Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Mar 2018

Vol. 966 No. 4

Northern Ireland: Statements

I am very pleased to open the statements on Northern Ireland on behalf of the Government. It is very important that the House has this regular opportunity to discuss Northern Ireland matters. I look forward to hearing views on all sides, which will certainly inform the Government's approach. There have been a number of significant developments since our last discussion in this format in December. I first want to address briefly developments in the Brexit negotiations, which are of such fundamental importance for the peace process, founded on the Good Friday Agreement. The draft withdrawal agreement was published by the European Commission last week. The protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is an integral part of the draft withdrawal agreement, translates into legally binding terms the firm commitments made in December, including the guarantee of avoiding a hard border, protecting the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts and maintaining the common travel area.

On the Border issue, the Government has always been clear that our first preference is to avoid a hard border through a future relationship agreement between the EU and the UK. We share this view with the British Government. We have also made clear our commitment to exploring specific solutions to be proposed by the UK, if or when these are tabled. At the same time, and should it prove necessary, there is now the required legal provision to implement the backstop of maintaining full alignment in Northern Ireland with those rules of the Single Market and customs union necessary to protect North-South co-operation and to avoid a hard border.

The Government welcomes Prime Minister May's reiteration in her speech last Friday of the UK's steadfast commitment to the Good Friday Agreement and the agreement reached last December, including on avoiding a hard border. These commitments now need to be translated into concrete proposals. We look forward to the UK setting out its proposals in more detail across the negotiating table in Brussels. In this context, the Government will continue to advocate to the British Government, as our partner in the peace process and our closest neighbour and friend, that it pursue a future relationship that maintains the near-invisible Border we enjoy today.

That is by far the most effective and least disruptive way of maintaining the open Border, which brings such benefits for people, businesses and communities, North and South.

I met Michel Barnier in Brussels last week and participated, with him, in the General Affairs Council the next day, where we reviewed progress on the Article 50 negotiations overall. Michel Barnier and his team are at one with the Government as we work together to protect the Good Friday Agreement and the broader gains of the peace process. I want to express again the Government’s continued appreciation for the work of Michel Barnier and his task force and the professionalism and good judgment they are bringing to the role they have taken on. The strong and unstinting solidarity from other EU member states was also affirmed at the General Affairs Council again last week. This support is vital and is deeply appreciated by the Government. Ireland is now considering the draft withdrawal agreement with our EU partners, in advance of the task force’s negotiations with the UK on the proposed text.

As a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement, the Government has worked intensively over many months, with the British Government, to facilitate talks between the political parties on the formation of a new executive in Northern Ireland. The devolved, power-sharing institutions of the Good Friday Agreement are the only way forward for Northern Ireland, and are urgently required now. I have been engaged in the discussions at Stormont over the last nine months, working with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and engaging with the negotiating teams of political parties, in particular the two largest parties in recent months, to seek a way forward. The developments at Stormont three weeks ago today, with one party asserting that the negotiations could not reach a successful outcome, are obviously of very serious concern. The Government is now working with the British Government to decide on the best way forward.

The Irish and British Governments, as co-guarantors of the Agreement, have a shared responsibility to make every effort to seek a route that will get the devolved institutions operating again as soon as possible. We believe that significant progress was made in the discussions between Sinn Féin and the DUP in recent weeks at Stormont, as they sought to address the main outstanding issues. This included progress on legislating for the Irish language in Northern Ireland and also to demonstrate and promote a culture of respect more broadly, including for Ulster Scots language, heritage and culture. We understand there was also productive engagement between the parties on enhancing the sustainability of a new Executive.

There was also very important progress through the discussions both this year and last year at Stormont on dealing with legacy issues, which are very emotive and important for so many people in Northern Ireland. In that regard, a definitive move forward is urgently required with regard to a public consultation process on establishment of the Stormont House legacy bodies, and on adequate support for legacy inquests in terms of financial contribution. The Government remains determined to see that there is progress in the period ahead on these and other outstanding legacy issues, including the three all-party motions adopted by this House on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.

I acknowledge also that the smaller Northern Ireland political parties, which are also entitled to participate in the executive, contributed in important ways to the process in recent months, advocating for workable compromises, and underlining the imperative of getting a functioning executive in place has been helpful, albeit extraordinarily frustrating for the parties concerned. There was very significant commitment to a positive engagement from the SDLP, UUP and Alliance which will remain essential as both Governments seek a way forward.

The enhanced engagement that finally gained momentum at Stormont in January and February cannot simply be cast aside despite the significant setback of three weeks ago. People in Northern Ireland are entitled to expect that every effort will be made to secure the operation of the devolved institutions that they mandated in the last assembly election and that are at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement. I am in very regular contact with the Secretary of State, Karen Bradley, and we are fully in agreement that the two Governments will continue to seek ways to reset and restart the engagement between the parties. That objective will remain at the core of the Government’s approach in any future scenario.

The Government’s firm position is that the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent agreements must be implemented and operated in full. The Taoiseach has been clear in his discussions with Prime Minister May - as I have in my engagement with the Secretary of State - that the Government does not want to see the introduction of direct rule in Northern Ireland. As co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement, the British and Irish Governments have an obligation to uphold and protect the letter and spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, and we are also considering how best to do so in the current situation which is not straightforward.

It is very striking that at this moment, where there is a shortfall in political engagement at Stormont, that civic society has come to the fore to speak up for the interests of people living and working and co-operating together in Northern Ireland. There have been important contributions in recent weeks from civic representatives of nationalism, North and South, and also from civic unionism this week. The Taoiseach and I were glad to meet with representatives of the nationalist group in Dublin last week. The meeting itself went on for twice as long as it was scheduled, if I recall correctly we met for nearly three hours.

We also very much want to engage with the civic unionist group which has formed recently, as we do regularly with other unionist representatives in politics, business and at community level. There are different perspectives of course, but what I hear from people at the community level and from civil society - whether nationalist, unionist or neither - is a vision for a Northern Ireland that works on the basis of mutual respect, parity of esteem and partnership, the core principles of the Good Friday Agreement of 20 years ago. It is incumbent on politics and politicians to live up to that, in this House and north of the Border.

As a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement, the Government will continue to do everything possible to see that the power-sharing institutions of the agreement can be established as quickly as possible - and that they operate effectively on the basis of those core principles, in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland.

In just over a month, we will mark the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. A few weeks after that, on 22 May, we will mark 20 years since the agreement was overwhelmingly endorsed by the people in referendums, North and South. These are anniversaries worth celebrating despite the current political challenges in Northern Ireland. Indeed, in some ways, the current impasse makes celebrating the principles of the Good Friday Agreement all the more important. These were transformational moments in the shared history of this island, and indeed these neighbouring islands of Ireland and Britain. Our prospects were profoundly changed for the better, both over the last 20 years and into the future. I think that certain glib and politicised suggestions from some quarters outside this House about the Good Friday Agreement have been definitively and resoundingly answered in recent weeks. In that regard, we wholeheartedly welcome the clear messages of support for the agreement from the British Government and the many friends and supporters of the peace process in Westminster and elsewhere in British political and civic life.

The Government is contributing to and supporting a programme of events to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the agreement in Belfast, Dublin, London, Washington and elsewhere in the weeks ahead. I was very glad to have the opportunity two weeks ago to address one of the first such events, organised in New York by Co-operation Ireland, with Senator George Mitchell and so many other friends of Ireland and supporters of the peace process from the US. It is extraordinary how powerful that support remains on the other side of the Atlantic, and the level of detail that they want in order to understand what is preventing the re-establishment of devolved government in Northern Ireland.

We are co-guarantors of this agreement. The Government holds fast to the evidence and the certainty that the agreement represented a new beginning for peace and reconciliation, which must be protected and deepened.

I know this view is shared across the House and thank Members for their support for what we are trying to do. The Government will continue, as it has always done, to do all that it can to ensure the verdict of the people in 1998 which was a resounding call for peace and reconciliation can be represented and realised through the institutions and full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in letter and spirit. I look forward to hearing colleagues’ views and having an opportunity to respond at the end of the debate.

By any objective measure, this is an exceptionally serious moment for Northern Ireland, North-South relations and relations with the United Kingdom. The core building block of 20 years of progress is endangered and there remains a threat of new economic and social divisions. The breakdown three weeks ago was not an isolated event. It was the logical conclusion of practices over a lengthy period and the additional instability of the disastrous decision in an English-driven referendum. Given that we have been denied a full debate in recent weeks on the Brexit negotiations, I will address this issue later in my statement.

The specific issue which appears to have been the cause of the failure to agree to establish an executive is dramatically smaller than the long list of issues that have been overcome in the past. It is not in the same universe as getting agreement in place in the first place, getting the armed wings of political movements to decommission, establishing a police service with cross-community support, achieving the devolution of policing powers or the many other much more intractable problems. There is simply no way of avoiding the fact that the cycle of dysfunction and breakdown to which we have been pointing for years is the cause of the crisis and it is only when the underlying problems are addressed that will we be able to deal with it.

The draft agreement that was leaked to the media has not been confirmed by either Government and it is not sure that either Government actually has a full copy of it. It appears, however, to be a reasonable and balanced compromise. In it Sinn Féin completely reverses its position on the core issue it cited when collapsing the institutions.

That did not take long.

