Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 2003

Vol. 563 No. 5

Ceisteanna – Questions. - Northern Ireland Issues.

Enda Kenny

Question:

1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent developments in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4274/03]

Enda Kenny

Question:

2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4275/03]

Enda Kenny

Question:

3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the British Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4276/03]

Enda Kenny

Question:

4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he will next speak with the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4277/03]

Joe Higgins

Question:

5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the parties in Northern Ireland. [4350/03]

Joe Higgins

Question:

6 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting in Hillsborough with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair. [4351/03]

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the matters discussed and conclusions reached in his meeting with political parties from Northern Ireland on 12 February 2003; his views on the prospects for progress in Northern Ireland in view of his discussions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4376/03]

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

8 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, during his visit to Northern Ireland on 12 February 2003. [4377/03]

Enda Kenny

Question:

9 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the pro-Agreement parties in Northern Ireland on 12 February 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4418/03]

Trevor Sargent

Question:

10 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his views on whether his discussions with British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, at Hillsborough have proved significant in the search for a breakthrough to the current peace process impasse; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4486/03]

Trevor Sargent

Question:

11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his views on whether the talks can resolve the current impasse in the peace process in the North; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4487/03]

Trevor Sargent

Question:

12 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his views on whether the current impasse in the peace process in the North can be resolved sufficiently in time to allow Assembly polls to go ahead in May 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4488/03]

Trevor Sargent

Question:

13 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he has urged the British Prime Minster, Mr. Tony Blair, in talks with him at Hillsborough to call an international judicial inquiry into the controversial murder of Pat Finucane, this being the 14th anniversary of this person's death; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4503/03]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

14 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation in the talks at Hillsborough on 12 February 2003. [4521/03]

Enda Kenny

Question:

15 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent developments in the Northern Ireland peace process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5151/03]

Enda Kenny

Question:

16 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5152/03]

Enda Kenny

Question:

17 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5153/03]

Enda Kenny

Question:

18 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent conversations with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5154/03]

Enda Kenny

Question:

19 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if the arrangements for his meeting on 3 March 2003 with the British Prime Minister have been finalised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5155/03]

Joe Higgins

Question:

20 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6122/03]

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

21 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting on 27 February 2003 with the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6181/03]

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

22 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his contact with the political parties in Northern Ireland; and his assessment of the prospects for political progress there in view of these contacts. [6182/03]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

23 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, in London on 27 February 2003. [6321/03]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

24 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation in the talks at Hillsborough on 3 March 2003. [6322/03]

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

25 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 25 February 2003 with the leader of the SDLP, Mr. Mark Durkan, MLA. [6397/03]

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

26 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 26 February 2003 with representatives of Sinn Féin. [6398/03]

Enda Kenny

Question:

27 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 26 February 2003 with the leadership of Sinn Féin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6614/03]

Enda Kenny

Question:

28 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in London on 27 February 2003 with the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6615/03]

Joe Higgins

Question:

29 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his recent meeting with the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6885/03]

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

30 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meetings and discussions with the British Prime Minister and pro-agreement political parties in Hillsborough on 3 and 4 March 2003. [7074/03]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

31 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of the talks which commenced at Hillsborough on 3 March 2003 and on his role in them. [7176/03]

Trevor Sargent

Question:

32 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his views on whether the marathon discussions in Hillsborough, involving the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, the Northern political parties and himself have proved significant in the search for a breakthrough to the current peace process impasse; if he will give an update on the recent developments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7394/03]

Joe Higgins

Question:

33 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his recent talks with the British Prime Minister at Hillsborough; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7470/03]

Joe Higgins

Question:

34 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his contact with the parties in Northern Ireland at the recent Hillsborough talks. [7471/03]

Joe Higgins

Question:

35 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent developments in the Northern Ireland peace process. [7473/03]

Enda Kenny

Question:

36 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 10 March 2003 with the SDLP leader, Mr. Durkan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7871/03]

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

37 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters agreed between the two Governments and the political parties during the discussions at Hillsborough on 3 and 4 March 2003; when the two Governments plan to publish their proposals arising from the talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7956/03]

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

38 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached during his meeting in Washington with the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mr. David Trimble; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8027/03]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

39 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the issues in relation to the peace process raised by him during his visit to the United States. [8076/03]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 39, inclusive, together.

