Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:14 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 10 February 2000 with the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Mr. David Trimble. [4359/00]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Northern Ireland Issues.
John Bruton
Ceist:15 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 10 February 2000 with the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Mr. Trimble; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4360/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:16 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 15 February 2000 with senior representatives of the SDLP; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4848/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:17 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions since 17 February 2000 with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair. [4849/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:18 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions since 17 February 2000 with the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Mr. Trimble. [4850/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:19 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the published reports on decommissioning to the British and Irish Governments by General John de Chastelain. [4854/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:20 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 1 February 2000 with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Mandelson; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4940/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:21 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 2 February 2000 with Mr. Gerry Adams, President of Sinn Féin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4941/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:22 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the future of the British-Irish Council, the North-South Ministerial Council and the North-South Implementation Bodies. [4942/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:23 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with the Grand Master of the Orange Order, Mr. Robert Saulters; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4943/00]
John Bruton
Ceist:24 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone discussion with the President of the United States of America; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4944/00]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:25 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the legislative or other measures, if any, he will bring forward in view of the suspension of the institutions under the Good Friday Agreement. [5019/00]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:26 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his contacts since 9 February 2000 with the British Prime Minister. [5020/00]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:27 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the current state of the Northern Ireland peace process. [5023/00]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:28 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the constitutional implications for Ireland of the suspension of the Northern Ireland Executive. [5024/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:29 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting in Dublin on 15 February 2000 with representatives of the SDLP. [5079/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:30 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting in London on 16 February 2000 with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair. [5080/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:31 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting of 8 February 2000 with the Grand Master of the Orange Order, Mr. Saulters; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5081/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:32 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the implications for the British-Irish Council, the North-South Ministerial Council and the North-South Implementation Bodies of the enactment of British legislation providing for suspension of the Northern Ireland Executive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5082/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:33 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the dis cussions, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister regarding the decision of the British Government to suspend the Northern Ireland Executive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5083/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:34 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the second de Chastelain report issued on 11 February 2000. [5084/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:35 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had or plans to have with General John de Chastelain regarding his reports on the decommissioning issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5085/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:36 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the implications for the peace process in Northern Ireland of the decision of the IRA to withdraw its interlocutor from the de Chastelain commission and take its latest proposals off the table; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5086/00]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:37 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent talks concerning Northern Ireland with Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair. [5193/00]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:38 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meetings with parties in Northern Ireland. [5285/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 14 to 38, inclusive, together.
I refer Deputies to my statement to the House on Tuesday, 15 February last. In the period leading up to and since the suspension of the Assembly and the Executive, I have been in constant contact with the Prime Minister Mr. Blair and have had a number of meetings with the leaders of Sinn Féin, the UUP and the SDLP in Dublin.
In London last Wednesday, the Prime Minister and I met jointly with Sinn Féin, the UUP and the SDLP to discuss the current difficulties. I firmly believe that both the operation of the institutions and the disposal of arms under the mandate of the International Commission on Decommissioning should proceed. The Prime Minister and I are both convinced there is no reasonable alternative to the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.
We also agreed that pending the re-establishment of the institutions, we will continue to implement resolutely all the outstanding elements of it within our responsibility. From time to time in this process, it is inevitable that there will be differences of emphasis between the participants on what approach should be taken in particular circumstances. This has happened in the past and undoubtedly it will happen in the future. What is important now is how to proceed from here.
The Governments and the parties will continue to work to achieve a successful outcome. The way forward should be based on the three principles agreed by the parties on 25 June which were incorporated into the Mitchell review report on 18 November last. They provide that we work towards getting devolved governments through an inclusive executive, decommissioning of all paramilitary arms under the mandate of the International Commission on Decommissioning and decommissioning to be carried out in a manner determined by the international commission. From the various meetings which the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I had with all of the parties last week, I believe there is a willingness and an intention to proceed on that basis. If we continue on that path, we can work matters out from this point. I have had a number of telephone conversations with President Clinton and will continue to keep him fully informed of the situation.
With regard to the legal and constitutional issues, I would again refer Deputies to my statement of last Tuesday. We will carefully consider how best to proceed in these matters, including how we proceed in regard to the North/South and British-Irish institutions.