That is welcome. Where once the renewable heating initiative and Arlene Foster were so fundamental that the Executive and the Assembly had to be brought down, now they are barely worth a mention. I can certainly believe an agreement between the two parties at negotiator level was blocked subsequently by the DUP’s wider leadership. In this it is quite similar to the situation where an agreement reached by the late Martin McGuinness was blocked by the wider Sinn Féin leadership. The game of claim and counter-claim was just as loud then. Fundamentally, the DUP's objections are worse than flawed. They are based on a refusal to address an important issue in the broader agenda of respect for diverse backgrounds. The procedure of three acts representing one overall policy is highly convoluted, but the net effect of what is being proposed is a reasonable accommodation which respects the Irish language and strengthens the distinct tradition of the Ulster Scots. If it was subject to a balanced legislative process and implemented without sectarian intent, the proposal has the capacity to take this issue away from the political sphere.

Is dona an mhaise go bhfuil an Ghaeilge tarraingthe isteach i lár easaontais i mBéal Feirste le roinnt blianta anuas. Tá sé sin ag imeacht go mór ó spiorad Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta agus comhaontuithe eile ina dhiaidh sin nuair a bhí Fianna Fáil páirteach go díreach sna cainteanna sin. Chreideamar riamh gur bealach é cultúr agus teanga le hathmhuintearas a chothú idir traidisiúin éagsúla seachas deighilt a chothú.

Nuair a bhí mise ag bunú coiste reachtúil chun maoirsiú a dhéanamh ar ábhair a chur ar fáil do scoileanna lán-Ghaeilge, chuir Sinn Féin in iúl dom go raibh siad i gcoinne obair an pháirtí a cheangal leis an ngné uileÉireann. It is appalling that the Irish language has been allowed to be perceived as a sectarian issue. This goes against the reality of a history where it was absolutely not a means of dividing people. The Church of Ireland produced the first printed book in Irish. For centuries Protestants have been key leaders in every stage of the protection of the memory of the Gaelic language and traditions, including the language revival movement. My first visit to Northern Ireland, as Minister for Education and Science, was to look at Irish-medium education in west Belfast and discuss additional supports for teacher training to serve Irish-medium education. I also made funding available for supporting Irish language teaching materials that could be shared with schools in Northern Ireland. Nothing approaching the current party political divide on the issue was present at the time. The offensive and sectarian statements made by some DUP politicians bout the Irish language are reflective of a dramatic move backwards. While the recent speech of Arlene Foster was temperate and encouraging, the aggressive push-back against simple legislation should lead that party to reflect more.

The comment of the last Sinn Féin leader, Deputy Gerry Adams, that the equality agenda was “the Trojan horse of the republican strategy” caused immense long-term damage. He did not speak for the overwhelming majority and those comments are no excuse for blocking the legislation. The use of petitions of concern to block marriage equality is a clear abuse of a process which was purely designed to protect legitimate community interests. It is offensive that it can be used to prevent people from getting married and Fianna Fáil will support any reasonable agreement that will deliver marriage equality through overriding the illegitimate use of petitions of concern. Should these issues be overcome, it remains the fact that there will be another issue sometime soon that may lead to a similar breakdown. Unless we change the fundamental dynamic of discussions and engagement, the cycle of crisis, resolution, complacency and renewed crisis will continue. This is the fundamental challenge: how do we stop doing the same thing again and again? How do we return to the dynamic that previously delivered major breakthroughs and had broad support on all parts of this island and in Britain?

The situation has been made dramatically more difficult by the impact of the appalling Brexit process, but this does not mean that we should simply throw our hands in the air and give up on the Northern institutions. The strength and importance of the Good Friday Agreement are the reason Ireland has any real status in the Brexit negotiations. We have to expect some destructive Brexiteers to increase their pressure to undermine the agreement. Let there be no doubt that a unilateral movement by the British Government to abrogate the agreement would be a very dark moment in its history. It is an international agreement, assented to in referendums and parliamentary ratification. It is reflected in the domestic laws of both countries and acknowledged by international organisations. Nothing in the Brexit referendum gives it the right to abandon the agreement. Doing so would mark a dramatic move away from the rule of law and destroy the United Kingdom's international status. Democratic states that respect laws do not unilaterally abrogate solemn agreements. To be fair to Prime Minister May, last week she stated she was absolutely committed to the agreement. Let us take her at her word and act accordingly. The first requirement is that we re-establish some credible partnership with the government in London as leaders of the peace process, not just guarantors and participants.

As part of a wider tetchiness, the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach appear to be outraged at the idea that anyone should question them or the approach of their party towards the peace process in government. The Tánaiste, in particular, seems to believe anyone who questions him “doesn’t know what they are talking about."

It depends on the criticism.

Let me make it very simple: no one has the right to question Fianna Fáil's good faith in relation to Northern Ireland. I refer to speech after speech made in the House and elsewhere that show how for seven straight years we have been pointing to the inevitability, unfortunately, of reaching this crisis point if the two Governments did not change their behaviour. We would much rather have talked about how great the progress was, but during the years the facts did not support this.

The current Government does not appear to understand the difference between the number of meetings one holds and the level and quality of that engagement. The fact is that no one can credibly claim that the scale and quality of engagement has been anything near what it was under the Ahern-Blair or Cowen-Brown leaderships. A critical difference then was that there was no negotiating over the airwaves or obsession with briefing before and after every contact. There is no comparable example of the fiasco of the visit of the Taoiseach and British Prime Minister to Belfast, which appears to have actually accelerated the breakdown. Having participated in relations between our Government and the unionist parties, I find it disappointing to see the current palpable lack of trust. We have gone from a position whereby I was allowed to chair a strand one session to one whereby key parties now refuse even to attend a meeting with the Taoiseach. Equally, we have been too silent on the near systematic exclusion of nearly 45% of the Northern electorate from representation in the talks. I noted the Tánaiste's remarks in this regard, but it is time for this to be changed. I am surprised by the lack of self-reflection we have seen from the Taoiseach and Tánaiste in identifying failed dynamics in recent years. It is also unhelpful that media briefings and statements are now so central to dialogue. In the past, the previous Sinn Féin leader adopted the approach-----

The Deputy should try to be accurate on an issue as important as this.

I did not interrupt the Tánaiste.

Deputy Martin, without interruption.

I make these comments in a very constructive-----

The Deputy is misleading the House-----

They are very constructive comments, actually.

Deputy Martin without interruption.

I will just make the point-----

On an issue such as this-----

There have been virtually-----

-----no media briefings on talks-----

Even Deputy Martin's former party leader is critical of his approach to the North.

Deputies, please. Allow Deputy Martin to continue. Deputy Martin, over to you.

I thank the Acting Chairman. I have been making very constructive speeches on Northern Ireland here for the past six years. People should listen to and reflect on what I am saying. The fundamental dynamics have not been working over the past six or seven years.

The Deputy called for the institutions to be pulled down.

Even the DUP and Sinn Féin would have attacked me three years ago for pointing this out. I regret we are where we are in this regard.

The Deputy called for the institutions to be collapsed-----

Deputy Martin, without interruption.

Deputy Martin will ignore that point.

Deputy McDonald's predecessor, Deputy Adams, adopted the approach of angrily refuting the idea that Sinn Féin had any case to answer on any issue. High Court findings of sectarian behaviour, media revelations of funding abuses, sectarian comments about getting one over on the Protestants in elections and so on were ignored. Instead we got ever more elaborate attacks on the motivation of the people asking the questions. I hope Deputy McDonald will take a different approach during her leadership.

The draft agreement does show serious movement in Sinn Féin's position. If it had adopted a similar position a year and a half ago, the Northern institutions would never have collapsed. I respect the right of any party to say it will not go to Westminster. What is unjustifiable is the decision to block anyone else from going. The money and effort which was put into preventing any nationalist voice in Westminster, even to the extent of handing a seat to the DUP, may soon have a disastrous effect for Ireland if only a few votes are involved in rejecting a fair customs solution for the Border.

The Deputy is blaming the electorate now.

However, the Northern institutions are quite different. At a moment when the radical Brexiteers are trying to undermine the Good Friday Agreement, the failure to have a working assembly and Executive makes Ireland even more vulnerable. Given that Deputy Adams said Brexit is the defining challenge of this age, allowing the institutions to be re-established should surely be the priority.

The Governments can surely come up with a mechanism for delivering the language legislation, which was in any event originally due to be legislated for in London. The same applies for marriage equality, with both the British Labour Party and the Scottish National Party willing to ensure non-government time is provided if needed. A unilateral decision by Sinn Féin to return to the assembly and the Executive, even for a limited period, could dramatically change the dynamic of Brexit discussions. It would allow the anti-Brexit majority in Northern Ireland to have a voice and to provide the practical mechanisms which would be essential for any special economic zone or customs zone to function. This is the hard reality. No backstop or special zone can work without a devolved government in Northern Ireland. What we cannot do is to keep pushing ahead with the same strategy and hope things turn out differently.

My party believes that the Governments should take direct charge. They should revert to the independently chaired all-party process and stop leaving everything in the hands of the two main parties. Whatever is wrong with the relations between the Governments, there is a problem and they should acknowledge it. The enormous agenda which is ahead of us is becoming more urgent by the day. Whatever Brexit scenario becomes the final one will require huge work, ranging from a special economic zone to the chaotic Brexit to which the increasingly frantic hypernationalists in England appear attracted. The path of peace has involved overcoming enormous hurdles. The spirit of co-operation and common objectives, built in hundreds of contacts away from the media, delivered for this country. We urgently need a return to that spirit.