There are a substantial number of questions relating to Northern Ireland and my visit to the US. As the primary focus of my visit related to Northern Ireland matters, it seemed appropriate to take the questions together. In response to requests from Deputies, however, I propose to take the majority of questions relating to the US visit separately.

The work of the two Governments and the pro-Agreement parties over recent weeks and months aimed at achieving the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland and the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement culminated in intensive discussions at Hillsborough on Monday and Tuesday, 3 and 4 March. These were genuinely constructive talks during which all the parties displayed a willingness to move forward to acts of completion to finally implement the Good Friday Agreement under all headings and in all its aspects. The goal we had set ourselves heading into the talks was one which the people of Northern Ireland fully deserve five years after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, a durable, stable and final outcome that brings an end to the instability and difficulties of the past. That is the prize on offer.

We achieved a substantial amount of progress in the talks on a range of outstanding issues and, as a result, the Governments presented the parties with proposals for the resolution of key areas that are essential if we are to establish the trust and confidence necessary to ensure the full implementation of the Agreement. It is fair to say that we all now have a shared understanding of how that goal can best be achieved. Throughout this process, the consistent approach of the two Governments has been to provide absolute clarity and certainty about what all sides will do to embed the necessary confidence and trust in this process. It is only with such a store of confidence and trust that we will be able to realise the full and irreversible implementation of the Agreement.

Our discussions were protracted and difficult because we are dealing with complex, sensitive issues. To achieve our goal, all sides will have to take difficult steps. I believe all sides genuinely want to achieve finality. Our approach is based on achieving real consensus. The parties understandably want some time and space to consider further what needs to be done and to consult their memberships before making final decisions. Given the significance of what we are trying to achieve, this is a reasonable request and one which we are happy to facilitate. It is important that all the parties fully understand what the two Governments are putting forward and that they make their judgment in the round, based on the totality of those proposals which include human rights and equality, criminal justice, normalisation, policing and the institutions.

Following the process of consultation and reflection our intention is to meet with the parties again in early April and publish the Governments' joint proposals. The two Governments commend these proposals to the parties. I am continuing to meet the parties. I met representatives of the SDLP, Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party recently and I will meet again on Friday with Mr. David Trimble for further consultations. Contacts are also continuing at official level. I do not believe that it would be fair to the parties, nor would it be helpful to the overall process, to identify specific details of our proposals at this point. What Prime Minister Blair and I endeavoured to do in the course of our discussions with the parties was to close gaps across all the outstanding aspects of the Agreement so that our proposals, when published, would reflect the purpose that we set ourselves last October, acts of completion on all sides.

Working towards acts of completion is the responsibility of all the pro-Agreement parties and the two Governments. We know what is required of each of us, including an end to paramilitarism and a new beginning for the institutions based on stability and sustainability. We have tried to achieve an accommodation that is acceptable to all sides. That is the only way we can bring matters to a successful conclusion. I understand that people are anxious to know what is contained in the joint proposals at an early opportunity. However, I ask everyone to be patient and to await publication of the joint proposals before making a judgment on what is being proposed rather than doing so on the basis of erroneous, partial or selective leaks which may concentrate on one or other aspect at the expense of the entire package.

To facilitate consideration of our proposals, there will be a short delay of four weeks in the Assembly elections. We are conscious of the need to offer the electorate an agreement that is in full working order and that enjoys the prospect of providing peace and political stability for the years ahead. We hope that, on polling day, the people will clearly see what is on offer and will reward the pro-Agreement parties who have delivered for them the real opportunity for a peaceful and stable future. The purpose of the two Governments' efforts in recent months has been to restore the devolved institutions and to achieve a normal society in Northern Ireland. The lack of trust and confidence between the parties has been one of the main causes of the instability of the institutions in the past.