On Tuesday, 8 February, the Lord Mayor of Belfast, Mr. Robert Stoker, accompanied by Mr. Robert Saulters, the Grand Master of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, and Mr. Frank McCoubrey of the UDP paid a courtesy call to me in Government Buildings. The meeting provided a useful opportunity for me to hear their views on matters of mutual interest.
Does the Taoiseach believe the IRA offer, which was conveyed to General de Chastelain on the Friday on which the suspension occurred, was sufficiently clear-cut to ensure that Ulster Unionist Ministers would not resign? When was that offer presented to General de Chastelain? Did he get it before or after the suspension? Has the Taoiseach obtained information from Sinn Féin on why this offer was presented so late, on the Friday before what was known to be a crucial meeting on Saturday?
The offer, which has since been withdrawn, was, as I said last week, a substantive one. It went a considerable distance, although, as I also said last week, it did not seek full clarity. It was, however, a significant move. I am not sure what time of the day the offer was presented. I understand it was made by telephone. It was certainly made during the course of the day, not after the suspension. It was made more formally after the suspension as further meetings were held. My officials spent 13 days working to avoid the "last hour" syndrome, but that did not prove possible. Ultimately, this created a difficulty because there was too much too achieve on the last day. If it had happened two weeks earlier, we may have overcome the difficulties on which we had been trying to make progress since November. I and others made a number of statements here, in South Africa and elsewhere on this issue. Two weeks previously I asked my officials to go to Derry to start a process which went on for 13 days. Waiting for the last day was clearly unhelpful. I do not know why that happened. I can only assume people had not cleared their minds and perhaps still have not done so.
Did the Taoiseach consider that making an offer so late, on the day before a crucial meeting, and giving it confidentially to the Prime Ministers only was designed not to allow the other parties examine it sufficiently?
I do not think so. It was a process of push and shove for two weeks to reach a final position. The offer was not intentionally made at the last hour. That would not have been consistent with what had happened previously. My officials and I saw it as our task to achieve movement. Efforts were made hourly and daily. These things tend to happen – even if one does not get all the progress one needs, it still comes too late.
The Taoiseach said the IRA offer was a substantive one and went a considerable distance. He did not say, however, it would have been sufficient to prevent the resignation of Ministers that evening or the following day. Is it the view of the Taoiseach and the Government that suspension was preferable to resignation or vice versa?
I would not put it in those terms because I did not see it that way. The Government was trying to get movement from the IRA so the statement by General de Chastelain on 31 January would be substantive and would allow room for everyone, not least the UUP, to make progress. The deadline of 31 January came and discussions went on into the early hours of the morning. The discussions that night continued until approximately 3 a.m. and we continued for another ten or 12 days to try to make progress. The Irish Government and I were in favour of working towards a review without a suspension. That would have been consistent with the constitutional position and the terms of the British-Irish Agreement. It is my view and I believe the view of the British Government that if the move which took place happened a few days earlier, we would have achieved this.
A postponement?
Even a few days deferral would have been helpful.
First, I wish to ask the Taoiseach a question on defining where we are now so that there is clarity and respect for a shared analysis. Second, will he confirm the analysis I will put to him? Am I correct in stating that the position now is that the institutions have been suspended, the Unionist participants feel they cannot resume participation in those institutions until they are satisfied progress has been made on the issue of putting arms beyond use, the IRA and Sinn Féin have removed their interlocutor or representative from the only body that can determine whether progress is being made, that is, the de Chastelain Commission, and in the absence of that link being re-established, we are at a point where we cannot make progress because the mechanism for that progress depends on some communication being conveyed to the de Chastelain Commission which, in turn, can give a third report from 11 February which would enable the other participants to the process to have sufficient confidence to resume their participation? Is this a fairly accurate description of where we are?
The part of the analysis with which I do not agree is that the report will be the third one. It will be the Commission's fifth report.
I take that clarification. Following the Taoiseach's discussions with the British Government, the President of the United States and his own officials who have been working tirelessly on this issue, what proposals, if any, have the two Governments, which were the co-signatories to the Good Friday Agreement together with the parties in Northern Ireland, to make progress in relation to the difficulties I have described and which he has accepted?
