Enda Kenny
Question:1 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. [27909/04]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Northern Ireland Issues.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the British Prime Minister at the recent European Council meeting in Brussels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27910/04]
Finian McGrath
Question:3 Mr. F. McGrath asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the Northern Ireland talks. [28626/04]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent contacts with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, in relation to the peace process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28846/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair on the margins of the recent European Council meeting in Brussels. [28847/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent contacts with political parties in Northern Ireland. [28848/04]
Joe Higgins
Question:7 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland. [30197/04]
Joe Higgins
Question:8 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the US civil rights campaigner, Reverend Jesse Jackson. [30200/04]
Trevor Sargent
Question:9 Mr. Sargent 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. [30931/04]
Trevor Sargent
Question:10 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the British Prime Minister in relation to the peace process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30932/04]
Enda Kenny
Question:11 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on 22 November 2004 with the SDLP leader, Mark Durkan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30933/04]
Enda Kenny
Question:12 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions with the British Prime Minister in London on 24 November 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30934/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:13 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting with an SDLP delegation on 22 November 2004; if his attention has been drawn to the concerns expressed by the SDLP that it has not been fully involved in recent negotiations regarding possible moves to restore the institutions in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30939/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:14 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on 24 November 2004. [30940/04]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:15 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in London on 24 November 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31170/04]
Joe Higgins
Question:16 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair. [31284/04]
Trevor Sargent
Question:17 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32413/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 17, inclusive, together.
I met the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, on Friday, 5 November in Brussels. I met a Sinn Féin delegation led by Gerry Adams on Wednesday, 17 November and an SDLP delegation led by Mark Durkan on Monday, 22 November. I met Mr. Blair again in London on Wednesday, 24 November. I had an opportunity, during my visit to London, to have further contacts with the leaders of Sinn Féin and the SDLP, as well as the Rev. Ian Paisley. I met Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness again last week. We have maintained contact with the other Northern Ireland parties, including the UUP, throughout this process. I had a meeting with David Trimble in Dublin.
The two Governments and the parties have worked hard together to resolve and bring fair closure to all the outstanding issues. In recent days, the Governments have provided final versions of the documents which we hope will comprise the agreement we are seeking to achieve. The agreement, if accepted, will open the way to a comprehensive partnership on the basis of the Good Friday Agreement. As it offers an opportunity to consolidate peace and political stability in Northern Ireland, we have strongly recommended its acceptance. Later this evening, we expect to be advised on whether agreement has finally been reached. If an agreement has been reached, we expect that it will be revealed tomorrow. In any event, I will meet the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, tomorrow afternoon in Belfast. We will have an opportunity to review and assess the position at that time.
I met the Rev. Jesse Jackson on Monday, 8 November, when we discussed his visit to Northern Ireland later that week.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. I am conscious this is a critical time in respect of the negotiations and the Good Friday Agreement. I wish the Taoiseach well in the concluding hours before the deadline is reached.
I obviously have a very different view from the Taoiseach on the recommendation he may make in respect of the early release of the killers of Jerry McCabe. I regard this matter as entirely separate to that of the Good Friday Agreement. That the Taoiseach made a commitment regarding the release of the killers of Jerry McCabe undermines his own office as Taoiseach. Will he confirm that the early release of the killers of Jerry McCabe was the subject of a Cabinet discussion? On Sunday night, the Tánaiste indicated clearly that it was not.
Documentation from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform made it very clear that the original position on the release of the killers of Jerry McCabe was part of a need to ensure public support for the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. In other words, the Government was very clear about its intent regarding the specific exclusion of these prisoners under the Agreement's regulations on early release. Will the Taoiseach state the status of the on-the-run prisoners in this regard? I understand that there are two, one of whom is in Nicaragua and the other of whom is in either Portugal or Spain.
From his negotiations with Sinn Féin leaders, why does the Taoiseach consider that the release of the four McCabe killers is so important to Sinn Féin that it might hold up the Agreement completely, bearing in mind that the killers were disowned by the republican movement after they gunned down detective Garda McCabe and that the incident involved the robbery of old age pension money outside a post office in Adare, County Limerick, resulting in tragic consequences? Does the Taoiseach have a view on why Sinn Féin personnel regard this matter as important enough to be on top of their agenda? It has apparently been conceded by the Taoiseach as being part of his agenda also.