What we are working for, in conjunction with the parties, is to address that deficit and bring about the conditions for the earliest possible restoration of the institutions. Devolution has been good for Northern Ireland and a large majority of people want to see effective and accountable government restored as soon as possible. If, as a result of our endeavours, we restore the required trust and confidence and place the Agreement on a new and secure platform for the future, there should be no reason for the kind of stop-start operation that the institutions had to endure in the past. I record my appreciation of the Prime Minister's outstanding commitment to the process at this time. I also take this opportunity to thank the House for its support for our efforts to secure agreement on a way forward.

I met Geraldine Finucane and the Finucane family on 13 February and reiterated the Government's support for a public inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane. After 14 years, it is time the Finucane family find out the truth of what happened and that all the issues of concern are examined. I believe that the work of Judge Cory will assist in this process and I look forward to his report later this year.

Over the St. Patrick's Day period in Washington I took the opportunity to fully brief President Bush, Ambassador Haass and our friends in Congress on the outcome of recent discussions. We also discussed the situation regarding Iraq, which we debated in the House last week. I am extremely grateful for the continued support of the US Administration, Senate and Congress for our efforts in relation to Northern Ireland. We will receive strong encouragement from President Bush and our US friends to successfully and comprehensively finish the job.

All Members share the Taoiseach's sentiments in respect of his intention to secure a normal, or as normal as possible, society in Northern Ireland following the implementation in full of the Good Friday Agreement. If, arising from the discussions on 3 and 4 March, the Taoiseach believes all the parties are fully committed to the process, why would it be the intention of a party or parties to facilitate erroneous or partial leaks of the talks at Hillsborough? Is the Taoiseach satisfied that all the parties to the discussions are committed to the process and that no further concessions will be given, beyond what was agreed on 3 and 4 March?

The Taoiseach indicated that the parties had reached a shared understanding of what needed to be done in terms of acts of completion. For that reason the elections were postponed for a number of weeks so the parties would be able to sell these explanations to their constituencies. Does he agree that decision time has been reached, there are no further concessions to be given, there will be no further delays, the elections will take place on the new date as intended and we will proceed with that business as soon as possible?

The date of the election has been settled. I was anxious that it would be settled legislatively so it could not be changed again and people could not come back seeking further extensions. Legislation is going through Westminster. It might not have passed all Stages but it is certainly well advanced. It will set the date. Dissolution will be on 28 April and the election will be held at the end of May. That is provided for in the legislation and there will be no change to it.

Deputy Kenny asked about people being committed to the process. I can only assure him that all the delegations and leadership groups I have been dealing with have assured me that they are committed. Given the importance of this issue we are not just dealing with small numbers of leaders – the delegations have been quite large, representing a cross-section of elected representatives. A wide section of the SDLP, Ulster Unionist Party, Sinn Féin, the Women's Coalition and others have indicated to me that they are fully committed to the process. They also know that we have been dealing with the issues for some time, and particularly since mid-October. We have dealt with them during the winter and have listened to what everybody has said. We have had much discussion and have tried to be as flexible as possible. It was not a case of both Governments dictating what they thought was best. In the past few weeks we have been finalising that work but discussions are continuing. We have tried to be helpful and positive to people. We have had very useful meetings with the parties. I am meeting the UUP again on Friday, having met with its representatives previously, including in Washington. I met the SDLP less than a fortnight ago and I met with Sinn Féin representatives on Monday. These meetings were helpful and positive. We recognise that some issues are particularly sensitive. The meeting with Sinn Féin on Monday addressed a number of issues of concern to it.

It is true that a great deal of progress was made at Hillsborough about which Deputy Kenny asked. There was a shared understanding among the parties of the key issues that are central to moving forward. We recognise that not everything was agreed at Hillsborough and we hope that we can close the gaps in those areas during this period. That is why we are still meeting the parties. We are trying to clarify things and close the gaps even more, so that all the parties can be fully satisfied that when we present our proposals we will have completed satisfactorily the five or six months of discussions. We will continue to have meetings at official level until the end of the month, which is getting close. The parties are using this period to reflect upon the Governments' proposals and they are in continuing contact with the Governments on aspects of the proposals. We are happy to provide clarification where necessary. We certainly do not wish to open up the text that has already been agreed. There is no point in opening up something that upsets a balance in some other area that we have put together delicately over the months.