I have many ideas but whether they become proposals is another matter. The British and Irish Governments have agreed to continue to implement the aspects of the Good Friday Agreement which come within our remit. All the parties said last week that this would give them the confidence and determination to keep on working at this issue. We must construct some mechanism to re-establish the institutions while at the same time dealing with the issue of putting arms beyond use. We cannot do this on our own. However, the consultation process, to which we are committed, involves the two Governments and all the parties. I have had many discussions during the past week and I believe people are determined to find a mechanism to deal with this matter. It would be wrong for me to say that there is one solution to deal with the problem because this is not the case. However, all the parties have ideas and are determined to solve the problem. I appreciate the fact that the UUP, Sinn Féin and the SDLP have had meetings and dialogue and exchanged phone calls with me. All the parties are not ad idem or going in the same direction, but they are coming forward with ideas and are determined to find a resolution to the problem.
The current position is not where we want to be, but we can construct something. As I have repeatedly said to the parties, and I restated it in the House, every day we lose on this, makes the situation more difficult. Every day creates a new obstacle and makes anti-Agreement people more determined in their remit. We should be conscious of that.
I presume the Taoiseach means the components that are not exclusive to Northern Ireland, which constitute a part of the Good Friday Agreement, remain intact and will function and that this includes the North-South bodies between the British and Irish Governments and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in relation to activities with their counterparts in the Stormont Administration. Is that correct? Will there be meetings of the North-South bodies between representatives of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and representatives from the Irish Government?
No, I do not see that happening at this stage. The contact will be between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. At this stage I do not envisage Ministers from the NIO meeting me, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, or other Ministers. It would be extremely dangerous to pursue such a course.
Deputies Quinn and John Bruton rose.
I call Deputy Ó Caoláin. I will return to the Deputies.
I represent 54 Deputies while the Deputy represents one.
Before unilaterally suspending the institutions established under the Good Friday Agreement, the British Government had to introduce enabling legislation in Westminster. Will the Taoiseach outline whether the Government protested to the British Government at that time and informed it of the constitutional and legal difficulties such a suspension would cause? Does the Taoiseach intend to bring forward any amendments to the British-Irish Agreement Act, 1999, given that the legal basis for the Act has been undermined by the suspension?
Regarding a comment by the Taoiseach last Thursday, when I was not present, will he acknowledge that I have been empowered to attend the House on the basis of the democratic mandate accorded to me in the general election in June 1997 and on no other basis? I enjoy no backing other than the popular support of the people of Cavan and Monaghan and this is the basis for the participation of all my party colleagues, North and South, at local authority level and in the Assembly.
What was that about?
I do not believe I said anything in that regard. I am not sure to what the Deputy is referring. However, I recognise the Deputy as a Member elected in the Cavan-Monaghan constituency in the last general election. I do not recall saying anything to the contrary last Thursday.
Issues regarding the legislative and consti tutional positions were made known to the British Government. Our interpretation of the legislation and its conflicting position with regard to the British-Irish Agreement Act were made known. I also made those known to Mr. Trimble and his advisers.
Deputy John Bruton rose.
I call Deputy Joe Higgins.
There is not much point being a big party here.
(Dublin West): It appears Deputy Bruton is up to his old tricks again.
Deputy Higgins tabled two questions. It is normal procedure to offer all Deputies who tabled questions an opportunity to ask supplementary questions.
Perhaps all 54 Fine Gael Deputies should table questions. We could do that and crowd the Order Paper.
Please allow Deputy Higgins to put his supplementary question.
(Dublin West): I regret Deputy Bruton's tendency to want to take over the Chair at regular intervals in the House.
We will put them all in. Every Fine Gael Deputy will table questions.
Deputy Higgins without interruption.
(Dublin West): Will the Taoiseach agree that in relation to taking the gun and violence out of life in Northern Ireland there are three main planks which should be advanced? Will he agree that dismantling the whole apparatus of repression built up by the British state over 30 years, including dismantling the ugly army fortresses across the North, should be carried out forthwith? This would assist the position immensely. Will he agree that implementation of radical changes in policing, involving placing the police under democratic community control, as an unarmed force, would assist the position? Will he agree that disbanding all the paramilitary organisations on all sides which do not have the democratic support of a majority of either or any community, North or South, would also be crucial? Will he agree that those three planks being pushed together – though one is not conditional on another – would create a situation for an entirely new development in Northern Ireland?