I thank Deputy Kenny for wishing me well in the overall negotiations. We will see in the next 24 hours how they proceed and whether it is possible to reach a conclusion. There is still a number of outstanding issues, some of which are in the public domain and are fairly obvious. This is not related to the question the Deputy asked, but we will continue over the next day or so to try to bring about satisfactory conclusions. To be frank, there is not much of a role left for the Irish Government in that it has completed its work. It is now a matter for the parties and we are keeping in touch with as many parties as we possibly can.
I accept that Deputy Kenny has a different view from me on the release of prisoners. He asked if the Government had discussed the issue. It has done so many times, including many times recently. What the Tánaiste said is that the Government has not made a final decision. We cannot make a final decision until there is a final agreement and we know the position. Obviously, these are all big issues and the decision in question is not the only one to be made. There are not many people on the run. Most of the cases involving people on the run who were not charged in this jurisdiction relate to the early 1970s, almost 30 years ago. Many of those people have set up new lives in other countries. The whereabouts of some of them are hearsay. The Deputy mentioned two but there might be only one. The story is that they are in South America, one in Nicaragua and the other elsewhere. If we deal with one person on the run we deal with all of them. The list of known people on the run in this jurisdiction is short. What will happen ultimately and what protections we put in for them have yet to be finalised. We have said we would sign up for that and that question has been on the agenda for several years.
In response to Deputy Kenny's other questions, we released approximately 67 prisoners under the Good Friday Agreement. They were not all allowed out in April 1998 but over the end of that year and into 1999. Approximately 20 of those had very long sentences, many of them were in for the capital murders of Garda Hand and Garda Quaid. Many would not have been released until 2025, approximately 20 would not be released for another ten years from now. Each of those decisions was very difficult. The reason we made an exception for the killers of Garda McCabe was that at that stage they had not been charged, the case was pending. The IRA first stated that the killers were not its members, that it had no involvement with them. That changed and the IRA said the killing was not sanctioned, then said it the Munster brigade had sanctioned it. The story has changed several times over the years.
I held the view strongly that they should not be released and it is a bit ironic — it just shows how things move on — that I defended myself against many parties in this House and outside the House at that time for not releasing them. The only time during the peace process all the parties in the North, Unionist, loyalist, republican and Nationalist condemned me was on that issue because they said this was drawing a distinction between the 50 or so people who had murdered RUC and Army officers who were all getting out. I was asked why we drew this distinction: we drew it for those reasons. This is all on record, I read the quotes in recent days. We stuck firmly to that stance for several years. I am on record several times as saying that and the letter that the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform sent in December 1999 followed that position.
While Deputy Kenny takes a different view on this issue, he will appreciate that this process, like any other process, does not stay still. The change occurred in this issue when we wanted to move on and achieve acts of completion two years ago because the process was so slow and we set out what acts of completion were. We put many factors into the negotiations, mainly the International Monitoring Commission, where we drew a distinction between what was in the Good Friday Agreement and in the discussions at that time. We changed what became the famous "paragraph 13" and broadened the area. Naturally then everybody else expanded issues too. That is not a surprise to anybody. They broadened the terms, and Sinn Féin continued on its campaign, which, quite frankly, it had not stopped. The Deputy asked my opinion on Sinn Féin. I will quote from what I said in the House over six months ago.
Sinn Féin has made it clear that it is unable to convince the IRA leadership to take the necessary steps without the situation of the Castlerea prisoners being resolved.
Let me be clear that, for its part, the Government can consider the early release of these prisoners only in the context where the achievement of all other acts of completion, as set out, was assured. This means assurance of the complete ending of paramilitarism by the IRA, and decommissioning. This is something that we have been trying to achieve through intense engagement over the past two years and more. It is a goal for which successive Irish Governments have been striving since the foundation of the State, and it remains our goal.
That is what I said on 11 May 2004, six and a half months ago, and that remains the position. I do not deal with the IRA, but with the leadership of Sinn Féin, which said to me that there was no possibility of ever being able to bring decommissioning to finality, to get new instructions to volunteers or to be able to move to the process that we want if we do not consider the acts of completion from their side. There were approximately 125 or 126 issues to discuss on acts of completion, but we had three — that is what the Government had to deal with. Those were the issues from the report of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. Northern representatives from all parties should be able to attend infrequent debates of committees of the House at which they would deal with these issues. The second issue concerned IRA volunteers on the run and, third, the killers of Garda Jerry McCabe, who were subsequently charged with manslaughter and brought before the courts.