It is our intention to go to Hillsborough in early April when we will present our comprehensive proposals. They are known to the parties because we have been upfront about them. The party negotiating teams know the proposals in their entirety and when clarification is sought on any point, I make sure the other parties know also. Therefore, there is an even-handed approach to this and nobody can see any bad faith in it – not that anyone would feel there is. I want to make absolutely sure that everything is on an even keel.

The stakes in this are high and have not been higher since the Good Friday Agreement of five years ago. I want to avoid any misunderstandings on any aspect of the agreement and that is why we are being so careful. Each time I meet with a group and clarify matters, I also meet with the other groups to make sure they know.

The Taoiseach can take it that he has the support of the House for the work that is going on. In fairness, the British Prime Minister has devoted an inordinate amount of time to the process and has shown great resilience and patience when, obviously, other matters are on his mind also. The Taoiseach said that the stakes have never been higher and that he wants to be absolutely upfront about this so that all the par ties know exactly what is involved in the negotiations and the presentations to be made early next month. Sinn Féin has said that sanctions could still wreck the talks and the conclusion of the agreement. If all parties are upfront about this, are absolutely aware of what is contained in the proposals and understand that the stakes have never been higher, why has Sinn Féin not been upfront with the Taoiseach and the other parties in view of last week's arms find on the Ormeau Road in Belfast? Six handguns, an assault rifle, timer power units and 2,000 rounds of ammunition were found. Is the Taoiseach happy that all parties are being upfront with the Governments in regard to the conclusion of the talks? Is he happy that this arms find is not one of a series still waiting to be discovered? Can we take it that, in so far as the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister's private discussions with Sinn Féin in particular, and other units that might have paramilitary tendencies, are concerned, they are absolutely clear that an end will be put to this once and for all? Is the Taoiseach happy with that, given that he has said the stakes were never higher and the parties are fully aware of all the details of what is involved?

Deputy Kenny's question is a fair one. I have been dealing both with the political leaderships and wide-ranging delegations and I can only reflect to the House what has been said. Needless to say, I am worried when I read about arms finds such as the most recent one. The only correction I would make to what Deputy Kenny has said is that the 2,000 rounds originally reported, rose to 6,000 rounds yesterday when the case was mentioned in court. To be frank about it, I do worry about those things – and to be even – from wherever they come. I do not want to direct it in any one spot, but this particular issue is clearly linked to the Provisional IRA. That is why it is so important that we get to acts of completion.

It is fair to say that we have all tolerated quite a lot over a long period. I am also conscious that the case Deputy Kenny mentioned is before the courts, although there are many other cases in the courts as well, so I would group them together rather than being selective. Last year we saw pipe bombs which were almost exclusively used by loyalists, although some dissident republican groups may also have used them, but certainly not the Provisional IRA. As we move into the summer period I would like to see progress that ends all these matters. We welcome the useful work that has gone on in loyalism recently and anything we can do to facilitate more dialogue and understanding in that jurisdiction we will do with the loyalist groups as well. We want to hold out the hand of friendship so that we can come to acts of completion and move on into the democratic process. All the aspects that make up this agreement will be published shortly so we can then move on and, hopefully, dissidents will play no more part. That is the aim and while there are some concerns, hopefully we can achieve that.

I join with Deputy Kenny in wishing the Taoiseach well in his endeavours. The Taoiseach said it was thought advisable to separate the Northern Ireland questions and those concerning President Bush. I am not sure that I understand that. Who makes that decision? Yesterday, for example, the questions concerning President Bush were ahead of the questions on social partnership, while today they are behind the social partnership questions. Who makes that decision and what is the rationale for doing so?

That is a good question.

I might communicate with the Deputy on that.

On the Northern Ireland situation, can I take it from what the Taoiseach said that the Government's view is that the elections will proceed at the end of May, irrespective of whether the Executive is restored?

I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the remarks of the President of Sinn Féin the day before yesterday when he said that the document that we believe is to emerge from the two Governments is still negotiable. Is that the Taoiseach's understanding? What is his response to the remarks from Mr. Adams that sanctions are still a "deal-breaker" as far as Sinn Féin is concerned?

