Skip to main content
Normal View

Northern Ireland Issues.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 3 February 2010

Wednesday, 3 February 2010

Questions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)

Enda Kenny

Question:

1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent developments in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48375/09]

View answer

Enda Kenny

Question:

2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48376/09]

View answer

Enda Kenny

Question:

3 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the British Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48377/09]

View answer

Enda Kenny

Question:

4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48378/09]

View answer

Enda Kenny

Question:

5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation will next meet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48384/09]

View answer

Enda Kenny

Question:

6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he expects to visit the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48385/09]

View answer

Enda Kenny

Question:

7 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will convene a meeting of the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board during his next visit to the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48386/09]

View answer

Enda Kenny

Question:

8 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the arrangements in place for maintaining contact with the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48387/09]

View answer

Enda Kenny

Question:

9 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he will next visit Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48417/09]

View answer

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

10 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed with the British Prime Minister on the margins of the Copenhagen summit; if he will give his assessment of the situation in Northern Ireland following this meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48558/09]

View answer

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

11 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the contact he has had since 1 January 2010 with the British Prime Minister and the First and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland regarding the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrew’s Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1241/10]

View answer

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

12 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the further action he proposes to take on foot of the Barron reports, the Oireachtas justice committee sub-committee reports, the McEntee Report and the Oireachtas resolution regarding the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of May 1974 and other fatal attacks here involving collusion between British state forces and loyalist paramilitaries; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1242/10]

View answer

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

13 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his most recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland. [1277/10]

View answer

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

14 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the Northern Ireland First Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1278/10]

View answer

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

15 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the contacts he has had with the Acting First Minister in Northern Ireland since her appointment on 11 January 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1467/10]

View answer

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

16 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent contacts with the British Prime Minister regarding the situation in Northern Ireland; and if he has plans for a meeting with the Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1468/10]

View answer

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

17 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting in London on 14 January 2010 with the British Prime Minister. [1584/10]

View answer

Enda Kenny

Question:

18 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the British Prime Minister in London on 14 January 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3230/10]

View answer

Enda Kenny

Question:

19 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in London with the British Prime Minister on 25 January 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5112/10]

View answer

Enda Kenny

Question:

20 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions with the political parties in Northern Ireland on 26 and 27 January 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5113/10]

View answer

Oral answers (18 contributions)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 20, inclusive, together.

I met the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Brown, and discussed the political situation in Northern Ireland on Thursday, 14 January in Downing Street and again on Monday, 25 January. From there we travelled to Hillsborough Castle where we held talks over three days with all the Northern Ireland parties on outstanding issues relating to the devolution of policing and justice. During these talks we worked hard to establish common ground, to build dialogue between the parties, and to re-establish the trust necessary to complete the devolution of policing and justice in Northern Ireland.

The Good Friday Agreement provided the foundation for peace and political progress, and the St. Andrew's Agreement was a major step forward. However, a number of issues remain to be fully implemented. Resolving these issues is the key to enabling the completion of devolution and the opening of a new chapter in the life of Northern Ireland. The devolved institutions can then focus on the issues that concern everyone — jobs, health, schools, social services and community safety.

We do not pretend this is an easy process. The issues we have been discussing go to the very core of Northern Ireland's past and their solutions are the foundations for its future. However, we have been determined to bring this process to completion. Progress has been made inch by inch, slowly but surely. Having talked to all the leaders of Northern Ireland's political parties, we believe there is a clear pathway to an agreement. It is right and necessary that the parties themselves now work together, in the spirit of trust and understanding, to agree and take ownership of the solutions.

We believe there is now a firm basis for the parties to set an early date for the completion of the final stage of devolution; create a new justice Department and define the relationship between the justice Minister and the Executive on an agreed, strong and sustainable footing; benefit from the offer from the British Government of £800 million of resources for a new department of justice — money which will only be available if agreement is reached by the parties at this time; and enhance the existing framework to deal more effectively with contentious parades, learning lessons from successful local models.