That is the position. We have worked on the basis of trying — time will tell whether we succeed — to complete this. I am not arguing with Deputy Kenny about this, but from listening to the comments people ask how can one switch from one position to another. We could have finalised matters. The other morning I heard Deputy Noonan on the radio making the point that, as a good negotiator, one should take the issue off. If I were playing with a pay deal or conditions of employment, that would be a good point, but in trying to bring about finality, we must bring to the International Monitoring Commission issues not covered in the Good Friday Agreement. Paragraph 13 of the Joint Declaration states:
Paramilitarism and sectarian violence, therefore, must be brought to an end, from whichever part of the community they come. We need to see an immediate, full and permanent cessation of all paramilitary activity, including military attacks, training, targeting, intelligence gathering, acquisition or development of arms or weapons, other preparations for terrorist campaigns, punishment beatings and attacks and involvement in riots. Moreover, the practice of exiling must come to an end and the exiled must feel free to return in safety. Similarly, sectarian attacks and intimidation directed at vulnerable communities must cease.
We threw the kitchen sink into paragraph 13, which was not part of earlier agreements or negotiations. Each of those matters is important to achieve an end to criminality rather than simply ending the other activities. That is what we did, and it was the right thing to do. However, that opened up the question of other matters being dealt with, and that is why we got into that position. If we ever want to see — I do not say this to Members of this House, but I will give them my best judgment, which is correct in this instance — the end of the IRA as constituted at present and for the past few decades, if we want to bring this phase to finality, we must do these things. If we do not, we may fall short.
No one would be happier to fall short on IMC issues than Sinn Féin, which abhors it and is totally opposed to everything about it. Sinn Féin would be delighted if I took some of those matters from the table, but we would fall short, and that would not be negotiating comprehensive acts of completion. It is hard and, having met the Garda Representative Association, I know that people get upset. I am very sorry for the position that Ann McCabe is in, as I am for that of other families. I did not feel great the day of the release, as a result of an agreement I made, of those responsible for the death of Garda Quaid, who were not due to be let out until 2025. That was not easy either. I do not want to forget those people, but this is the reality of the situation. If we want to bring this issue to an end, we will have to do something about it. We will not bring it to an end by wishing we will do so.
I wish the Taoiseach well in the Northern talks, particularly over the next few days. It is a difficult time. We need cool heads and decisive leadership, and I wish him well. Does the Taoiseach agree that in any peace process or peace negotiations humiliation of any party does not contribute to the development of the process? Will he convey the views of the broad Nationalist family in regard to Dr. Paisley, a man who has made a major contribution to conflict? Is the Taoiseach aware that former loyalist prisoners have said that they would not have got involved in sectarian killings if they had not been influenced by people like Dr. Paisley? Does the Taoiseach agree that many people are sick of the hypocrisy of Dr. Paisley, his gun certificate waving and his third force pals in regard to debate, guns and violence? Will the Taoiseach remind all those at the talks that one makes peace with one's enemies, not one's friends? Will he ensure that all victims of the conflict are treated with the same respect and dignity and that no one side has a monopoly on grief and suffering? I agree with the Taoiseach that the peace process should not stop or stay still, it is constantly changing and evolving, and we should all be part of that process.
I thank Deputy McGrath for his comments and good wishes. As he said, we should all keep cool heads, and I had better do so as well. Naturally, many of the things that have been said in the recent days have not been easy, although I understand the position.
I had the pleasure of sitting down with Dr. Paisley. I was a small boy when Dr. Paisley first hit national prominence in the country and I have listened to him all my life. As I said to him across the table — he would not mind my saying this on the floor of the Dáil — he was not my favourite Irish character over the generations. I fully understand what he has to do, where he is at and the steps he has to take. As he explained to me, he spent practically every day for a quarter of a century going to a house of somebody who was killed, somebody whom he directly knew or a constituent. He recited to me at length burials he attended of good friends and members of his church, people closely associated with his political party whom he saw killed. He said he hated everything Sinn Féin ever stood for, and the IRA even more. Now he has to contemplate not alone forgetting and forgiving that, but becoming part of an administration with its members. Deputy McGrath will acknowledge that is a big step. As Dr. Paisley reminded me recently, he is 78 or 79 years of age, and it is even a bigger step for a man of his age who has fixed views. These are huge steps.