The next slot is Sinn Féin's. Deputy Doherty was jumping out of the trap earlier but he may speak now. He is sharing time with Deputy Cullinane.

I am. Over the past 13 months, Sinn Féin has been involved in negotiations to implement previous agreements, secure the rights of citizens and re-establish the power-sharing Executive on the basis of equality and respect. We engaged in good faith at all times. We were proactive and we stretched ourselves in search of a positive outcome. We reached a draft agreement with the DUP leadership. We were disappointed the DUP decided to walk away from this draft agreement, as a result of which it collapsed the talks process. If the DUP leadership had stayed the course, the Executive would have been re-established to implement the agreement, set a budget and work to deliver for all. Tuigim gur aontaigh an Rialtas go raibh bunús réitigh ann, agus ba mhaith liom aitheantas a thabhairt don mhéid a bhí déanta ag an Tánaiste agus ag a oifigigh agus iad i mbun na hoibre seo. Tá muidne i Sinn Féin iontach buíoch dóibh as a gcuidiú. The rights we advocated are not Sinn Féin issues; they are the people's issues. They are rights for a whole society. As Michelle O'Neill said, and it cannot be repeated enough, what we win now, we win for everybody. This has been Sinn Féin's guiding mantra in our efforts to restore the political institutions.

I am aware that this Government is aware of the changes in society and the attitudes of Irish citizens living in the North. As the Minister mentioned, he recently met representatives of civic nationalism who have made the case for the Irish Government to act, to protect rights and to build an inclusive society. Ba chóir dom an mhuintir ó Thuaidh agus ó Dheas a mholadh de bharr na tacaíochta atá á thabhairt acu don tionscnamh seo. Tá athrú mór tagtha ar an tsochaí agus, mar atá a fhios againn, agus tá sí ag athrú go fóill. Níl an DUP sásta aghaidh a thabhairt ar an fhírinne seo. Gaeilgeoirí want rights. LGBT citizens want their rights. Citizens waiting for the truth about what happened to their loved ones want their rights. No matter how hard the leadership of the DUP might wish it were otherwise, this changed society will not disappear simply because the DUP refuses to share power on the basis of integrity, respect and equality. Likewise, republicanism is not going anywhere. This is the social and political landscape with which the DUP must get to grips.

This regressive approach also dominates the DUP's approach to the issue of Brexit. The DUP has hitched itself to the Tory Brexiteer wagon. We note that the European Union, in its draft withdrawal treaty, has recognised the need for special arrangements for the North, this including remaining within the customs union. This is welcome progress. The DUP and Tory wrecking agenda cannot prevail, and it is the job of the Government to defend Irish interests against that agenda. The British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, in our view, must be convened as a matter of urgency. It is important that I say I do not believe that the regressive attitudes and approach of the DUP are shared throughout all of unionism. I genuinely believe that many people from the unionist community want to live in a shared rights-based society, want the political institutions working on the basis of equality, are in favour of marriage equality, recognise the importance and the value of the Irish language and its promotion, seek reconciliation and respect their nationalist neighbours. They have no truck with those who still hold a candle to the days of the old Orange state and they do not want to see a return to a harder border.

I welcome the recent letter from members of Civic Unionism, which laid out the need for the diverse voices of unionism to be heard.

Recently, Deputy Mary Lou McDonald and Michelle O’Neill met the British Prime Minister in London. It is clear that the British Government has no plan to move things forward, save to say we need a period of reflection. I am not entirely sure what that means to Mrs. May, but to us it means inertia. To me, it means the very dangerous prospect of a vacuum opening up and rather than things getting better things becoming more entrenched. I have to say that for the head of the British Government not to have a thought out, proactive position hand in hand with Dublin is to me alarming.

I am also mindful of the fact that the Tory government is propped up by the support of the DUP. This robs the government of even the pretence of impartiality in the minds of many. My party has a concern that the Prime Minister, Theresa May, is seeking to put things on the long finger in order to protect that arrangement. For our part, we made it clear that the collapse of the talks by the DUP cannot be an excuse for the continued denial of rights to citizens in the North and the refusal to implement previous agreements. Sinn Féin is a party of dialogue and we want to be involved in dialogue. Of course, we remain open to discussing avenues for progress with all parties and both Governments. However, let me repeat what we have said time and again. We cannot have a never-ending cycle of negotiations and impasse because one party has decided that certain people must remain sitting at the back of the bus. That simply cannot happen.

Ní fiú cainteanna ar mhaithe le cainteanna amháin. Ba cheart go soláthródh idirbheartaíocht torthaí dearfacha agus follasacha do shaoránaigh. Thug muid gealltanas nach dtig linn dul ar ais chuig an status quo, agus tá tiomantas daingean againn don ghealltanas sin.

A way forward must be found and this House should play a part in finding it. Hurling from the ditch, sadly the approach so often taken by the leader of Fianna Fáil, is not going to solve anything. No matter what happens in the North, the default position of Deputy Micheál Martin is to criticise Sinn Féin in order to score cheap political points and he did it again tonight with his single transferable speech. He continues to refuse to acknowledge that he himself called for the suspension of the institutions a number of years ago.

If he wants to be the voice of nationalists in the North, there is a by-election in West Tyrone and he can fight that election and if he wins it he can represent that community in Westminster.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Deputy Martin's approach is narrow-minded and unhelpful and though it is unsurprising it remains disappointing. I am sure that what has happened after many other speeches he has made recently in the House will happen again after tonight. His colleagues on the backbenches and some on the Front Bench will come to me and other members of our party and apologise and state Deputy Martin's views do not represent the views of grassroots Fianna Fáil. This happens on a regular basis on the corridors of these Houses and outside these Houses.

I say to Deputy Martin and to others that we need to be constructive. The DUP is calling for a return to direct rule, a form of direct rule that was ended a generation ago and cannot be allowed to return. Direct rule is destructive. Direct rule ended with the Good Friday Agreement, which is the people's agreement. The Irish Government, the Tánaiste's Government, is a co-equal guarantor of the people's agreement. The Government needs to be unequivocal that direct rule is over, that it is outside of the agreements and is not returning. However, we cannot allow a political vacuum to develop or tolerate the continued denial of rights of citizens. The two Governments must act now. The Good Friday Agreement provides for a British Irish Intergovernmental Conference to reflect the co-equal and co-guarantor status of the two Governments. The two Governments must initiate this conference as a matter of urgency and move to implement previous agreements. These include an Irish language Act, the release of funds for legacy inquests and progress on the legacy mechanisms as well as safeguarding the rights of citizens, including the right to marriage equality. The people, North and South, deserve no less.

We have juxtaposed the speech and contribution of the Tánaiste, and bear in mind the Tánaiste was somebody who was at the heart of those negotiations and efforts to secure the restoring of the institutions in the North, and that of the classic hurler on the ditch, Deputy Micheál Martin, who again has come into the Chamber not to be constructive, as he said, but simply to repeat the very partisan speeches he has made on the North since he became leader of Fianna Fáil. As Deputy Doherty said, he made the single transferable speech that is made every single time. The vast majority of nationalists in the North see through it. The vast majority of them want us to be constructive and the vast majority of people-----

That is why you collapsed the institutions.

The vast majority of people outside the House who are nationalist in the North want all the parties to be constructive and they understand the motivations that lie behind the attacks which come from Teachta Martin. They are not about making sure we deal with the real complexities and challenges that present in the North. It is all to do with what he sees as the electoral challenge from Sinn Féin in the South and that is deeply disappointing. He has been, without a shadow of a doubt, the most cynical and divisive leader of Fianna Fáil in the history of his party when it comes the North. This is something he should really reflect on. It is deeply disappointing to nationalists in the North.

The biggest issue facing the North, as the Tánaiste knows, is Brexit. Of course we need to get the institutions up and running again. We had a draft outline agreement with the DUP and it walked away from it. We want the institutions to be up and running but they have to be on the basis of equality. We cannot cherry pick equality. We know what needs to be done to get the institutions up and running. Brexit is the big fundamental challenge. Last week we had three big events. We had a significant speech and contribution from the leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, in which he moved his party's position to a more sensible and practical one on wanting a customs union between Britain and the European Union. This is something the vast majority of people in the House would want to see. It is in the best interests of the people in Britain and in the best interests of the island of Ireland. We then had the legal text that gives effect to the backstop agreement and the joint report agreed a number of months ago between the British Government and the European Union. That speech was rejected out of hand by Downing Street and Theresa May. She said no British Prime Minister could countenance what was proposed in the legal text, except she had done so only a couple of months earlier. We then had the speech from Theresa May on Friday, which again rejected what was said by the European Union. She reiterated her view that the North would come out of the customs union and the Single Market, as would Britain, and that we can in the same way and at the same time avoid a hardening of the Border and protect the Good Friday Agreement.

We had a very lengthy discussion today at the stakeholder forum, which the Tánaiste chairs and at which I was present. What we are all trying to do is decipher what is spin, what are the obvious utterances coming from the British Prime Minister which are simply to appease the hard Brexiteers in the Tory Party and the DUP, and what is the actual position of the British Government. I have long said, and I have said it to the Tánaiste several times and I have said it in the House, that what we need to do in this State and what we need to do across the island is, in the first instance, to protect the interests of the people of Ireland but also to find common cause with people in Britain who want to protect the Good Friday Agreement and want to avoid a hardening of the Border. We will do this, in my view, by working with those in the Tory Party and the British Labour Party who want a form of customs union between Britain and the European Union and, in fact, want Britain to stay in the customs union. This is the best outcome. The Government stated the backstop arrangement was bullet-proof and copperfastened and would be absolutely the bare minimum we would get.