The importance of these decisions for the future of Northern Ireland cannot be underestimated. With leadership and courage, they can be achieved. A successful outcome to these talks will leave Northern Ireland better able to overcome divisions and more determined to move forward together, with a greater understanding of what unites its communities. Recent acts of decommissioning, most recently by the UDA on 6 January, remind us all of the great benefits the peace process can bring and the confidence it generates in communities.

The evil criminal attack on PSNI Constable Peadar Heffron in recent weeks was a stark reminder that there remain those whose aim is to destroy all that has been achieved. The best response to give to such people is to complete the devolution of policing and justice powers, secure the stability of the devolved institutions and show that the democratic political institutions are delivering for all the people of Northern Ireland. Both Governments will continue to encourage and work with the parties to bring the outstanding issues to a successful resolution. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has spent most of the last ten days with the UK Secretary of State and the parties at the talks in Hillsborough. We will remain in close touch and will be available to further engage as required. I am grateful for the continued support of the US Administration for the peace process. The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has been in touch with the parties and offered her ongoing assistance. The US envoy to Northern Ireland, Declan Kelly, has also encouraged a successful conclusion to the talks.

I expect to visit the United States for the traditional St. Patrick's Day celebrations. My travel programme has not yet been finalised but it will include a visit to Washington DC. I expect to meet with the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board in the course of my visit. The Irish Embassy in Washington maintains close contact with board members, who are an important source of advice and assistance for us.

With regard to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, Deputy Ó Caoláin will be aware that the Clerk of the Dáil received a reply from the Clerk of the House of Commons arising from the Oireachtas resolution of 10 July 2008. As I have said previously in the House, any future follow-up to this should be considered in consultation with the parties and can be raised with the Whips.

There are no current plans to reconvene the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. As the current talks process has illustrated, there is now sustained dialogue between all strands of opinion in Northern Ireland and on the island. The work of Members of this House through, for example, the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly is also crucial in this regard.

The grouping of these questions is not good, a Cheann Comhairle. There are many questions about Northern Ireland, some about Ireland-US relations and one about the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. These could have been grouped better. It is not satisfactory for Members.

Everybody here supports the Government's efforts to assist in bringing the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement to a successful conclusion. The current impasse seems to have arisen from elements of the St. Andrew's Agreement, which was put together by the two Governments at the time but was not accepted by all of the parties. It annoys me that there were clear signals coming from Belfast that the talks were about to be concluded, but events have resulted in the Prime Ministers of two sovereign Governments having to change their diaries and so on. Be that as it may, a successful conclusion is what is important.

Is the Taoiseach concerned that a significant proportion of the DUP membership does not accept what is on the table? Is it his view that despite the BBC report of a 60-40 divide on the matter of policing and parades, the impasse can be overcome?

People are speculating in that regard. I have seen statements from the deputy leader of the DUP that there is no such diverse opinion in the party regarding the conduct of the negotiations and that Mr. Robinson enjoys the full support of his party. Negotiations are taking place about finding a resolution to all the problems so all parties can give their support to new arrangements. That issue has been denied internally by the DUP itself.

Does the Taoiseach share my view that the triggering of an Assembly election in the short term could be divisive and could produce an unworkable result? Does the proposal put forward by the two Governments differ in many respects from the points of discussion between the DUP and Sinn Féin? Are there significant differences between the proposals that were to be published by the Governments after the 48 hour deadline but that were not published in the event that negotiations might succeed? Have officials from the Government pointed out to both parties what those differences are and how they might benefit the process?

One significant difference between these discussions and those that have taken place over the past 15 years is the lack of a physical presence of the American Government. The Taoiseach has stated the special envoy is involved and that Secretary of State Clinton has said she is prepared to offer assistance. Does that offer go as far as saying that if she is called upon by the Governments to get this across the line, she is willing to travel to Belfast to assist the Governments and parties to bring this to a final conclusion?