In relation to the Deputy's first question, I asked the same question this morning, lest it had anything to do with me, but was assured that it had nothing to do with me. I know the Deputy is not saying it had. I assumed that one set of questions would follow the other. It certainly was not me who decided that. I want to make that absolutely clear.

On the question of the position on the ongoing negotiations, I do not see that we are in negotiations in terms of changing the documentation. The documents are complex. There are serious decisions to be made by some of the parties. The document is there. We are clarifying and explaining our logic, why we believe that the balance is right and listening to and teasing out some of the issues. It is not a question of us rewriting it. The questions put by Mr. Adams the other day were fair in terms of explaining why we came to this decision and the clarification in that regard. It would be wrong to say it is a negotiating session, but it is an important phase in explaining the logic in the overall sense. It is not closed in the sense that we are saying we are not listening to anything. That would be wrong. I hope to do that with Mr. Trimble and with some of the other parties this weekend and, hopefully, we will try to finish in this regard.

On the question of the date of the election, I reiterate what I said, I am not returning to this issue. That is finished. I was reluctant to move off the issue. I did so reluctantly only because it made sense in terms of our running out of space. Some parties looked for a particular amount of time and other parties looked for another period of time. Without spelling out exactly who said what, the cumulative position meant that what was sought was not logical to achieve. It was only on that basis that we moved on. I only agreed to do so on the basis that it would be legislatively done and not by an order, letter or an exchange of letters, but by way of legislation whereby primary legislation would be passed by the Commons with no change made to it. That is now being done. That was the agreement on this. I am not returning to any discussion on that regardless of what happens on the presentation of our paper. In other words, I wish to be absolutely clear on this because the records of these debates are analysed with a fine-tooth comb by many parties. If we get to a successful agreement, then all is well and we will move on. If we do not get to a successful agreement and all is not well, we will still move on into elections. That is my position. I am not going to open that discussion again. I am glad to clarify that matter for the Deputy.

On the issue of what are considered the sanctions, I do not want to go into all the details, but in reply to the Deputy, I would like to make this point in response to what has been said outside this House. I believe that what we are trying to do in this area is compliant with the Good Friday Agreement and not outside it. I have given and will continue to give the detail of those arguments in a very clearly thought out way to the various parties, but I do not accept that they are outside the Agreement.

Can I sign my name again to an agreement and say that not to have a procedure to deal with institutions that have managed to collapse four times in five years is a good day's work? I do not think I would do that in any negotiations, not to mind negotiations as important as these. I would like to drop the word "sanction". If I act totally out of order in this House, there are rules. I am held to account by Standing Orders and there are the procedures of this House decided by my colleagues, who through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and other mechanisms will decide whether I am an appropriate person to do what I am doing. Those rules have been used in this House many times. In Northern Ireland, the system should be no different. There must be a system and a procedure where we can monitor and where there is accountability and examination and where if there are breaches, they are examined. I would like to move away from a position where they are examined in a way whereby one person can decide it not a good idea and that person can say "I am getting out" and the system collapses. That is what has happened four times. To stick with that position makes no sense. It would be irresponsible not to address the issue.

In reply to Deputy Rabbitte, I would like to be able to give all the points of how I put this case forward and argued it, but that would be unhelp ful, and I hope he will forgive me for not doing that. All I am doing is spelling out that I think there must be a system of accountability whereby if there is a breach or a difficulty, let us put it no stronger than that, there is a system that deals with that and all the cards do not fall down every time that happens. That is all we are trying to do. I hope this is not something that will be misunderstood. I will not use the words of anybody else because I do not want to get into that. I believe that answers all the Deputy's questions.

I thank the Taoiseach for that reply, which I hope is helpful in the context of things in terms of where they stand now.

Will legislation be required to deal with the suggestion that there is likely to be a provision in the document to involve some procedures in relation to the position of what are called "on-the-runs" or "OTRs"? Does the Taoiseach consider that legislation will be necessary to give effect to that? Are we to understand that these regulations will apply to people on the run in this jurisdiction who are responsible for serious crimes? I specifically ask him if the terms of whatever agreement emerges are likely to apply to people still wanted in connection with the murder of Garda Jerry McCabe?