To answer the Deputy, in respect of some of the things that have been said, the more one tries to move and look for something such as surrender, the less likely it is one will get it. One would not win that game, no more than I would if I tried to run a campaign of surrender and humiliation. That moves around every way. I will make these points again, I do not think it is necessary, but I will do so. On a number of occasions I have given my homily to Sinn Féin, loyalists and others in negotiations, particularly Sinn Féin because of its association with the Provisional IRA, the cross, opposite sides of the one coin and so on. They must also understand the difficulties. The current issue is the pressure on Mrs. Ann McCabe and her family and on the families of other gardaí who were shot — I refer to Garda Quaid and Garda Hand. There has not been a day when I have not dealt with Northern Ireland, and in all that time I have dealt with many sad cases. I have met RUC widows, the Omagh victims, as has Deputy Kenny, and the family of Seamus Ludlow. More recently I met the families of the victims of the Pettigo murders. I met families in Offaly and in Tipperary. I met the RUC Officers Association, now the PSNI. I met the families of British Army soldiers who were shot. Last week I again met victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings who still cannot understand why the great sovereign Government of this country closed the file on the bombings in August 1974, a few months later. The number of people I have met is endless, not to mention the number of individual cases. I met the family of Sean Browne recently in Croke Park, and those of several other people who were killed in the Troubles.
I accept that people have different views on this, but we can either try to bring this to finality this week or some other week or just go on and other killings will happen and a new generation will return to the old ways. That is what we face, and Deputy Finian McGrath is right on that point. We will just go down the slippery slope again. Not one of the cases mentioned is easy. I could tell horrifying stories about any one of them and put all the emotion one likes into them. However, that will not bring finality to the Agreement.
I assure the Taoiseach that he should have no doubt that we in Sinn Féin fully understand the difficulties of others. He should also note, and he should make no mistake about it, that what is being addressed presents enormous difficulties for republicans too. They have also suffered.
I commend the efforts of all those who are striving to ensure the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and, on the basis of equality and inclusivity, to allow for a successful conclusion to the current process of engagement. I hope that sufficient progress will be made in the coming hours to ensure that can be done at the earliest possible opportunity.
I wish to raise one important issue that is central to all of this, namely collusion between the armed forces of the British Government and loyalist paramilitaries. The Taoiseach will recall that the British Government at Weston Park agreed, "In the event that a public inquiry is recommended in any case, the relevant Government will implement that recommendation". The Taoiseach will also recall that Judge Cory recommended a public inquiry.
The Deputy should ask a question.
It is a question. Does the Taoiseach recall that Judge Cory recommended a public inquiry into the killing of Pat Finucane and identified the basic requirements for a public inquiry, one of which was that "the tribunal should have full power to subpoena witnesses and documents together with all the powers usually exercised in a public inquiry"?
Will the Deputy please ask a question?
I have a further question. Is the Taoiseach aware, and did he raise with Tony Blair at the opportunities on which these questions are based, that the British Government's new Inquiries Bill is a wholesale departure from the commitment made at Weston Park and also recommended by Judge Cory? Is the Taoiseach aware that the central tenet of the Inquiries Bill is to afford the British Government the power to determine when the inquiry sits in private and what material is to be held? Does the Taoiseach not agree that this is a mockery of any inquiry process? Has the Taoiseach raised this matter in his recent engagements with Tony Blair, given that all of this is hanging on the need for and the proposals around an inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane? Is the Taoiseach aware that the Finucane family has stated it will not co-operate with any such so-called inquiry established under this new British legislation because it would effectively be a gag on the inquiry?
The Deputy asked three questions on three different areas. I acknowledge that a significant proportion of the 3,000 people who died and of the tens of thousands who were injured, many seriously and many of whom were incapacitated for life, during the Troubles in Northern Ireland were republicans or members of republican families. I know that the trauma of this continues for many families.
Without mentioning a name, I think Deputy Ó Caoláin acknowledged the issues that affect the McCabe family and he would understand the concern surrounding those who are in prison for that crime and for whom his party seeks early release. There is great concern as to why these people acted as they did on that day and, if it was a robbery, why they could not have acted in another way. There are deeply held views on this matter among the community and the membership of the Garda Síochána. Whether these issues are dealt with now or in the long term, they remain to be dealt with, and whether those in prison serve a short sentence, if there is a deal, or a long sentence, there will be concern in the community in this regard. It is important that Sinn Féin, which has influence over these people through the IRA, seriously considers the question of whether they are released now or in the future. The Deputy knows of the concerns in regard to others who were released early.