The Secretary of State was confirming, as has been the case in successive US Administrations, the support of the Administration for a successful outcome that would ensure the institutions are sustained and operated as envisaged under the agreements that have been reached between the Governments and the parties.

Prime Minister Brown and I were seeking to bring sides together to indicate ways forward that would be helpful to the process. We are talking about devolving powers to the Assembly and that requires decisions by the parties themselves. A cross-community vote would be required in the Assembly to trigger the devolution process. In terms of subsequent issues that must be undertaken, the agreement of parties is necessary.

In the past there have been negotiations where the Governments have sought to put forward, like we did at St. Andrews, a set of arrangements we believe are the best means of ensuring the re-establishment of the institutions with full participation in the Executive by qualified parties. On this occasion we are also looking at the need for active support from the parties themselves based on direct talks taking place between them, in addition to the facilitation of talks with the Governments. The preferred choice of the Governments is to see arrangements agreed by the parties themselves. We made the point that if there was no prospect of that happening, we indicated a timeframe for the publication of some of our proposals based on what we believed would be a fair outcome to the discussions.

On the basis that there has been a serious engagement ongoing since, the Governments have decided to allow that process to continue as long as there is political goodwill and preparedness on all sides to continue with the talks. Obviously they are taking longer than may have been anticipated but they are ongoing and seek to narrow their differences. I hope these matters can be brought to a successful conclusion sooner rather than later.

We have offered support already to the Government for what it is doing. The economy in Northern Ireland must be a matter of concern to the Taoiseach. The Government is concerned about our own economy but the situation in the Northern Ireland economy is also serious. The outstanding achievement of putting the Good Friday Agreement in place was the involvement of so many Governments and people over so many years. The involvement of President Clinton motivated the parties to arrive at that point. It may be necessary to call on the Secretary of State to come to assist in that motivation, not to conclude it, because that is not within her remit, but in the same way as the American Government visibly encouraged and assisted the parties to agree to the Good Friday Agreement, so too it should be taken into account if it would bring this across the line.

If these talks drag on for another while, does the Taoiseach intend, along with the British Prime Minister, to publish the proposals they had intended to publish or what might be changed? If there is no conclusion in the next day or so, does the Taoiseach intend to return to Belfast with the British Prime Minister or does he intend to publish the proposals? Clearly, an imposed solution is not as satisfactory as one that can be agreed and negotiated among the parties themselves.

The last point is the salient point. It is more likely to succeed if the parties agree among themselves. If, however, that is not possible, the Governments must take on their responsibilities and respond to public opinion with Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland, whereby people want to see the talks concluded successfully, with the institutions they have voted for working as envisaged.

The need to improve relationships across the board is an important issue for the future. We must engender trust and confidence in all our bona fides and must work in partnership, recognising that the Agreement clearly sets out a basis for equality and partnership where the traditions of all sides are respected, people's cultural requirements are incorporated and diversity is understood as being part and parcel of normalising a society that had been deeply divided.

It is my strong view that the spirit of the Agreement, is just as important as the letter of the Agreement. This is not some inane, abstract mathematical formula about setting up structures for people to coexist peacefully and tolerate each other, it is about people coming to the table with a sense of generosity, understanding and accommodating the views and opinions of others, and doing so in a way that best serves everyone in the community and promotes security and stability and support for democracy. The institutions have been devised to give expression to that diversity and difference. Unless that is added to the equation, unfortunately we see from time to time a crisis of sorts beginning to arise. We need to liberate the process by people having the confidence to, of course, put forward their views, but also to work the institutions and to work with people with whom one has committed to work on the basis of mutual respect and seeking to accommodate one another's points of view in a sensible and coherent way.

The Labour Party supports the efforts of the Government, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in trying to bring about a resolution to the difficulties that have arisen in Northern Ireland with regard to the devolution of policing and justice issues. I also acknowledge the efforts and significant contributions made by both Governments as well as the US Administration to matters over a period of years. However, I must wonder. We are 12 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, but it was already agreed at St. Andrew's that policing and justice powers would be devolved. All political parties in Northern Ireland state that they are in favour of having these powers devolved to their Administration. Most Parliaments, administrations and even local governments want to get more functions devolved to them, which is clearly a central issue in the context of Northern Ireland, yet agreement cannot be reached on it.