How is that the case when Prime Minister Theresa May said categorically on Friday that there can be no border in the Irish Sea, while at the same time saying that there will not be full alignment in regulations and standards between Britain and the European Union? In that scenario, how will the backstop agreement be implemented? When the European Union put the backstop agreement into a legal formula, it was rejected out of hand by the British Government. Where, then, is the bulletproof backstop arrangement which we were promised and which the Taoiseach told us was in the bag, a claim reiterated by the Tánaiste on several occasions? That is not a criticism of the Irish Government or the Tánaiste, by the way. It is a criticism of the British Government's lack of ability to bring forward practical and tangible solutions that will deal with the issues facing Ireland, and the afterthought that the British Government and the hard Brexiteers have given to the impact on Ireland.

We sincerely wish the Tánaiste, the Irish Government and the European Union well in their negotiations with the British Government. However, the frustration felt by people in the North with the attitude of the British Government is very real. It is Groundhog Day; we seem to go back to the same space every time. It gives us the high-level principles and say that it wants to protect the Good Friday Agreement and avoid the hardening of the Border, but does not give us any practical solutions as to how it is going to bring it about. That is deeply frustrating.

Like other speakers, I welcome the opportunity to address the House on the issue of Northern Ireland and the various issues that impact on Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland as a whole. The normal process available to us to do that is through Taoiseach's Questions, and we have repeatedly said that it is wholly inadequate. The notion that we occasionally have 15 minutes to make statements is not really good enough. We need a better format for dealing with these issues, and the Taoiseach has acknowledged this. Maybe it is because it is so seldom that the contributions of Members are from a party political perspective, as we have heard already tonight. That prevails instead of an openness to hearing other people's views and a genuine respect for the fact that we actually have different perspectives, because we have different traditions - very deep traditions going back to the foundation of the State in the case of my party. We all have valid things to say and we should respect each other where these matters are concerned.

This time last year, there were 37,611 people on the housing waiting list in Northern Ireland. Some 23,694 were deemed to be in housing stress. Some 11,889 people were deemed to be homeless. Despite our manifest housing crisis in the Republic, there were more homeless deaths in Belfast than in Dublin. Yet Northern Ireland is being denied a government to tackle these fundamental social problems.

As of June, there were more than 250,000 people in Northern Ireland waiting for an appointment to see a consultant. Of that 250,000, 65,000 had been waiting for more than a year. There are 110,000 people awaiting a diagnostic test in Northern Ireland. Some 72,500 people are waiting for inpatient or day care. Yet for a full year, the people of Northern Ireland have been denied a government. In this House we know that solving these really difficult social problems in housing, health and elsewhere is not easy. However, solving them without a government is immeasurably more difficult.

The economy suffers too. An EY economic eye report in December put growth in Northern Ireland at less than a third of the growth rate in the Republic of Ireland. That means jobs, living standards and the future of young people there, whether nationalist or unionist, are falling further behind with every month that goes by. That is before we address the lunacy of Brexit. Yet that hardly merits a thought. It certainly has not merited a government.

To analyse the blame game of who is responsible for the failure to establish the Northern Ireland Executive is effectively to be joined to it. We have heard echoes of that already tonight. Pointing out the contradictions in the positions of either side leaves one open to the charge of being party to one side or to the other. One side is pursuing a Brexit deal in the House of Commons, for which it has no mandate form the people of Northern Ireland. It is belligerent to the point that it is supporting a Brexit deal designed by England, anathema to the regions, which British Government studies suggest will hit Northern Ireland hardest. That side is terrified to concede advances on any issue, because to do so is automatically viewed by hardliners as a political defeat.

The other party, as is its wont, eschews its responsibility to ensure that Northern Ireland's voice is heard, protests the Border, reminds others of their duty, but does not show up where it can make a difference. Too happy with a European backstop position that annoys the British and the unionists, it is less focused on the damage that an east-west border will do to the economic well-being of the people of the island of Ireland as a whole. In fact, an east-west border will be much more economically damaging than the very unwelcome North-South Border. It is afraid to take its seats in Westminster to vote on an issue of existential importance to the island of Ireland and to the people of Ireland.

It seems clear that we have reached a point where both sides cannot be satisfied with what satisfies others almost by definition. I listened to the Tánaiste's speech tonight, and he said, as instanced by Deputy Cullinane, that the Government welcomes Prime Minister May's "steadfast commitment" to the agreement reached last December. Steadfast commitment?

That is what she said.

She rejected the legal statement of that agreement, absolutely and totally. Deputy Martin, quite reasonably, said that we must take the woman at her word.

That is in relation to the Good Friday Agreement.

The problem is which word. Is it her word when she that she signed up to the agreement reached last December or is it her word that no Prime Minister could sign up to the agreement that she signed up to last December? Earlier, I raised with the Taoiseach the statement which today set out the negotiating position of the EU 27 in very stark and clear terms. What we are undoubtedly heading towards is a hard border on this island and between these islands. We can pretend and talk in pretence, but that is where we are heading.

Both of those are economically damaging to the peoples North and South. It is lovely to say that it is not. I am encouraged by that and I respect the Tánaiste's view, but the conundrum of last December has not been resolved. There cannot be a situation where there is no border between North and South and no border between east and west, but the North is in a different customs union to the South. What, then, is the solution?

We are not at the end of the negotiations.

The Tánaiste says the solution is the backstop, but the backstop cannot be implemented by the British Government. Let us stop the pretence. Let us not delude ourselves that the backstop is available when all else fails.

The hardline position being taken by the EU 27 may be understandable because they have been extraordinarily helpful in giving space to a British Prime Minister under a lot of pressure. However, reality has to come home some time.

For too long, the people of Northern Ireland have been left without a say in the critical Brexit talks that have been under way over the last year. Unfortunately, the two main parties have diametrically opposed positions on the issue of Brexit itself, but a functioning executive and devolution would at least provide a political structure to begin to address these issues. At precisely the time when the island of Ireland most badly needed to make its voice to be heard in these critical discussions, that is not happening and it is not going to happen, and no blame game changes that hard reality.

We are a long way from the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement when, as touched on by Deputy Micheál Martin, intractable, generationally difficult challenges were overcome by people who set out to overcome those issues. The middle ground has been demoralised and sidelined while hard-liners exploit issues for sectarian electoral advantage. Both Governments have responsibilities in this regard. We have all known that the pending disaster that is Brexit would crowd out other issues, and so it is with Northern Ireland. Bluntly, the sight of the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister rushing to Belfast, to be joined in an outcome in which they were not sufficiently involved to know that it was still in jeopardy, would be comic if it was not so tragic, if it did not have such deep and disturbing social and economic consequences for all of us.

The backlash and recriminations that followed from the most recent failure to secure a deal makes it less likely that a compromise will be reached in the coming days, weeks or even months. We are on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement that the Tánaiste says will be celebrated in Washington, here and everywhere else. I remember so well the joy it brought to the people of this island, the relief after the real physical and emotional pressure on people across the island, but particularly in Northern Ireland. Given that, the lack of progress towards restoring the fundamentals of that agreement - a power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland - is enormously disappointing on this 20th anniversary. It appears Northern Ireland will remain without devolved government for the foreseeable future.

The breakdown also has implications for the Republic of Ireland. Ultimately, these are people's livelihoods and well-being we are talking about. What has been lacking in Northern Ireland is political will, and a significant cause of that is the confidence and supply deal and the enhanced role of the DUP in Westminster. It may be time for a new approach to ensure the institutions are set up again. If republicans believe they cannot have faith in London because of inter-party Westminster arrangements, then we must be imaginative. None of us says other than that those fears are well-founded - how can one have trust in the impartiality of a government that is dependent on one side in the North? How are we going to address these issues? Direct rule cannot be countenanced. However, there have been calls for a British-Irish intergovernmental conference, most vocally by the SDLP. It has not been convened since 2007, principally because the institutions were working for those years. Nonetheless, it is clear that the bones of a deal between the two parties had the potential to be agreed a fortnight ago. That deal should be put on the table at such a conference. It should be agreed between the Governments that the most difficult parts of it, namely, the Irish language, legacy issues and the issue of marriage equality, should be implemented through a package of legislation in Westminster. By removing these road blocks, it would create the space for a devolved administration to return.

The two Governments, as guardians and guarantors of the agreement, have the responsibility to forge forward a new path. We must get parties back to the table under the umbrella of getting back to work for all the people in Northern Ireland. Unionist fears and Nationalist concerns are well founded and they always have been, but each of them took a step of courage in the past. Another step, with a new generation of political and civil leaders, must be taken now.

On 12 February the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister arrived in Belfast. They were full of hope. The British Prime Minister said the agreement would be up and running very soon. The Taoiseach said he was hopeful the two parties could come to an agreement this week. However, people should not count their chickens before they hatch.