I am strongly in favour of demilitarisation whether it is in south Armagh or elsewhere. I have raised this issue continuously particularly with regard to communities where there has not been any violence or activities of note for several years. That would help. That is one of the aspects I refer to as we try to implement the Good Friday Agreement in full. On the second point, the Secretary of State, Mr. Mandelson, has moved substantially on the implementation programme for Patten. As it progresses during the year it will give an enormous confidence boost, particularly, to the Nationalist community who want to see radical changes. Recently Mr. Mandelson reiterated strongly his statements of last autumn that he is prepared to listen. I agree with that. On the third point, I agree that arms, all kinds of paramilitary arms, all shows of strength and force need to be taken away. That also applies to people who want to be in Government. If people want to be part of the Executive, which is part of democracy – I am sorry if I have to keep on saying this and it annoys people – the reality is that if one wants to be part of a democracy, for a short period one can continue to have a private army, but one cannot have that in the long-term. That has to be resolved as well.
Has Sinn Féin indicated at any stage that it accepts what the Taoiseach has just said?
I hope people in Sinn Féin are working to that but I have no resolution to it yet.
Has Sinn Féin at any stage indicated to the Taoiseach that it believes that decommissioning will actually occur?
I think Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have said, on numerous occasions, they strongly support decommissioning.
That is a slightly different question. The Taoiseach is aware, I have no doubt, that the leader of Sinn Féin said to me, admittedly more than a year ago, that he believed IRA decommissioning would never occur. That was published subsequently. Since then, has Sinn Féin indicated to the Taoiseach that it has changed the view and that it now believes it will actually occur?
I believe that is the Sinn Féin view but while I state that, I have to state the other part of it. Sinn Féin leadership and its spokespersons say it is not within its remit to deliver that but it is in favour of decommissioning.
I accept it is not the IRA and that it cannot act on behalf of the IRA. I also accept it wants to see decommissioning. Has Sinn Féin said it is its opinion in light of the prevailing circumstances or in the likely foreseeable circumstances, that it will occur?
I believe that is its view. It has not indicated precisely how it thinks it might occur because it cannot control that, but I believe it is its view. It is as supportive of decommissioning as I am. However, it probably sees decommissioning within overall demilitarisation. I believe the Sinn Féin leadership wants to see it happen and believes it will happen.
Has it actually said it believes it will happen? Has the Taoiseach asked it?
Every time we met for the last number of years decommissioning has been an issue. Sinn Féin has a Deputy in this House. Perhaps he could answer the question better than I could.
Hear, hear.
He might.
I believe it is the view and policy of the Sinn Féin leaders that they want to see decommissioning and will do all they can to achieve it. That is the position they have stated to me.
Has the Taoiseach himself, across the table, asked them the question—
Yes.
—"Do you believe that it will happen?", and have they said, "yes"?
Yes.
That is fair enough. Obviously, they said the opposite when they met me a year ago.
In his discussions with the British Prime Minister, has the Taoiseach raised the destruction of some of the weapons used on Bloody Sunday, in view of the likelihood that those weapons would be very important evidence in the Saville inquiry? If so, what answer has he got from the British Prime Minister as to how weapons which were of importance to an inquiry which is of great importance to reconciliation on this island could have been put beyond evidential examination?
The Taoiseach has raised the constitutional issue regarding suspension of the Assembly. In view of the Government's clear obligation under Article 6.2 of the Constitution, what steps are being taken by the Government with regard to this matter, given the Taoiseach's stated belief that the procedures adopted contradict our Constitution?
I have not spoken about the arms used on Bloody Sunday. Last year we had considerable discussion about a day of reconciliation or an act of reconciliation in which we would all involve ourselves and to which we would all contribute. This act of reconciliation would include arms from all those involved. Those discussions almost came to fruition during Holy Week of 1999 when there was an attempt to hold an act of reconciliation to which everyone would contribute. The British Government was part of that discussion although we did not reach the point where all parties formally agreed to take part. Had agreement been reached by all sides, I believe everyone, including the two Governments would have participated. Unfortunately, one of the parties declined to bring the discussions to fruition and the initiative collapsed. If there was an act of reconciliation I believe the British Government would play its part in it.