There is almost a sense of déjà vu. We arrive periodically at these crises in the process and the parties involved must have both Governments on an almost permanent standby to assist. I understand that the diaries of the Taoiseach and Prime Minister Brown have needed to be changed a number of times over the course of the past week. Now, we hear that the US Government might need to be brought in.

My first question is a general one. Is there too much hand-holding in this process? Second, the two Governments set a deadline for last Friday. Was doing so wise, given that it needed to be extended? I understand why it was extended and am not disputing its extension. I understood that the Governments were to publish proposals if the deadline was not met. The deadline has been extended, but at what point does the Taoiseach envisage the Governments publishing the proposals and are they such that they will achieve the objective of the devolution of policing and justice powers, which was agreed some time ago?

In response to Deputy Gilmore, I understand his point. However, the fact of the matter is that if there is a difficulty in the process and the Governments, as co-guarantors of the agreements, wish to see full implementation of these agreements with the participation of the other parties, particularly in the context of the devolution of policing and justice given the steps that must be taken within the Assembly apart from elsewhere to effect that, then the Governments would ideally like to see these matters resolved between the parties in the normal course of discourse between them.

The problem was that they were not getting resolved. It had got to the point at which indications were being given two years on from May 2008, which was the indicative time given by Prime Minister Brown and the then Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, at the time of the St. Andrew's Agreement as being the time by which they felt sufficient community confidence could be built up to enable the devolution of policing and justice and all of the parties would fully subscribe to signing up to the reforms in the PSNI and putting in place all Patton recommendations and ethos. All of that happened, yet people were still looking at an indicative date as being the time by which it should happen while others were emphasising the conditions being right for it to happen, a conditions-based approach. What was clearly the case, given the very detailed steps that both the First and Deputy First Ministers had agreed to take place in order to build up confidence, was that we had come to a point at which a decision probably needed to be taken. Other aspects of the agreement need to be advanced as well. We are talking about trying to complete agreements that have been reached.

As the Deputy knows, various nuanced positions have been taken by various parties on the St. Andrew's Agreement and to what extent they were tied into specific processes and timescales announced by the Governments at the time. This was done by the Governments because one did not have overt and explicit agreement between the parties in respect of those issues at that time, but a process was agreed by which one would have expected a consensus to emerge within the timeframes outlined.

I take the point that it is important for these institutions to be sustained and for the working relationship between the parties to be such that the intervention of Government would not be required. I would make the point that, if we get to the point at which we can fully devolve remaining powers to the Administration, then clearly the role of Government in terms of trying to resolve outstanding issues becomes less because one has, by that stage, perhaps crossed an important hurdle, namely, an important landmark whereby devolution in full is operational. However, there are still very important strands of the agreement on the North-South issues and the relationship between the Government and the Administration that need to be fostered and developed. I do not see at any time how the Government could fulfil its obligations by stepping back in the process. The Government should be there to assist a deeply divided political culture in finding a ways and means of having a modus vivendi between parties. It requires a change in the political culture. It requires people to realise that the old hegemonies are gone. We are in a brave new world, a situation in which everyone’s view must be accommodated, but we must also have generosity of spirit in forming that process and in people making compromises. The culture has never been about making compromises successfully in the past. Those who made compromises paid the political price.

We are not only trying to devise structures. People get caught up on structures but, as important as they are, it is about changing the political culture. It is where people see and recognise that one's position has to take account of someone else's position and find a way through it coherently. The need for trust and confidence in one another's capacity to work together is fundamental to that, as is the need to improve political relations, as one knows from this jurisdiction in terms of coalition governments. They need to foster relationships between people who have been politically opposed to one another in a previous parliamentary session. That must all change and people must be proactively working at that all of the time. There is a need for this to be a part of the equation a well. It is not about a separate but equal operation. It is about a coherent whole working together and recognising that there are people with very strongly held and different perspectives on many fundamental issues, such as what they are about, who they are and where their affiliations and loyalties lie.