The breakdown of these talks is a reflection of, and a product of, sectarian polarisation. The two election campaigns of 2017 were best described by commentators as the mother of all sectarian headcounts, with Sinn Féin and the DUP consolidating their positions as the largest political forces in their respective communities. Both parties have continued to beat the sectarian drum. The most naked reflections of this sectarianism can been seen in the comments of the DUP's Gregory Campbell in defending the erection of Parachute Regiment flags outside Derry in the run-up to the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday massacre, and in the sectarian buffoonery of Sinn Féin's Barry McElduff, whose video on the anniversary of the Kingsmill massacre caused widespread anger across both communities.

Arlene Foster is partly the victim of her own success. For most, the DUP adopted an increasingly hardline approach on an Irish language Act. In doing so, they stirred up sectarian tensions and fears with unfounded claims, including the claim that the Irish language would become compulsory in all schools. After the DUP had said "Yes", its previous mantra was its undoing as it came under pressure from grassroots Unionism. Sinn Féin also hardened its position in recent months, making little effort to counter provocative proposals from some Irish language activists, including in the press, that street signs in predominantly Protestant areas such as the Shankill and east Belfast should be in Irish and that quotas for Irish language speakers should be introduced for jobs in the public sector.

Socialists support legal protection for the Irish language, Ulster Scots and other minority languages. State funding should be provided to facilitate those who wish to learn and use these languages, as well as funding for the development of the cultural aspects of these traditions, such as literature, music and dance. At the same time, we are opposed to the turning of these issues into sectarian footballs, including the degrading of any language or culture, which happens with both Irish and Ulster Scots.

The leaked version of the document released by journalist Eamonn Mallie is very revealing. It reflects significant compromise by both parties, including by Sinn Féin in dropping its demand that Arlene Foster could not be the First Minister while the RHI inquiry continued. Importantly, on marriage equality, the document states that the parties recognised they both hold different mandated positions on the issue. In other words, Sinn Féin accepted the DUP has a mandate to block marriage equality.

The rights of the LGBT+ community were to be sacrificed on Sinn Féin's altar of pragmatism.

That is not what it stated.

So much for no return to the status quo.

It stated the DUP could not block it. The Deputy could read the text of the agreement.

I am quite clear on what was in the agreement. The LGBT community and the 68% in the North who support marriage equality clearly can have no faith in any of the establishment parties in Stormont. People power is needed in order to win marriage equality. Despite all the rhetoric in this talks process about rights, all the parties stand for the status quo when it comes to denying women the right to choose. A new report by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women states that Northern Ireland's abortion laws are a "systematic violation of rights", with the committee's vice chairperson indicating that "the situation in Northern Ireland constitutes violence against women that may amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment".

Despite the two largest parties in the North being led by women, both have spoken of their opposition to the Abortion Act 1967. Sinn Féin and the DUP are complicit in this systematic violation of rights, despite the fact that opinion polls demonstrate that a majority supports abortion rights. As in the South, a new generation of young people, LGBTQ people and women will not accept systematic violations of rights. The repeal referendum here can be an historic blow to a conservative establishment and win bodily autonomy. ROSA, the socialist feminist movement, will be organising women and young people from the North to help strike a blow against the Southern conservative establishment and it will step up its fight to have the Abortion Act 1967 immediately extended to the North. Women in the North will not be happy that, once again, they are being left behind, and they will organise to win their rights. Politicians who have denied women their rights will find themselves on the wrong side of a movement demanding a real break with the status quo.

The document also illustrates that the DUP and Sinn Féin also agreed to continue the status quo when it comes to implementing cuts and privatisation, with the leaked document mentioning public sector reform and agreeing to "the undertaking of a major transformation project in health, education, housing and justice, including progressing the existing consensus on the reforms set out in the Bengoa report". The reference to the Bengoa report is revealing, as it is the latest blueprint for privatisation and rationalisation of the health services in the North. This is unacceptable to health campaigners and it has already been met with community and trade union resistance.

This April marks 20 years since the Good Friday Agreement and the anniversary is likely to pass with Stormont in crisis and Northern Ireland under a form of "direct rule lite". The peace process is riddled with crisis because rather than seeking to overcome sectarianism, it has institutionalised it. Some 20 years on, working class communities are divided by peace walls and segregated housing and education, and 20 years on, working class communities have not received a real peace dividend. There is a need for a new peace process for the 99%, which would unite ordinary people in a common struggle for a better life for working people, irrespective of religion, waged in a spirit of real mutual respect. To do that requires a break with the dead end politics of unionism and nationalism with the rebuilding of those labour and socialist traditions that have a proud history of uniting both Catholic and Protestant.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan is sharing her time with Deputies Breathnach and Donnelly.

It is very true to say that in order to understand the present we must look back to the past; that is nowhere more true than in Northern Ireland. We can go back to the Nine Years War and the plantation of Ulster, right to the Ulster volunteers and the Troubles. These are why it is very significant that we have a Good Friday Agreement, as it has meant a whole generation of people in Northern Ireland have not experienced living with violence and bloodshed, as those did who lived through the Troubles.

There is no doubt that Brexit is undermining and threatening the Good Friday Agreement. As a member of the Oireachtas Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, I know we have spent a huge amount of time giving space and listening to individuals, groups and organisations, allowing them to discuss how Brexit is having an impact on them or how they see Brexit having an impact in future. It has gone across a wide range of areas, including economics, agriculture, industry, businesses, health and education, transport, movement, community issues and language etc. We respected the democratic vote of the UK but there is also a need for a reciprocal respect for our vote here on the Good Friday Agreement and all it entails.

I will speak to some particular matters, the first being legacy issues. There is a danger that legacy issues will be relegated in the grand scheme of things in Brexit. I have heard the frustration and despair of families still waiting on information and justice with respect to Troubles-related incidents and crimes. I now chair the Oireachtas group on Justice for the Forgotten after the work of Deputy Crowe. We meet regularly and I know the people in that group have been waiting for so long. Three motions were passed in these Houses relating to the Dublin-Monaghan bombings and if three similar motions had been passed in the House of Commons, they would not react with the same patience we have shown here. There should be a strong stance from the Government in representing the families of those victims of that single and dreadful atrocity. Other families are also waiting for answers. I mention the matter of the hooded men, and how much longer will that affected group have to wait?

I acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of people on the island fully supported the Good Friday Agreement but some did not for various reasons. Rather than labelling and ostracising the group, we should be inclusive and bring them into a shared future vision. I, along with other Members of this House, visit prisoners in Northern Ireland at Maghaberry, both republican and loyalist, and we know that repression breeds resistance. There have been a number of agreements, such as that between prisoners and authorities, and the International Red Cross and independent parties have been in, but they are still not being implemented. There seems to be very little interest from those who can bring about change, apart from our visiting group.

It is difficult to keep up with the British position. For a long time it was not clear and it keeps changing. Just yesterday they announced the UK would withdraw from the Digital Single Market, which means there will be roaming charges for those travelling North. I know it is a minor detail but it is an example of this ever-changing landscape that is Brexit. The Tánaiste knows my concerns about animal welfare, and this is another matter that could be relegated in the talks about Brexit details.

It is very unfortunate the Irish language is being politicised and is being used almost like a political football when it is so clearly defined in the Good Friday Agreement. Language should be a means to bring us together rather than pulling us further apart. When our committee was in Belfast recently, we met Irish language groups, including a unionist group that was delighted to tell us about all its efforts in learning Irish. That must be commended and encouraged.

It is ironic that we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement in the current atmosphere. Within the sphere of elements that are unclear and constantly changing, I acknowledge the Tánaiste's work, as well as the work of the officials in the Department. It has been extremely difficult for all of them to do this kind of work when we did not know what would happen after the Brexit vote. Even now, things are changing as we speak.

I thank Deputy O'Sullivan for giving us some time to say a few words. The blame continues, even in this House tonight. As far as I am concerned, there is far too much shadow boxing relating to both Brexit and the formation of the Northern Assembly. Respect is a two-way process. In this House people are entitled to hold and express opinions, as in any democracy.

As far as I can see, some people and some parties thrive on crises. The solution is to stop shadow boxing and get down to the business of forming the assembly. In the interests of both countries, particularly the people of Northern Ireland, elected members, rather than engaging in squabbles and quarrels, need to take their seats in Westminster to ensure there is no prospect of a hard border. Having lived close to the Border for many years, I know that there is a middle ground on most issues. I often describe these people as the silent majority. Our children, whether nationalists or unionists, will not forgive us if we do not take the action that is required to ensure there is a soft border. The people of Northern Ireland are looking for leadership. We need to do what is right at this point.

The Good Friday Agreement has been the cornerstone of the fragile peace process in Northern Ireland. As mentioned by the Minister, any efforts by Brexiteers aimed at undermining the agreement are extremely unhelpful and risk undoing decades of hard work. We do not want to return to the days of the Troubles. In this context, we need also to be reminded that while the levels of violence post-Good Friday Agreement have disappeared from our television screens and the media, the reality is that in excess of 150 people have been killed in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement as a result of paramilitary activity on both sides, not to mention the hundreds of people that have been maimed. If one entered the term "paramilitarism in Northern Ireland" on Google one will come across at least three, if not four, instances in the last three or four days which show how fragile the peace process is.