I have examined the constitutional question and I have taken advice on it. At this stage I believe the legislative and constitutional concerns would be best allayed by the speedy restoration of the institutions. If this does not happen after a significant period of time, issues regarding implementation bodies will require careful consideration. However, I do not wish to do anything about that yet.
Given that there is a shared and agreed description of where we are at present and given that aspects of the Good Friday Agreement will continue to be operated on a bilateral basis between the British and Irish Governments, will the Taoiseach indicate the plans, as distinct from thoughts, he and the British Government have to reconnect the IRA with the independent international decommissioning body on the one hand and the Ulster Unionist Party with the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland on the other? Does he agree it is no longer a private concern of Sinn Féin on the one hand and the Ulster Unionist Party on the other? Will he, therefore, consider, without becoming involved in a formal review process, the desirability of having all the parties to the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, including all those parties which are pro-Agreement as well as those which are not necessarily pro-Agreement, gather together for a round table meeting of some form to see if they can collectively find a way out of this difficulty, the description of which has been accepted?
That is also our analysis and what is required of the two Governments and all the parties which negotiated the Good Friday Agreement. It might even extend beyond those which are members of the assembly to parties such as the UDP which also played a valuable role. That process has started, although we have yet to reach the stage of round table discussions. There were meetings before the weekend and there are further meetings today. When there were difficulties in recent years the collective efforts of the party leaderships proved very useful. They are all determined to assist in finding a way forward. The main players will have to contribute to any analysis reached. We have not yet reached that stage but it is possible to get there.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the participants in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in the Republic also have a role to play bearing in mind the role played by this House throughout the peace process?
We discussed that matter over the weekend. Depending on what happens in the next week or so it is a vehicle to which I am looking.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the obligation on all parties to the Good Friday Agreement derives from the people who gave us the required sanction in the referenda carried North and South? Does he draw considerable strength from their support for his continuing efforts to implement all aspects of the Agreement? I have had the privilege of having a democratic mandate for almost 35 years. Will the Taoiseach acknowledge that the Agreement, as Deputy Quinn said, does not belong to any two parties but to all elected representatives? Is he encouraged by the support of all democratically elected representatives in Ireland, Britain and elsewhere, as evidenced by the unanimous support at the recent conference of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body, for his consistent and unremitting efforts and those of the British Prime Minister? Does he draw strength, authority and encouragement from all those efforts to bring about a permanent and lasting peace?
I acknowledge what was stated last week at the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body, of which Deputy O'Kennedy is co-chair. There was unanimity among its members and I appreciate their support. In a relatively good poll 96% voted in favour of the Agreement. There can hardly be anything stronger in terms of a democratic mandate, but there is still a difficulty and I do not want to play it down in any way. There was an assembly, an executive, North-South bodies and institutions which were working very well and now we have nothing. I am not here to say that everything is rosy; it is not. There is a need for the two Governments and the parties to find a way forward and ultimately to get the institutions back up and running. We are back where we started. We need clarity on how we can resolve these issues on a time scale If the time scale is not the exact time scale that was there before, we need to work out and agree between the parties another time scale From having talked to all the party leaders and the negotiating bodies over the course of the weekend, I believe that by and large they are prepared to support an agreement – it may not be all that they want – providing it is clear what they are agreeing to. I would like to be able to deliver that to them as soon as I can.
Will the Taoiseach confirm reports which have appeared in a number of Irish Sunday newspapers to the effect that the confi dential, now withdrawn, IRA offer contained a commitment to say that the war was over within three months of giving the statement? Why does he believe they were not prepared to say that the war was over there and then rather than wait three months to say it?
The Taoiseach should not have to speculate on somebody else's state of mind.
I thank the Deputy for his help. The Taoiseach's assessment of the importance of these matters and the Taoiseach's opinion, as publicly expressed here in the House, is of great persuasive value, and that is why I am asking him these questions.
Would the Taoiseach agree with me that there is great merit in the suggestion made here earlier by Deputy Quinn to the effect that all the parties should get around the table so that all would have ownership of the problem; and that there would be great merit in bringing General de Chastelain to meet all of the parties in order that all of the parties together can see the full extent of the problem rather than have the matter dealt with by communications by the Government with Sinn Féin and by the British Government with the Unionists with everybody else cut out of the loop in a fashion which breeds frustration and suspicion?