For me, the great genius of these agreements is that we are not seeking to reach a predetermined destination. We are on a journey that will take us wherever it will based on principles of consent, mutual respect and mutual interest. We have to devise a culture that sustains institutions to be effective and responsive to people's needs. I feel very strongly that everyone must hear the voice of the public in this. The people of Northern Ireland on all sides of the equation want this to work. They want people to overcome their difficulties and find a way through. They are showing a lot of patience because they understand that the prize is considerable. As a result of the progress made up to Wednesday there was a feeling from us, as British Prime Minister and Taoiseach, that there would be a way through if people kept the momentum going and worked at the issue. We felt that a couple of days should bring about agreement on the principles informing an agreement going forward.

As a result of the way people approach things a level of reassurance is sought that may well be greater than what the Deputy and I or Deputy Kenny and I might seek in respect of a political accommodation based on how we operate. There is a long journey that has been trod and we must be patient and supportive. A prolonged but genuine effort is being made to find a solution. I hope and believe that is the case and everybody is working on that basis. Those are the sort of assurances that people are working to.

I agree with the Deputy and would like to see matters completed quickly. I pay tribute, if I may, to my own colleague, Deputy Micheál Martin, and Secretary of State Shaun Woodward, who have helped the process along as closer agreement has been sought. Other parties in plenary session have also put forward their views and their role in the future working of the administration must be recognised. The two main parties are involved in direct discussions but other parties have a locus and role which must also be respected.

I very much welcome the Taoiseach's belief that progress is being and will be made. We all wish for that to be the case. It is perhaps not exceptional that there should be some expression of a level of irritation at the length of time the discussions are taking to reach a conclusion on something that was already agreed. Devolution was already agreed in the St. Andrews Agreement and we are a long way on from the original dates identified for having that in place.

I appreciate that the Taoiseach wants to be cautious in replying about the issues being discussed. From the press reports we have seen, it appears that the difficulty has moved on to the issue of parades and the substantial issue of policing and its devolution appears to be mostly agreed. The difficulties now surround the parades issue. If agreement is not reached — I sincerely hope it will be — will the proposals of the two governments encompass the issue of parades and what is to be done about that?

There are a number of issues and it is important not to reduce outstanding issues to just two. There are a number of matters relating to implementation of the agreement that must be addressed. In talking about steps to devolution, the justice Bill for the creation of a justice department has been passed by the Assembly and once agreement has been reached between the parties the following steps must be taken.

There must be an agreement on the identity of a Justice Minister, an agreement on the relationship of a Justice Minister to the Executive, the finalisation of the Assembly committee report on policing and justice, a cross-community voting assembly requesting policing and justice powers, a budget Bill for the Assembly committee that must be passed, a transfer order approval by Privy Council, an agreement on the programme for government on policing and justice and there is a budget Bill submitted for royal assent. Even just looking at the devolution issues there are a number of processes and procedures that must be agreed in terms of content, substance and timing that must be worked through.

There are other issues as well. The Deputy mentioned the parade question. In the St. Andrews Agreement, it was agreed to look at the long-term strategy on this matter as it feeds into a public order issue, particularly in respect of contentious parades. There is a need to be particularly sensitive to the rights of communities as well as the rights of others to parade. That is a balance of rights that needs to be very carefully calibrated, as we know. The Parades Commission has been the means by which an arbitration on the issues arising takes place.

There is a strong view that we must keep that issue away from politics and direct operational policing decision. We must consider how to build on the current regulatory framework which, in broad terms, has served us well. Every process has room for improvement and discussion can take place in which people can find ways forward that give mutual confidence to those who wish to exercise their right to parade, as well as ensuring that communities are not subject to sectarian or other harassment. There are various means and confidence-building measures that one can identify that would assist in ensuring this happens.