We have to bring completion to these issues. We have to look at all the outstanding issues. In the two areas the Deputy mentioned there are outstanding issues. We must try to come to an understanding on those issues, on the OTRs, on-the-runs, in particular. We will have to deal with them in this jurisdiction and outside it. The Deputy asked specifically about dealing with them in this jurisdiction. We will have to make necessary arrangements. I cannot recall whether that will require legislative arrangements or if it could be dealt with by way of regulations, but it will affect us. It will require proposals. The Garda Jerry McCabe issue is outstanding and we are considering it.

Does the Taoiseach believe the forthcoming elections in the North will bring people there much further forward, given that all the main competing parties are sectarian-based? They draw and seek support from one side or other of the religious divide and therefore much of the campaign will be a contest between groups on different sides. Also, on each side groups will score points off parties on the same side to strengthen their position. Does the Taoiseach agree it is likely that the campaign will be very sterile? Does he agree that a new departure is needed – a mass party that could straddle the sectarian divide and address the acute problems working people face apart from sectarianism and the troubles? I refer to homelessness, poverty and crises in the health services. Such a departure is badly needed.

During the Taoiseach's discussions with the British Prime Minister at Hillsborough, did he get any insight into Mr. Blair's willingness to continue discussions which have gone on for almost ten years since the ceasefires with organisations which have or had unofficial paramilitary militias linked to them or which have hidden dangerous weapons? Mr. Blair's patience in that regard contrasts with his rush to war in Iraq due to problems which are largely similar.

On sectarianism and breaking down barriers, we are trying to help organisations which seek to alleviate the plight of working class people in Belfast and elsewhere in the North and I agree with Deputy Higgins that this is a major part of the problem in the North. Both communities have similar difficulties but they are not close to each other and there is no trust or confidence. Good work is being done by the political parties and other organisations to foster better understanding and co-operation. They are trying to deal with the interface areas and to solve problems of exclusion and unemployment, problems any area would have if it did not enjoy economic regeneration in recent decades.

Everything we have been doing through our agencies is aimed at assisting all organisations in the North. We are not focused on any one organisation but on all the political parties. I am particularly anxious to give loyalist groups the benefit of our knowledge and expertise, even if those are not perfect. I do not want to mention individuals but many of them are doing excellent work. They do not have many elected representatives but those they have are doing good work and we will work with them.

Regarding the arms issue, the British Prime Minister set out last October in his acts of completion speech what he understood to be necessary to deal with these issues and to bring trust and confidence back to these communities. I made a similar speech soon afterwards and both speeches agreed more or less in most areas. We have since moved to negotiations on a package which covers those issues.

Deputy Higgins knows my position on this issue – that I do not want to see arms being used and I want arms put beyond use. The situation in Northern Ireland has been tolerated because by and large arms have been silent there for the past eight and a half years. A period was allowed for progress and while there have been breaches, those have been thankfully few. We want to move to a position where we do not have to deal with this any more.

I draw no relationship between Northern Ireland and what is happening elsewhere in the world.

The Green Parties north and south of the Border support all measures aimed at fully implementing the Good Friday Agreement and we will co-operate in any way with Government efforts in that regard.

Has the Taoiseach any sense from his discussions with Mr. Trimble ahead of the elections that Mr. Trimble and his party are as strong as is necessary in their support for the full implementation of the Agreement? Are they tempted to play the Orange card coming up to the elections to avoid being outflanked by the DUP? What has the Taoiseach said to ensure the Agreement does not fall asunder due to the expediency of electoral politics?

In the Taoiseach's discussions with the US President, has he had any sense, implicit or explicit, that America's continued support for the peace process is in any way conditional on Ireland co-operating with the US-led invasion of Iraq? Have the use of Shannon or the provision of overflight facilities been mentioned in connection with American support for the peace process?

I thank Deputy Sargent for his ongoing support on this issue. I also thank Deputies Rabbitte and Kenny in this regard.

To take the last question first, there are no connections or insinuations whatsoever but the Americans, and particularly Ambassador Haas, have been enormously helpful. The Ambassador leaves his post in a few months but happily for us he has been very helpful.

