Michael Noonan
Ceist:3 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent developments in the Northern Ireland peace process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18369/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Northern Ireland Issues.
Michael Noonan
Ceist:4 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the Northern Ireland First Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18370/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:5 Mr. Noonan 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. [18371/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:6 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18372/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:7 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18373/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:8 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the current state of the Northern Ireland peace process. [19149/01]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:9 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the situation in Northern Ireland in the aftermath of the 1 July 2001 deadline by Mr. David Trimble for progress in decommissioning. [19695/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:10 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the implications for developments in Northern Ireland of the resignation on 1 July 2001 of Mr. David Trimble as First Minister; if he has met Mr. Trimble since his resignation; if not, if he plans such a meeting; if he plans to meet the British Prime Minister or the other political parties from Northern Ireland to discuss the development; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19698/01]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:11 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he has had discussions with the British Prime Minister since 23 June 2001; and if so, the matters discussed. [19918/01]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:12 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will outline his role in developments in the peace process since 23 June 2001. [19919/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:13 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his telephone discussions with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on 27 June 2001. [20083/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:14 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the progress made in the Northern Ireland talks he jointly chaired with the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20084/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:15 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the discussions, hosted by the Irish and British Governments, with the pro-agreement parties at Hillsborough Castle on 28 June 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20201/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 15, inclusive, together.
On Thursday, 28 June, the British Prime Minister and I met the leaders of the pro-Agreement parties in Hillsborough. We had valuable exchanges during those discussions, which were frank and at times forceful.
As Deputies will be aware, Mr. Trimble resigned as First Minister with effect from 1 July. The process is now at an extremely difficult and sensitive stage. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are maintaining contact with the parties this week. I will meet the British Prime Minister tonight in Downing Street and full-scale and intensive negotiations will get under way next week under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister and me.
I am disappointed that it has not been possible to achieve more progress on the four outstanding issues over past weeks. We remain determined to bring these issues to closure at the earliest possible date.
The people in both parts of the island endorsed the Agreement, and it is clear that it continues to command the support of the great majority, North and South. Our task now is to ensure that across the range of issues the Agreement is fully and faithfully implemented.
A meeting which is described by the Taoiseach as frank and forceful does not seem like a productive meeting. I continue to wish the Taoiseach well at his meetings in the coming week. I wish to explore a number of the issues with him. Does he envisage, in certain circumstances, an Assembly election taking place in Northern Ireland in the early autumn? If not, what are the mechanisms within the Agreement which can be invoked to either obviate that situa tion or to defer an election, if an election is deemed to be necessary, once the situation of not having a First Minister lasts for over six weeks?
At last Thursday's discussion it was agreed that both Governments and all the pro-Agreement parties would begin full scale intensive negotiations at an early stage. I suppose that was the area of agreement. We have to get down to that now. In answer to the second question, it seems to us and all my colleagues who have been involved at official level that we have a limited window within which to resolve the outstanding issues. The issues have not changed. We need to develop, if we can, a comprehensive agreement covering all these and then move forward. The British Government and ourselves will meet all the pro-Agreement parties. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and John Reid, Secretary of State, are keeping in touch with them this week at various levels. During the past two weeks we have been looking closely at the Agreement and the legislative position. Nobody has come up with a conclusion other than that if agreement is not reached within the six weeks period there would have to be Assembly elections. The call in regard to the date would come from the Secretary of State, John Reid. The date is not clear but his view, as of last week, was that it would be sometime in September or perhaps it could be delayed for a few weeks. There does not seem to be any way around the call that it would mean full Assembly elections, presumably in late September.
May I explore this issue further? Obviously if there is an agreement, a First Minister, either the same or another, could be reinstated and there would be no need for an election. If the Executive or the Assembly were suspended, would that obviate the need for an election? If a review was undertaken, along the lines of the review of the Good Friday Agreement conducted under the chairmanship of Senator Mitchell, would that obviate the need for an election? Is the Taoiseach saying that while the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has the right to select the date of the election, that he is legally obliged to have the election and cannot defer it indefinitely?
Last time, the British Government suspended the Executive and the institutions. It is different this time. The First Minister has resigned and, consequently, the Deputy First Minister can stay in office for only a six week period. Everything hinges on whether there is substantial progress. If there is substantial progress, perhaps the review process could operate, as it did before. If progress is not likely, I believe the British Government would not take the position of just suspending everything. That would create its own political difficulties, as happened the last time. To avoid that position, the Secretary of State would not want a review which was not likely to lead to an outcome. He would consider the options and we would be part of the process but he would have to come to a final conclusion. I do not believe the British Government would wish to fold the institutions entirely on this occasion. In the absence of substantive progress, I cannot see the Secretary of State making any call other than to move on the Assembly elections in September. While nobody would like that situation, I believe it would have to be the call.
Does the Taoiseach share my view that the British Government made the right decision this time in not suspending the institutions and particularly the Assembly, following David Trimble's resignation? Does he also agree that, politically, a space has been created within the objective framework of the agreement to which the majority of people on this island signed up, including the overwhelming republican population? Does he agree the onus now falls on Sinn Féin and its associated paramilitary wing, the Provisional IRA, to move decisively to break the impasse, not within the framework of a set of conditions and deadlines imposed by one political body or another, such as the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party or the British Government but at the behest of all who voted for the Good Friday Agreement? Does he agree that if they could now make such a move, on their own terms, within the context of the decommissioning framework as set out in the agreement and with the de Chastelain Commission, this would, in itself, be a very positive move which would in turn enable substantial movement to be made on the other three outstanding issues, the stability of the institutions and the questions of policing and demilitarisation? In that context, if the Taoiseach agrees with that analysis, does he consider that we on this side of the Border could have a role to play and that the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, if reconvened, could address the issues which are now at an impasse and provide an opportunity to express our views directly to the players involved, leaving them in no doubt about the views of all parties represented in this House on the desirability of moving forward?