Taking the contention out of parades would be an ideal objective to be achieved but it will require much work, discussion and careful consultation, mediation and arbitration processes that would be transparent and have the confidence of communities. There must be dialogue. The Derry issue was sorted out on the basis of people sitting down and working through the issues of what had been a very contentious matter. It has enabled one cultural tradition to celebrate its particular history while at the same time not impinging or disrespecting the culture of others who do not affiliate to those marches or manifestations of identity which emerge when parades take place.

It is possible to deal with these matters but it requires a sensitivity and willingness on all sides to listen to each other and find a way through based on dialogue, mediation and in some cases arbitration. That process should have the confidence of both communities, engendering and promoting mutual respect. These issues are being discussed in detail with a view to proceeding. Nobody is seeking a quid pro quo and the issue of devolution of policing and justice has its own intrinsic merit and imperative in any event. Other issues that feed into law and order issues in general, including that issue, can and are being discussed on their own merits and in separate contexts and dialogue streams. It is important for all of us to reach agreement generally so that everybody can go forward with confidence.

Having played our part in the direct engagement with the republican base not only in this State but throughout the island of Ireland in winning support for new policing arrangements in the North of Ireland and a new acceptance of changed policing structures in that part of our island, we share very much in the frustration of so many at the passage of time since the agreement was reached at St. Andrews, in which a number of us directly participated. I will not press the Taoiseach on any of the content of the recent negotiations that took place at Hillsborough, except to say that it is my understanding that considerable work and progress has been made over an intense and protracted period of engagement. It is very understandable that there have been expressions of impatience at the length of time, as we are into the second week of these intense inter-party engagements. These expressions have been made across the island of Ireland and undoubtedly beyond these shores.

It is important to recognise that what is at stake is not just something that goes to the core of relations between communities in the North of Ireland, but to the core of the relationship between the island of Ireland and the neighbouring island of Britain. The prize is something of great importance to people of all opinion and it is that we have the transfer of policing and justice responsibilities to the Assembly in Belfast and that there is a joint responsibility for overseeing the working out of those responsibilities into the future. The issue is now one of political leadership and the ability to deliver.

I want to acknowledge the Taoiseach's direct involvement in these talks and that of his British counterpart, specifically in respect of the Hillsborough engagement. Will he join with me in rejecting the type of commentary that would wish to portray the difficulties that pertain in the overall body politic in the North of Ireland as two intractable foes constantly proving themselves unable to overcome their respective difficulties? This is something of such importance that it warrants the direct involvement of the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister. As Irish republicans see it, what is involved here is the future working of the structures established under the Good Friday Agreement to serve the people directly in the Six Counties, as well as the people of the whole island. It also deals with the relationships between these respective islands into the future.

I hope that the final hours of these discussions will lead to a successful outcome, something for which the overwhelming body of people across the island are hoping and praying. Tá súil agam go n-éireóidh leis na cainteanna sin go luath.

The questions posed to the Taoiseach cover a wide range of issues, but I would like to refer specifically to Question No. 12. I asked him in that question whether he has availed of the opportunity to raise directly with the British Prime Minister the issue of collusion. I refer particularly to the unanimous agreement in the Oireachtas on the Barron and justice sub-committee reports, which were forwarded for consideration by the British Parliament at Westminster. While we have received an acknowledgment, we have apparently made no progress in our unanimous call that the outstanding matters be subject to truth and justice. The Taoiseach indicated in the past that he did not directly address these matters with the British Prime Minister. Since the last time we posed these questions to him, has he availed of the opportunity to address the Barron and justice sub-committee reports, as well as the Dáil motion?

We also passed an important unanimous motion in this House. Has he taken the opportunity to address with the British Prime Minister the issue of the murder of Pat Finucane? The Finucane family and many campaigners for truth and justice in Ireland, Britain and elsewhere have been waiting for a resolution to this for some time. Can the Taoiseach give us an update on this? What expectations does he have of any progress in respect of both these matters? Our call from this House should not be viewed as exceptional, when one realises that the British Government and the previous Prime Minister are under intense scrutiny over his decision to participate in the invasion of Iraq. The British have been prepared to address these matters in an open forum, so what is the problem with addressing the British war in Ireland?