I met Geraldine Finucane and her family recently and I arranged for the British Prime Minister to meet the Finucane family. I also discussed the issue with a senior representative of the British Government, Lord Falconer, and told him that Geraldine Finucane would not agree if the legislation fell short. I reminded Lord Falconer of the commitment made at Weston Park to set up the Cory inquiry into the six cases, which led to a wider inquiry. Geraldine Finucane, having watched her husband shot in front of her children, has lived for 15 years on the basis that she would get justice. She is not prepared to settle on the basis of this legislation because she wants the issues examined in an open and honest way. While she wants to be helpful, she wants the inquiry to be dealt with properly. We have proceeded here in dealing with the case of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan, and other cases will have to be dealt with during the inquiries.
We will continue to support Geraldine Finucane because we believe right is on her side. If the legislation is inadequate, as it currently is, we must try to have changes made to it and we have continued to lobby for this. If the legislation comes before the House of Commons, we will use whatever influence we have to work with those who can try to change it.
I have some sympathy with the position in which the Taoiseach finds himself. However, notwithstanding informative replies, I am not sure I understand or that he has made clear why he finds himself in this position. Will the Taoiseach explain why he allowed the issue of the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe to remain on the table? It cannot be dismissed on the basis that it is not a pay agreement. The real crime here is the murder of a garda, although, through intimidation, it emerged as convictions for unlawful killing. The overwhelming majority of our citizens, including the Taoiseach's supporters, find this a bridge too far and very difficult to stomach. Why did the Taoiseach allow this to stay on the table? Was it because Mr. Adams said this was the priority of the republican movement? At any stage since the institutions collapsed, surely it should and could have been made clear that whatever else happened, the undertakings given to the McCabe family would be observed. I do not think the Taoiseach has explained to the House why this remained on the table and why he is now in this position. It is a position of which I have some understanding.
Has the IRA met General de Chastelain? Is there a direct offer on decommissioning on the table from the IRA or are the Governments relying on a nod and wink from Sinn Féin? In the event there is no agreement, is it the intention of the two Governments to publish their proposals on a take it or leave it basis?
In terms of the Taoiseach's expectations about the situation we are now in, has the decommissioning issue been reduced not to a question of "when" or "if", but to a question of verification? Having regard to the fact that on the last occasion, General de Chastelain was not enabled to explain in any comprehensive fashion the decommissioning which had taken place because he was under an imposition of confidentiality imposed on him by the IRA, would it be helpful in the present circumstances if as a unilateral gesture the IRA removed the general from that imposition so that he could spell out in some considerable detail the historical decommissioning which has taken place? That might be a positive factor in the environment we are now in and in which verification again seems to be the issue rather than decommissioning itself.
I will try to answer all those questions. In regard to the first issue, I do not say it in terms of it being a pay agreement. I am saying that in the negotiations on this, the stakes have been entirely different and far more complex. Sinn Féin has always sought, as many others did at the time of the Good Friday Agreement, that these prisoners should be entitled to be out. Many argued the opposite, including the Government and others in this House.
Who are the others?
Who argued the opposite?
No. Who argued they should be out?
There was strong opinion in Northern Ireland at the time that everybody should be released under the Good Friday Agreement and that a murder in one case should not be distinguished from a murder elsewhere. Those remarks were made in this House as well. People were just making, I think, a balanced argument. The point was made in Northern Ireland and it was criticised strongly there. I looked back at the quotes from all parties because, as I said, one is taking the one case. In Northern Ireland, the murderers of 13 RUC officers, 16 UDR members, five ex-UDR members, ten army soldiers and two prisoners were released. My defence at that time was that we released several prisoners who were in for capital murder. Listening to the comments in the past few days, people forget that. The people who killed Garda Henry Byrne, Garda Seamus Quaid and Garda Francis Hand were released. Quite a large number of people were released who had been serving sentences for capital murder and would not have been due for release until 2025, not 2007 or 2008.
