frustrating for us.
For too long, we have been waiting for others - I mean the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Fein to reach a pragmatic and workable agreement on the issue of decommissioning and on its relationship with the rest of the agreement. I don't deny that their views are deeply and sincerely held, and I don't doubt that they both want the agreement to work.
But so far neither has quite managed, despite definite progress, to overcome the obstacles they have placed in each other's way.
Viewed in its own terms, the decommissioning issue has been given an absolutely disproportionate significance. What really matters in practical terms is whether violence has actually ended, which it has. Only through political methods can the underlying causes of conflict be resolved.
But in another sense the decommissioning impasse is about a lack of trust. Building trust is a necessary condition for its resolution. And for that reason the developing engagement among the parties at the Mitchell review is deeply important.