The lack of agreement on reforming the assembly in the North has many consequences in this regard. Prior to Christmas, a Northern Ireland department of finance briefing paper set out how there could be significant staff reduction across the wider justice system, including in the PSNI and the prison service, which is shocking at a time when paramilitary threat remains alive. Only last week, the Chief Constable of the PSNI said that he feared that a fortified frontier or any attempt at a hard border, which would have to be policed around the clock, would put his officers' lives in great danger from anti-peace process paramilitaries. He outlined that there is still an ongoing threat from hardline factions from the New IRA and those using the names of the UVF and UDA who have split from those who bought into the dream of the peace process. He also said that in 2017 the PSNI, in its counter-terrorist operations, had made many arrests. Any attempt to water down or dumb down the Good Friday Agreement would be a retrograde step and I suggest that the Brexiteers who attempt to do such do not have a grasp of the important role the Good Friday Agreement has played in creating an all-Ireland economy and in encouraging communities, North and South, to face each other to create an island for all.

We cannot speak of the Good Friday Agreement without focussing on the legacy issues which, as mentioned by Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan, still exist on all sides of the divide, especially in the North of Ireland. Like Deputy O'Sullivan, I have been on many visits to Northern Ireland with the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. It is abundantly clear to me that the perspective of most people, whether nationalist or unionist, on most issues are identical. They feel let down and they feel that the legacy issues in particular have become generational. Those involved now have families and those families are suffering. On and on this cycle goes. We need a voice for the North to pave a way forward so that the framework of legacy institutions provided for under the Stormont House Agreement can be implemented. The failure of the parties in the North to form a functioning executive comes at one of the most critical times in the history of Northern Ireland. While the MLAs in the North still take their salaries and may still be doing parish pump work, they are not representing those who elected them or dealing with the issues that need to be dealt with in Northern Ireland in terms of education, health and the other issues referred to earlier by Deputy Howlin.

There is a lack of urgency on the part of the Irish and British Governments, and the protracted deep freeze of over a year of an impasse between the DUP and Sinn Féin is feeding into the zero sum politics that currently exist. This has debased real politics, despite the urgency of Brexit and the need for leadership as opposed to one-upmanship. It is incredible that so many democratically-elected Northern Ireland representatives cannot park the contentious issues and deal with the issues that are much more important at this point. Deputy Howlin referred earlier to the EY study published in December. It clearly shows that Ireland's GDP is expected to grow by 4.9% this year compared with 1.4% for Northern Ireland. The report goes on to say that the state of the economy of Northern Ireland is not helped by the absence of a devolved Government and that the economy in Northern Ireland remains challenged owing to inflation, reducing consumer spending and the absence of a Government, disrupting state spending programmes.

In regard to Brexit and the Border, the Prime Minister, Theresa May, said in her recent speech, "We chose to leave [...] we have a responsibility to find a solution." I would suggest the "we" is the royal we. The context and legal standing of the solutions which were put forward on December 15 were unclear and I welcome the proposal to put this text in a legal format. Prime Minister May also spoke about hard facts. She needs to listen to those on the ground, particularly those in the Border region, about the hard facts. I call on the parties concerned to park their differences in light of Brexit and to ensure the future peace and prosperity of this island. I respect the Irish language and I accept that there is need for respect in regard to all of the other issues but they need to be parked at this point.

I want to direct my comments to the Northern Ireland Border. The UK Government has repeatedly stated its commitment to ensuring no Border controls, which is welcome. It signed up to an agreement in December which committed to no Border controls, which is also welcome but I put it to the Tánaiste that this agreement is being unpicked.

The agreement contains three layers of protection. First, that the UK will remain aligned to the EU but the UK Government has clearly stated that this is not going to happen. The second layer of protection is that the UK Government proposes specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. This relies on technological solutions that do not exist anywhere in the world, confirmed by the ex-head of the World Trade Organisation, WTO, and obviously nothing has been forthcoming from the British Government on this. The third layer of protection - the backstop - which is probably the only real layer of protection is that in the absence of agreed solutions, the UK will maintain full alignment with the rules of the Internal Market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South co-operation, an all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement. At least some senior members of the British Government believe this commitment to be more limited than the EU or the Irish Government believe it to be. They talk of minimal controls. Worryingly, the US-Canada border is being referenced with regularity, including by the British Prime Minister yesterday in the House of Commons. They are talking up and normalising border controls.

The EU guidelines put the backstop first. They say that at the end of the transition period, if the British are not aligned to the EU, which we do not expect them to be, or they insist they will not be, and if the British have not come forward with a technological solution, which we do not expect them to do although obviously we are very open to that conversation, the legal reality on the ground for the people of Northern Ireland and the geography of Northern Ireland would be a legal tie-in to the Single Market and the customs union. It is very important that this is the reality the day after the transition period ends. Worryingly, Prime Minister May dismissed this out of hand. Having signed up to the December agreement she dismissed out of hand the legal reality, stating that it would be a threat to the UK constitution. There is expert advice which states that that is not the case.

Fianna Fáil has been, and will continue to be, very critical of the Government's domestic response on Brexit.

On the international front we will continue to support the Minister but we are seriously concerned that this agreement and the protections being bulletproof, rock solid and cast-iron were over sold. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for his indulgence and will finish with a point for Sinn Féin.

I think the Deputy is over time.

The absence of an Executive has left the people of Northern Ireland unbelievably badly exposed to what is hitting them, so I would implore Sinn Féin to do what it can. I will finish-----

Deputy Mattie McGrath is next.

Does Deputy Donnelly really believe that an Executive will change the DUP's position on Brexit?

There is an upcoming vote in Westminster-----

Deputy Donnelly, please.

I respect Sinn Féin's abstentionism but there is an upcoming vote in Westminster which could turn the direction of Brexit in favour of the people of Northern Ireland-----

Deputy Donnelly, please. Deputy Mattie McGrath is next.

An Executive is going to change the DUP's position on Brexit - does Deputy Donnelly really believe that?

-----and I would implore Sinn Féin to take a look and see if that is something it would consider voting on.

Deputy Mattie McGrath has 15 minutes.

I am happy to speak on Northern Ireland. It is fair to say that it is only since the onset of Brexit and the reality of what that will mean for Ireland has the position and role of the North started to receive the kind of sustained political attention it deserves and needs. We are all only too aware of the complex nature of the position in which we find ourselves. Thanks in part to our history and geography in the context of our nearest neighbours, the problems have been even more complex. To date we have witnessed enormous confusion around the approach that should be adopted. Most of us are agreed that there is an absolute need to avoid a hard border, but that idea is receiving a mixed reaction in both Europe and the UK. For some it is a possibility while for others it is inevitable that a hard border will have to be constructed. I travel once a year to Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and have seen the border that has been constructed there, using EU funds. It is enormous and is nothing like anything we saw in the North in the past. I have travelled to the North many times, through Aughnacloy and Caledon but the buildings and the structures on the Croatian border are nothing like what were in place in the North. The Croatian border was built by Europe, and much as we might say that we will not have such a border here, I think we will and that is the problem. That will set us back economically, culturally and politically. It will be a huge setback.

The respected international think tank, Copenhagen Economics, has found that in all scenarios Brexit will have negative impacts on Irish trade, with adverse and knock-on effects on Irish production and ultimately on Irish GDP. Its recent study found that increased trade costs will lower Irish exports of goods and services by approximately 3% to 8% by 2030. Brexit will lower Irish GDP by approximately 3% to 7% by 2030. The following five sectors account for the vast majority of the total impact of Brexit: agrifood, pharma-chemicals, electrical machinery, wholesale and retail and air transport. I have a lot of relations and friends along the Border. There are farms along the Border that are only divided by barbed wire fences and it is just impossible to imagine the impact that Brexit will have on cross-Border trade, on movements of milk, butter and so forth. These are profoundly disturbing findings and should be a source of concern to us all. Leaving aside the economic issues for a moment, there is also a real and pressing fear that the bonds that enabled us to move forward in a era of reconciliation are fast disintegrating. At this point I wish to pay tribute to all of those who were involved in the peace process, in particular to two people from Tipperary, the late Reverend Alex Reid and the former Senator, Deputy and Minister of State, Mr. Martin Mansergh. They played a huge role in the process along with many others, including the late Albert Reynolds and the former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. They developed very special relationships and that cannot be forgotten. However, old ways of talking and thinking seem to be re-emerging and a noticeable animosity has crept back in between North and South. The fragmented loyalties within the DUP and the British Conservative party are making progress almost impossible. The situation is very delicate in that regard. There seems to be very little capacity or willingness to rise above internal disputes and to move toward the strengthening of the Good Friday Agreement and the peace that it has brought. We must not have the agreement undermined in any way, but it is becoming the victim of a return to the type of tribal politics that we had hoped we had seen the back of. Indeed, young people today have no memory of the Troubles in the North. Of course, passions and loyalties run deep, but in the past these were able to be acknowledged with respect in an effort to gain peace, and that was a huge achievement. That objective seems to be weakening all of the time. That said, I have faith in the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney and his ability to talk the talk and to be patient. I remember his patience, stamina and energy during the Government formation talks two years ago and he will need all of that now. If we add to this the fear and uncertainty that the economic consequences of Brexit may bring, then what we have is a potent and dangerous combination that may have very long-lasting consequences.