I want to answer Deputy Rabbitte's questions as fully as possible. Sinn Féin representatives never ceased looking for the release of these men but they were at all times refused and will still be refused until they comply with what we have stated — full decommissioning, new instructions to the IRA, and the IRA moving into peaceful mode. The IICD and the International Monitoring Commission will call the decommissioning issues, not the Governments. John de Chastelain will do so, as he has done previously. There is no question of prisoners being released until both those agencies have given their views. It is not a question of the deal being done tomorrow and those prisoners being released the following day — that is not the position. If the IICD says there has been full decommissioning of what is held by general headquarters and the IRA leadership, and the IMC says that new instructions have been issued to the volunteers, those are the terms of it.
Deputy Rabbitte asked why we did not say to Sinn Féin that we would not deal with this issue under any circumstances. The Supreme Court said this was a political issue for the Government ultimately to deal with. When we went to acts of completion — I will not go through the list again but it is set out in paragraph 13 — we said it was not good enough just to have a ceasefire when punishment beatings and other criminality, including targeting, was going on. We then changed our position stating that these issues all had to be dealt with in their totality if we were to bring about acts of completion. One of the acts of completion — it was the most important one for the Irish Government out of approximately 126 or 127 issues — was the release of these prisoners. Deputy Rabbitte posed a fair question: why did we not say that, while we wanted all the acts of completion, we would still not consider releasing them? As I said in the House six months ago, Sinn Féin made it absolutely clear that it was unable to convince the IRA leadership to take the necessary steps without the situation of the Castlerea prisoners being resolved. Without that, there would be no more progress on decommissioning, policing or other issues. I have dealt with Sinn Féin long enough to know that that was it — we were not going to make any progress and, therefore, these issues were not going to be addressed in a meaningful way. We always said that as part of a comprehensive deal everybody would state their positions. We made it absolutely clear — strongly and firmly — that we would not release them until these issues came about. It was not done on a nod and wink basis.
Deputy Rabbitte's second question was about decommissioning. There has been a meeting with the IRA representative and John de Chastelain. As I understand it, those meetings are ongoing and, although progress has been made, a number of issues has not been resolved. There are technical issues that must be dealt with and it is a matter for the international commission how these matters are undertaken. I do not want to be any more forthcoming than that about it. It is a matter for General de Chastelain who must decide how these matters are dealt with. Then there is the question of witnesses and verification. Most of that has been resolved but there is one major difficulty and I do not see the resolution of that. Deputy Rabbitte is aware of that difficulty and how the two sides perceive it. Both parties have strong, determined views on how they see it but I do not know where the trains meet on this one. I have been concerned for some weeks as to how that issue can be resolved. From the point of view of transparency and accountability, John de Chastelain, having had difficulty the last time, has been far more stringent this time for obvious reasons. We must remember that our objective is to achieve the full decommissioning of general headquarters arms. We are talking about different levels than where we were before. This technical work is at a different level.
It will be all or nothing if we do not get to that position. For reasons of transparency, the Irish Government has taken a middle view on that, which will become clear. If it does not work, my view is that this will not come around again for some considerable time for the reasons I have said before. This is not just my view but is based on what I have heard from the parties. If it does not work in the next 48 hours or less, we will be in a difficult position. People will pull back from their stated positions. It will be difficult to get back to where we are for many reasons, which I will say if that happens. I feel restricted from voicing them now.
I know the views of both sides on these issues and that both sides feel they have gone out on a limb. I have my view regarding the positions with which I agree or disagree but that does not help the process at this stage. My view is that we should publish at least most of the papers. It is important that the public see where we are at. From my own position, I would like such information to be made available as it would stop anybody saying that I was prepared to release the killers of Detective Garda McCabe for nothing.
That concludes Taoiseach's questions.
Considering that Taoiseach's questions began five minutes late, a little leeway should be given on the other side.
We have already gone beyond the time set for the beginning of questions to the Minister for Transport. Standing Order 45 is quite specific.
It is disrespectful to those Deputies who have been waiting to address questions to the Taoiseach.
I appreciate that Deputies Joe Higgins and Sargent have submitted questions and that other Members have their names on the list.
I wish to make a point of order. In keeping order in the House, the Ceann Comhairle might remind Members that a number of Deputies have questions on this matter. It is obvious that questioners and those answering, especially the Taoiseach, could be more succinct.
The Chair does its best to ensure that Members submit questions. The Chair has no control over a Minister answering questions.
A word in the right direction would be appropriate.