In my original reply I explained the position in respect of those inquiries. We have experience of the commission inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. While much was achieved, it did not resolve the issues for the relatives. We also have the work of the Eames-Bradley group. There are also issues that have arisen where legal proceedings have been initiated. A number of relatives of the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings who are not members of the Justice for the Forgotten group sought redress in the High Court to gain access to the files of the McEntee commission of inquiry, which were held and sealed in my Department. The Master of the High Court delivered his judgment on the matter on 7 May 2008, finding against the Taoiseach, Ireland and the Attorney General.

That was appealed and the High Court upheld the appeal on 18 March 2009. It is now being appealed to the Supreme Court. There are several other cases before the courts in which applicants, including Justice for the Forgotten, are also seeking access to the archive. Therefore, I would not like to comment further on the matter. In defending these cases, the State is honouring commitments of confidentiality given by Mr. McEntee in the course of his inquiries.

The discussions I have been having with the British Prime Minister recently have not related to the collusion issue, as the Deputy describes it. They have been about the institutions and trying to implement the agreements that we have been discussing for the last half an hour. These have been my priority when dealing with the British Prime Minister. At official level, there is continuing interaction between the Governments on outstanding matters. I met with relatives of the Bloody Sunday victims, who are awaiting the publication of their inquiry and want this to be brought forward in a way that allows them study the issues in a timely fashion. I listened to what they had to say about those issues and I would support them in any way I can. In the main body of my reply I said any future follow-up on further inquiries mentioned should be considered in consultation with the parties and can be raised with the Whips. That is the best answer I can give at the moment.

Regarding the talks, at times like this we need political leadership and for people to see the big picture. People must recognise that much progress has been made and that the logic and rationale of the situation is to complete successfully any remaining issues that have not been fully and finally resolved but on which there has been much discussion. In the context of a successful outcome, we need to deal with political relationships and ensure that the Executive is inclusive and provides an opportunity for all to participate. We need to build an esprit de corps that is necessary for a good, efficient, effective Executive to work in any Administration. That requirement falls to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. We must ensure that the relationship is exemplary in terms of effective working methods.

These are important matters that send signals of confidence and give hope to people that what we are doing will accomplish things so that matters will work out as envisaged and people will serve the community that elected them to these positions of responsibility. That is fundamental and the effect of working at the Assembly and the way in which the North-South institutions work means there is a need for people to unshackle the constraints and limitations. What has been a conservative approach thus far to all of these matters must be opened to the potential of these agreements. This will allow people to see we can work together and, by working together, we can bring mutual benefit, which is the objective of the exercise in the first place.

That concludes Taoiseach's questions.

We are out of time. I will allow a very brief observation.

Aside from the intense focus of the very recent past and following a hopefully successful conclusion to this process, will the Taoiseach give an undertaking to the House to raise matters of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, the wider matter of collusion and the Pat Finucane murder to which the Taoiseach did not refer in his reply? His family and those who campaigned for justice in his name are very anxious to see the matter properly addressed. Does the Taoiseach accept this can only be done through his direct leadership and intervention at the highest level rather than leaving the matter to officials? Will the Taoiseach undertake to do this?

It has been raised at a political level by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, who is dealing with these matters on an ongoing basis. We have been supportive of trying to find an investigative mechanism that is required for the Pat Finucane issue. I met the family on a number of occasions. I am mindful of the fact that the Eames-Bradley group provides us with an opportunity to examine the past in a way that will help us all to have a greater understanding for the future and to find some means by which matters can be closed and resolved. These matters are ongoing and have not been resolved to the satisfaction of the Government or the Dáil. In many respects, trying to retrace events that far back leads us to not getting to the full truth we want to get to and would like to get to. We continue to see how we can assist those families who seek to obtain the truth in these issues.

Top
Share