To return briefly to the findings of the study by Copenhagen Economics, we see that the reliance on the UK market is even greater for certain Irish exports such as cheddar cheese at 65% and butter at 54% Raw milk and fresh milk is normally not traded outside the UK but there is some trade in milk with Ireland. Approximately 600 to 700 million litres of milk is imported from Northern Ireland for processing in Ireland. Anyone who goes to Monaghan will see the milk trucks crossing over and back at the Border. This North-South milk trade may not be commercially viable if tariffs and border costs are imposed. That is but one example. Another is the effect on the retail sector. The Copenhagen Economics analysis found that the retail sector is dependent on the free movement of people and employees between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We all remember the days of the checkpoints and the customs posts. One would often meet checkpoints along the roads beyond the Border too. I travelled across the Border many times, from Aughnacloy up to Omagh and beyond. The retail sector would be negatively impacted by an inability to operate on an all-island basis from both a product and a people perspective. We cannot slip back to the days of smuggling, fuel laundering and so forth. It is unthinkable that we would revisit that scenario.

All of this spells clear trouble ahead if there is no satisfactory political resolution. I was interested to watch a recent vox pop from Belfast last week and the majority of people interviewed on the streets expressed clear and unambiguous frustration and anger with the political culture that has produced so much stagnation over the last year and half. Since the untimely passing of the late Martin McGuinness, relations seem to have deteriorated rapidly. Arlene Foster seems genuinely unable to muster the kind of open or reconciling approach that characterised her predecessors. That is not a personal criticism but it does speak to how we may have to prepare ourselves for a longer-term lack of political movement, and that is a pity.

In terms of the actions of our own Government, I welcome the sincerity and openness which the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, has adopted in his approach. I also welcome his willingness to be extremely blunt and frank with both the political leadership within the EU and with the political leadership of the North when it comes to expressing the interests of the Republic. I am afraid the same cannot be said of the Taoiseach who, along with Mrs. May, was left humiliated a fortnight ago when their joint meeting fell absolutely flat, with no positive outcome achieved. He was too certain about the bulletproof agreement and was too gung-ho before Christmas and now he is paying the price. If he had shown any interest in the talks and the issues pertaining to Northern Ireland, he would have seen that there were huge difficulties and that the situation was hugely fraught. He should have known that the talks could have been derailed at any time. He was more gung-ho than he should have been. We had hoped that some breakthrough was possible given that both the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister had travelled to the North, but unfortunately that did not happen.

I also think that was premature. It created expectations that were too high. They were badly advised, whoever advised them or brought them up. It was way too soon and enough groundwork had not been done. Indeed, he could take a lesson from the former Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern, in having patience. Mr. Ahern left his own mother's graveside to return to those talks.

This, it seems, is something like the Taoiseach's firm assurances that the agreement he had reached some months ago in Europe was made of cast iron political guarantees. We now know this was far from being the case. If that is the kind of cast-iron guarantees he is talking about, the scrap metal Bill that I tried to introduce and that the Government would not enact should be brought in for some of the Taoiseach's wordings. All the spin in the world from his new communications unit will not make that a reality. What we need is hard graft, although I do not think the Taoiseach is known for that, and patience. I genuinely do not say that to criticise. I say that because there is more than an element of jumping the gun at play here. The Taoiseach rushed out to the nearest camera and shouted, "Victory in Europe", only to be politically embarrassed by his so-called partners a short time later.

Northern Ireland needs and deserves strong and capable political leadership that can put the interests of its people ahead of party political rivalries. The saying used to be, "A lot done, more to do". Tús maith, leath na hoibre - but that was a false start that the Taoiseach announced before Christmas.

There are too many open sores in Northern Ireland, from the Dublin and Monaghan bombings to the Omagh bombing. I have worked with a group in the last number of years and I have a lot of connections with Omagh. My wife spent seven years there working in the Tyrone and Fermanagh Hospital and I have been up and down to Omagh. Sadly, the families in Omagh have been let down by the former Taoiseach and former Fine Gael leader, Deputy Enda Kenny, who, at a Fine Gael Ard-Fheis, pointed to them in the audience and told them what he would do for them. He said they would get no justice from the Fianna Fáil Government of the day but that they would get it from him. Then he ran away from them, let them down and abandoned them. They came in one day and sat up in the Gallery and during Leaders' Questions I asked the then Taoiseach to wave at them when there were no cameras on him. Sadly, they were let down.

The anniversary of Mr. Aidan McAnespie, who was murdered at Aughnacloy, is around this time and there is little or nothing happening as regards a proper investigation and having all his remains returned to be buried with the rest of his body to enable his father to get some semblance of justice at this stage of his life. I knew people who worked with him in Monaghan Poultry and the blackguarding he got was unbelievable. I salute RTÉ for the recent item on the Mary Wilson show - I do not know which of the journalists did it, the name will not come to me. It gave a five-day chronology of the events and interviewed people. That has to be dealt with and brought up. Justice delayed is justice denied and there was no justice. It was summary justice he got with the fobbed off story that a gun slipped and a bullet ricocheted. That was proven beyond all doubt to be untrue by the autopsy but his rib cage was never returned from the hospitals in Northern Ireland, although it should have been. It is just not acceptable that those sores are left open. Those issues have still not been dealt with.

I was in Omagh the morning after the bombing and met Prince Charles and the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Ms Mo Mowlam, who was quite ill at the time, but she was there. I saw the horror and devastation that was there. There are unanswered questions as to why that bomb was not stopped or derailed when people knew it was on its way. Sources and agents had to be protected. It was and is disgraceful and the families have not got any honest answers. So much time has passed since it happened. Those issues will remain even if we get this agreement back on the road. We need an honest appraisal of what went on and we need answers. I have met Sergeant John White several times and he became a scapegoat in my opinion. I have met the families. His name eludes me now, but I asked a man after the film was produced how true it was and he said it was 95% accurate. That is what happened. Agents of our State were literally colluding. That bomb was known to be travelling and it was a travesty that it was not taken off the road because of fear of protecting sources. What sources were worth leaving 29 people dead, including a baby in the womb?

These things have to be sorted out. Justice delayed is justice denied and time is not on our side. I appeal to the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and I will be appealing to the Taoiseach during Leaders' Questions very soon to take up where the former Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, fell down badly in giving such hopes to the Omagh families at a Fine Gael Ard-Fheis just to get votes. He put them on the television for the whole country to see and then in this House he would not meet them and ran away from them in a corridor.

It is quite ironic that twice in the past few months, this Government has had a very good photo opportunity scuppered by the DUP. We all remember that day in December just gone, when journalists watched and waited outside Government Buildings for the Taoiseach to appear and announce that a deal would happen that would allow the UK to progress to phase two of the Brexit negotiations. The DUP had other ideas and, embarrassingly, we were left looking at a cancelled press conference with no deal to be seen. Fast forward a few weeks to Belfast, another chance for a photo opportunity on a so-called "closed deal" and another embarrassing misfire - no deal, no news, and it was back to Dublin.

In many ways, this approach is emblematic of the Irish approach to Northern Ireland over some years now, showing up when the deal is done but not putting in sufficient effort to sustain and promote the cross-community governance that was agreed to 20 years ago in 1998. The Social Democrats takes a somewhat different view from other parties in respect of Northern Ireland. While we accept that the Good Friday Agreement and the associated suite of agreements will remain the cornerstone of Northern Ireland policy, we strongly believe that a fundamental rethink of the type of governance is urgently required. The reality is that Stormont is stale, the model of power sharing that was agreed in 1998 is dysfunctional and the voices of those who wish to move beyond the orange and green divide are systematically excluded.

In many ways, the status quo of direct rule suits everybody. Sinn Féin can appear to be whiter than white in pushing its requests, the DUP can revert to its "Never, never, never" position and the British and Irish Governments can retreat to their minimalist and hands-off approach to the impasse. My party believes that these positions are unacceptable. They are not in line with the principles of the Good Friday Agreement. They are incompatible with the roles of the two Governments as co-guarantors of the agreement and they do a disservice to the people of Northern Ireland at a time of great political uncertainty with Brexit looming.

The sad truth is that perhaps the most effective way to force both sides back to the table may actually be to fully implement the Good Friday Agreement. Elements of the deal, which the Irish Government is never shy of lauding, remain unimplemented or are now in serious peril owing to Brexit. Such elements include the promised bill of rights, the applicability of the European Court of Human Rights to Northern Ireland, the promised civic forum and so on. The two Governments should, in the absence of a cross-party agreement, push ahead strongly with implementing these elements of the agreement along with reforming the mechanisms of power sharing. The use of the petition of concern in Stormont should be re-examined in order to end its ongoing abuse as a stick to beat vulnerable groups in Northern Ireland.

The Social Democrats believe an enhanced Civic Forum, as originally constituted in 1998, is the one element of the deal that could force the parties back to the table. The Civic Forum, as a counterbalance to the "green and orange" straitjacket of Stormont, would serve as a voice for those whom the peace process has left behind and those groups that find themselves marginalised by the very nature of power-sharing but which continue to work for the community, women's organisations and those fighting for LGBT rights, community groups and so on.

In the past few weeks elements of the Brexit la-la land fringe in the Conservative Party have touted the Good Friday Agreement as an impediment to their imagined forthcoming splendid "isolation". Even since last week, the British Prime Minister has rejected out of hand elements of the so-called bulletproof deal from December as if they were new to her, while the Foreign Secretary has stated the Border will be comparable to crossing through different boroughs in London. There is no doubt that continuing uncertainty surrounding the British version of what Brexit will mean and the reliance of the Conservatives on the DUP at Westminster are complicating factors in seeking to break the current impasse. In the end the Agreement may prove to be the trump card against having a hard border in Ireland, but we should not forget that it came about as a result of a recent, long and terrible, conflict. It is incumbent on all sides to ensure the devolved government is restored, but it must be made to work for everyone in Northern Ireland, not simply be the hostage of the DUP and Sinn Féin.