Regarding the Ulster Unionist Party, it is concerned that it has moved considerably since April 1998 and that it has not been rewarded for that movement. On the contrary, it feels it has fallen into traps which have played into the hands of others such as the DUP. Since October the UUP has worked honestly with the two Governments and other parties to achieve what we all want; it is committed to that goal. I met several party representatives ten days ago and I meet the party leader again this week. They are totally committed to finding a comprehensive agreement and to genuine acts of completion which will open up a new way for everyone to work together.

That is the key issue – this is not a matter of anyone winning or losing. We have had five years of trying to deal with the issues and I hope the pro-Agreement parties will be rewarded in the elections. Then we will be able to move on constructively. All the parties are trying to achieve this.

Does the Taoiseach agree there are already adequate safeguards and sanctions built into the Good Friday Agreement to help ensure all parties fulfil their obligations? I take that view because he does not seem to agree that the elaborate new structures of sanctions – which my party and I view as being constructed outside the Agreement – are contained in his current position and that of Mr. Blair. Does the Taoiseach recognise this is far from helpful and that these new sanctions will be turned into further obstacles to progress? Will the Taoiseach confirm, for instance, whether new legislation will be required to give effect to the new proposed sanctions process?

In our efforts to resolve the crisis in the peace process and restore the political institutions there is, as some Members have stated, an ongoing concern about the commitment of the Ulster Unionist Party, in particular Mr. Trimble, to the future stability of the institutions. Will the Taoiseach share with the House the contact he has had with Mr. Trimble and the nature of their engagement in this regard? What assurances are there that a new Assembly, which we hope will be in place sooner rather than later, will not be subjected to the same topsy-turvy approach as the last one?

Does the Taoiseach share the disappointment of the police ombudsman's office in the North in relation to the failure of the Northern Ireland Office to grant her additional money to progress inquiries into certain serious matters which have also been the subject of address to him in the House in the past? What steps does he propose to take to encourage the facilitation of the police ombudsman's office in order that she would have the wherewithal to progress the various areas of inquiry she has highlighted?

I agree with the Taoiseach's remarks on the word "sanctions". It should be dropped and removed from the political agenda. Is he aware of the grave lack of confidence and trust among many people in the North, particularly the Northern minority but also the wider public, in relation to Mr. Trimble's commitment to the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement? The Taoiseach stated that he met members of the Finucane family. What commitments did he give them in relation to Pat Finucane's murder and the subsequent investigation into it?

I will take the questions in reverse order. Deputy Finian McGrath asked about my meeting with Geraldine Finucane. We are doing all we can with Judge Cory to get the process finished, which we hope will happen later this year. We are still committed to a full judicial inquiry and that will continue to be the case.

On the questions on Mr. Trimble asked by Deputy Finian McGrath and Deputy Ó Caoláin, as I have stated to Deputies Rabbitte and Kenny, I am committed to trying to work with everybody regardless of what has happened in the past at different times, on different issues and in different circumstances. Our purpose is to try to get everybody to work together. That is not to say there were no difficulties in the past, there were and I have had arguments and debates with many of the political leaders. Going forward, however, we have to work together. I can only tell the House what all the leaders have told me, namely, they are committed to the process.

Deputy Ó Caoláin asked what rules will apply, which is a fair question. I am satisfied the mechanism will be in compliance with the Good Friday Agreement and will be applicable to all the political parties. Its underlying aim is to provide stability. There are no automatic sanctions and provided all paramilitary activity ceases, the application of sanctions should not arise, no more than it would arise in this jurisdiction. All we are trying to do in this respect is ensure a form of monitoring is in place and we do not have the instability we had in the past when the institutions collapsed for possibly important or frivolous reasons.

We have to arrive at a position of stability where there is a monitoring mechanism and outside events do not bring down the institutions. My genuine message to Deputy Ó Caoláin is that this is all we are trying to achieve. There is no hidden agenda. The mechanism was not designed to push Sinn Féin out of the process, although I fully understand the Deputy's concern in this regard given his experience. It is designed to make sure we get stability in the institutions and is, as far as I am concerned, compliant with the Agreement. It is a workable mechanism in which the Government will be involved. If there was anything else involved, I would not recommend it as strongly as I do.

Top
Share