Why has the Taoiseach not yet raised with the British Prime Minister the destruction of weapons which were used on Bloody Sunday which would be important for forensic examination by the Saville inquiry; and will he raise that matter with him? Does he consider that this was an attempt to sabotage that inquiry?
No, I do not think that. Prime Minister Mr. Blair has acted in good faith in that inquiry. He took a brave move in setting it up.
I am not asking about him. He would not have been the one who would have destroyed them. Who did destroy them?
I do not know when that happened. I am sure there is a record of when it occurred because I am sure it came up with the secretariat.
I have already said that I agree with all the parties participating around the table and that is under way. There has been a number of discussions and that can help also.
I will not go into the document. People respect the confidentiality of the document. On a light-hearted note, if all the suggestions in all of the Sunday newspapers both in Britain and Ireland had been contained in the document which we received from Sinn Féin via the IRA, it would have solved everything. It was a shorter document than that, but I do not want to say anything else about it. Perhaps next time all those suggestions might come into it.
The question of confidence in the conflict being resolved finally is an important matter. That, maybe more than arms, would give an enormous signal but we will continue to try and pursue that issue.
Would the Taoiseach agree with me that although the IRA has said the war should be over and must be over for good, it has not yet said that it is over? Would he agree that to say it is over and will never start again is an important contribution which the IRA could make; that if that was done, the decommissioning issue would be a far less acute problem; and that the absence of the use of the two-letter word "is" before "over" is the problem?
It is part of the problem, but the Deputy is correct; it certainly would be helpful.
Will the Taoiseach revisit the earlier responses to the questions which I put to him, specifically in relation to the integrity of my mandate and the integrity of the mandate of my colleagues because last week and again since my questions, the Taoiseach has inferred that we have backing other than the electoral mandate that I and other representatives of my party enjoy. I reject that. It is important that the Taoiseach affirms and recognises in this House that the only mandate and backing which I enjoy is that of the electorate of County Cavan and County Monaghan.
The Deputy should confine himself to questions. He is making a statement.
The electorate has expressed support for me in north Tipperary for 35 years.
It is of the same quality.
The Deputy is going to start spontaneously decommissioning now.
Deputy Ó Caoláin should put a supplementary question, please.
The Taoiseach did not reply to one element in the question that I put. Having made my first point, will the Taoiseach tell the House if he will bring forward any amendments to the British-Irish Agreement Act, 1999, now that the legal basis for that Act has been undermined by the suspension? Will he and Deputy Bruton and others note that it is my view and the view of Sinn Féin that full demilitarisation, including the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons, is both achievable and desirable?
What is wrong with Sinn Féin—
As a former banker he must have a one-sided viewpoint.
For the third time in a week I will try not to be in any way offensive and say that I totally acknowledge that every Member of this House is here on a democratic mandate, including Deputy Ó Caoláin. I have no difficulty saying that. My point, which I do not withdraw, is that in trying to make sure there is not violence and democracy is seen to happen, people cannot be associated with those who are armed. You cannot have a situation—
I have to object—
The Deputy should not interrupt the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach is in possession.
Ask him to condemn the activities of the IRA and see what he says.
That is part of the difficulty. When an institution is set up, one can get people to participate in that, as I have worked to try to do, on the basis that other issues of armed forces would be dealt with at a later date. We have not achieved that. When we deal with that, then we have solved the problem. I do not think that it is fair of Deputy Ó Caoláin to turn back the question and say he is in the House on a democratic mandate. Of course he is here on a democratic mandate, but there is another part of the problem to resolve. He knows what that problem is. That is why I cannot convince people that they are safe in the Executive or institutions because there is a link to people who are armed and that is part of the problem. That is why the institutions, the Executive, the Assembly, the North-South bodies, the Intergovernmental Conference are all suspended, much as I disagree with it and much as I fought that it should not happen. I totally accept that he and his colleagues in the political wing are endeavouring to assist, but it is part of the problem and the Deputy has to acknowledge that as much as I have to acknowledge other things. That is a valid point.
On legislation, I have already stated that we are looking at the legislative base. If the suspension continued indefinitely, we would have to look at the legislative position. I have already stated that we are looking at that matter. The Deputy asked me a third question.
Okay.
While rejecting the Taoiseach's earlier comments, I accept the indication of intention to review the legislation.