I thank all speakers for their contributions, some of which have been helpful, in particular, Deputy Brendan Howlin's. It was a reminder of the consequences of not having devolved government in Northern Ireland for everyday life in the provision of health care and education and dealing with many other challenges. If a severe weather event was to cause devastation in Northern Ireland, we simply would not have politicians to make decisions and would have to rely on some of the incredibly dedicated public servants I have met there in recent months who are trying to keep the show on the road but who are not geared up to making the political decisions necessary for policy interventions.

I will split my comments into three areas, on which there has been commentary - Brexit, our efforts to have a devolved government and an executive up and running, and legacy issues.

On Brexit, it is important to stress that the negotiations on the future relationship and to finalise a withdrawal treaty have only just begun; therefore, there are different perspectives that, at times, sound contradictory in the context of the commentary we hear from Westminster, which is frustrating for everybody. However, we have to operate on the basis of the negotiating teams on behalf of the British Government and the European Union through the Barnier task force. The European Union's position on its understanding of what was agreed to politically in the joint paper in December has been published in draft from. It is going to all member states right now for commentary and I suspect it will not change at all or, if it does, it will be minor. It will certainly not change on the Irish side on the Irish issues. That will be the basis for the European Union to progress between now and October a finalisation of the withdrawal treaty or agreement. While the British Government and the DUP rejected what they regarded as an EU interpretation of a commitment made in the joint paper in December and stated they were constitutional concerns - something I do not accept - that reaction was not that unexpected. The European Union will maintain solidarity and focus in the legal language published which reflects our understanding and the collective understanding of the Union of what was agreed to in December. If the British negotiating team and the British Government have a different interpretation, let us hear it. Let us see it and have it as part of the negotiations which have yet to begin to finalise a withdrawal treaty, as well as a transition period and a framework agreement that could result in a future relationship. I suspect the agreement will happen at some point in the next two to three years because that is how long a detailed FTA finalised between the European Union and the United Kingdom will take.

Our perspective and interpretation is that we have cast-iron guarantees on what was agreed to in December as regards the outcome, which means no hard border, which means North-South co-operation and a functioning and protected all-island economy. One cannot reinterpret a statement that states we will provide an absolute guarantee that there will be no hard border, no border infrastructure and no associated checks or controls. That is categorical in terms of a commitment from the British Government, from which it is not resiling.

It talks about Canada.

I accept that is contradictory, but in the British Prime Minister's official speech last Friday which was welcome she did not resile from option C, as they saw it - the backstop or fallback position. I made a commentary on the A and B options which she reiterated. She essentially repeated some of what had been published in a British paper last summer when it was looking at two options - a customs union partnership and largely exempting approximately 80% of business activity back and forth across the Border. That would be a hard sell to the European Union that will look to maintain and protect the integrity of the Single Market.

There is a long way to go in the negotiations and the House should not draw quick conclusions about what that means. I am convinced that we will find a way through maintaining strong solidarity with our EU partners to ensure infrastructure will never again be installed at the Border. I believe the British Government is serious about trying to make that happen, but it certainly wants to try to persuade us that there is another way of doing it that is different from the backstop negotiated.

Is it agreed to give the Tánaiste another five minutes? Agreed.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

With regard to the Good Friday Agreement and the Executive, the way it will be done is through human interaction where people will start to trust each other and agree to compromise. Some of the earlier commentary in interpreting what had happened in the past nine months was not accurate. I have no quarrel with Fianna Fáil on the North. Fianna Fáil leaders have done great things for Northern Ireland and I have spoken to Bertie Ahern on this issue to get his perspective on some of the personalities with whom we are trying to negotiate. I have no quarrel either with Deputy Micheál Martin, but if people are going to start drawing conclusions from how they perceive the negotiations went in the past eight or nine months, they could, at least, ask me privately about what happened before commenting publicly.

That is my only quarrel here because I believe Deputy Micheál Martin wants the same things for Northern Ireland that I want. The truth is that these negotiations happened in private and there was no political media management around those negotiations. There was virtual media silence for eight months, coming from both the DUP and Sinn Féin but also both Governments. Virtually nothing was said, which was hugely frustrating for the other three parties and for many others who care about Northern Ireland and its future, but we believed in providing that environment for the two parties to begin to trust each other again, and the two negotiating teams to tease through multiple issues, including concerns around legacy, parades, the petition of concern, bill of rights, marriage equality and the Irish language. There were 12 or 14 really difficult issues on which they had to find a middle ground. By and large, they managed to do that in the end within the confines of that quite protected political environment where the two Governments tried to create the space for the leadership and the negotiating teams of Sinn Féin and the DUP to find a way of doing that. Unfortunately, it was in the aftermath of a proposed solution, when the debate in terms of what might be in that became more public, that it started to unravel on one side, and that is hugely regrettable. I believe the trust that had been built up over that nine months, but particularly in January and February, has been fundamentally undermined even further over the past three weeks because there has been tit for tat commentary on who said what, who agreed what, etc., and that is unfortunate.

I am conscious that I am only speaking to one of the parties concerned in the House this evening but there is a big obligation on Sinn Féin, which has a clear and strong leadership and focus in its negotiating team. Of course, there is an obligation on the DUP too. There is a particular obligation on both parties to resist the temptation to have a go at each other, to tone down language, which there has been an effort at doing, and to find a way of privately re-engaging. The Governments will do all they can to encourage that. Also, the Governments are talking in detail about how they can re-energise and restart a process that perhaps will be more inclusive this time - the structures will be different - and involve the other three parties in a much more real and direct way because I think that is necessary.

I defend the strategy that we adopted which, in terms of achieving compromises in difficult areas, worked in terms of the negotiating teams and their engagement to the credit of both parties. The unravelling of that, for both Governments, was both a surprise and an enormous frustration, but that is where we are and we need to pick up the pieces and put them back together. There was a need to allow a little time to pass but my experience in Northern Ireland is that time does not solve problems. In fact, sometimes it makes them worse.

Unfortunately, we have a series of extra complications in trying to get a deal done in Northern Ireland between the two large parties and the others which is linked to a very difficult Brexit negotiation. It is also linked, obviously, to the relationship between the DUP and the British Government in the context of that Brexit negotiation and the tensions, unfortunately, that have occurred at different moments in those Brexit negotiations when the Irish Government has had to take a stand on certain issues which have caused stresses and strains, in particular, with the DUP, and at times with the British Government too, although at no point in the Brexit negotiations has the relationship on Northern Ireland between the British and Irish Governments been strained. My relationships with the former Secretary of State, Mr. James Brokenshire MP, and his successor, Ms Karen Bradley MP, are very good. I still maintain contact with James Brokenshire even though he is no longer in that position. He is a very fine person, as, indeed, is Karen.

One can expect that after the St. Patrick's Day travels the two Governments will really try to re-energise an effort to get this process back on track. Some of what Deputy Micheál Martin stated tonight is absolutely true. When one considers what parties in Northern Ireland coming from such a different background and perspective managed to achieve 20 years ago on enormous issues it can, I hope, put some context on the barriers to progress right now around structures in terms of Irish language legislation and trying to counterbalance that with recognising the diversity of culture and language in Northern Ireland in a broader context.

In relation to legacy, we are absolutely committed to this. Families, of whom I have met many, need a process that moves towards the truth. We cannot have amnesties. We cannot have different standards applying to different communities or different people. Whether one is a unionist or a nationalist, whether one is a former member of the Defence Forces or the British Army, the same rules should apply to everybody here in terms of establishing the truth. We will work with the British Government to ensure that we can influence positively the consultation that will take place and be launched, I hope, shortly, on that legacy process consultation. Of course, we also want to see the financing of legacy inquests being forthcoming, as has been called for by the chief justice in Northern Ireland. Just in case my comments are interpreted as only an ask of the British Government, we recognise the responsibilities that we, as a Government, have to pass legislation that can help get to the truth of inquests that are currently taking place or will take place in Northern Ireland. What I mean by this is passing groundbreaking legislation which we are committed to doing, and which the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Charlie Flanagan, is bringing forward, which will allow hearings for inquests in Northern Ireland to essentially hear evidence here in Dublin and the High Court to get to the bottom and truth of some of the atrocities that have taken place in Northern Ireland - Kingsmill being the best example but I am sure there are others.

I take Deputy Howlin's commentary on board. I suspect his view is shared by many others in the House. Our engagement on Northern Ireland needs to be more comprehensive than it currently is. Perhaps some of the frustrations in Fianna Fáil would not be what they are if there were a forum that could tease through what is happening, why it is happening, why the Governments are taking the approaches they are, some of the difficulties Sinn Féin has faced and some of the difficulties unionism genuinely faces in terms of the politics they are currently trying to grapple and deal with in Northern Ireland.

I believe all of the parties want devolved government. The Governments have to find a way of getting that deal done, in particular, between the two large parties, but in a more inclusive way in the next round of negotiations that involves the other three parties as well. I look forward to the support and co-operation of all parties in the House to get it done. I commit this evening to bringing forward some new ideas which we can share with the other parties on ways in which we can have a more comprehensive engagement on a regular basis on the issues in Northern Ireland.

I thank the Members present for their indulgence. We have gone on 15 minutes longer but it is an important issue.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.20 p.m. until 12 noon on Thursday, 8 March 2018.
Top
Share