I agree with Deputy Quinn on his first question. It was the Irish Government's wish last time and this time that the British Government should not suspend the institutions. That created unnecessary difficulties and was not favoured by the British Prime Minister on this occasion. There is now a short period within which to negotiate a successful position, rather than simply reflecting on the issues as we have been doing for a long time.
Without going into detail on last week's events, Deputy Noonan's quotation of my comments was a fair interpretation of the discussions. I would like to say I could see light in those discussions but I did not. The various positions were put forward but, unfortunately, they were not compatible, or even nearly compatible, on more than one issue. The only agreement we can broker is one which is negotiated. It is not a matter of setting aside some issues and starting again or trying to find a new interpretation. We have long passed that stage, after three years and four months work on the same issues, which are not really going to change. Deputy Quinn is right. As I have said many times, there are not only four issues. It may be helpful to categorise them for the benefit of the House and the public record. This House is, hopefully, at one on these issues and I appreciate the support of the leaders in Opposition on these matters.
In the first category, there is the update of the Good Friday Agreement and the current position on all its aspects, including equality issues, human rights issues and confidence building measures, some of which are fully implemented, some partially implemented and some well advanced. There an audit of those. They are substantive. Enormous progress has been made, although everything has not been concluded. There is a legislative base and other matters are progressing. On the criminal justice aspect, some issues have still to come forward.
In the second category, there are four outstanding issues which are not dependent on each other and are not linked together in real terms in the agreement. In the environment of our negotiations, the British Government may have more leverage than the Irish Government on some issues, but I take the position that we are equal partners and try to negotiate on that basis. The four issues comprise policing, demilitarisation, decommissioning or putting arms beyond use in a satisfactory way and the stability of the institutions. In reality, we are unlikely to get agreement on any of them unless we get progress on all of them. The position of some items may vary on different agendas. The policing issue is very much driven by the SDLP. They still have reservations and want to see the British Government from where the legislation ended last year. Decommissioning is, of course, an issue for all the paramilitary groups but there is a particular focus on the Sinn Féin negotiating position and the IRA's position. We are talking about all arms and General John de Chastelain was very careful, in his report of last Monday, to stress that his remit related to all arms held by paramilitaries. On demilitarisation, much progress has been made and more needs to be made. In the real world of negotiations, my leverage on that issue will be effective only if the British Government gets a response. Whether we like it or not, that is the reality and it will not change.
With regard to the stability of the institutions, what happened last October was unfortunate. Effectively, the First Minister used a device within the Agreement to act as he did. People should not have been suspended, having been democratically elected under the d'Hondt mechanism, the system on which everybody had agreed. We have to try to avoid this happening again to either of the Ministers concerned, Martin McGuinness and Báirbre de Brún. We need a fixed position on the stability of the institutions, to avoid different interpretations being taken.
Those are the issues. As Deputy Quinn rightly said, we cannot resolve them unless we get some way of negotiating. If each party sticks inflexibly to its own position, the situation cannot be resolved.
I note the Taoiseach has urged the republican movement, now more than ever, to make a move on decommissioning, a matter on which I agree with him. In the context of the report of General de Chastelain, and given that it deals with all paramilitaries, has the Taoiseach taken note of the UVF position, namely, that it will not disarm until it knows the IRA's plans and has a declaration from the Provisionals that the war is over? Can the Taoiseach say if in his contacts with the republican movement he has heard it clearly stated that the war is over? Can he bring that to the discussions with those who represent the UVF, namely, that more has been said than the UVF realises and that the language rather than the words used implies the war is over? It is important that a breakthrough is made on the loyalist side.
I have looked at these words very carefully, as words are very important. The Deputy knows the report states the UVF will not consider decommissioning before it knows the IRA's intention and hears a declaration that the war is over. It is not one or other, but both elements. The position at that end is very positive. We must always be fair and balanced in these issues.
The IRA said in its statement of 6 May 2000 and in other statements that it believes we have moved to a whole new dimension, that it is no threat to the ceasefire, something it recently restated, or more importantly the peace process. It has said it is committed to putting arms fully and completely beyond use in a way that is fully verifiable by John de Chastelain and to the satisfaction of the public at large, something it has reiterated. It has also stated it will communicate and deal with John de Chastelain and his colleagues, and has done so, particularly since April. There have been a number of lengthy meetings. The IRA has also accepted the remit of General John de Chastelain. Legislation was passed here and in Westminster. The idea of decommissioning legislation was not new, and people knew it was in place for a purpose. At one time I raised the idea of schemes, that perhaps we did not have to stick totally to the legislation, that there could be other ways of doing things, something which is still on the agenda. Perhaps there are other things which could be done. As of now, the position is that decommissioning will happen but it is not likely to be now. The Unionist position is that this issue is of immense importance to them: it is their number one item.
Policing is also a big issue for Unionists. We have continually argued for change in this context. The Government's position has been that we cannot make progress on policing and will not get people to join the police in the way we would like unless the Bill is satisfactory and close to the Patten report. To be frank, I would like it to go beyond the report as we always saw it as a compromise. The SDLP has put forward a long list of issues in this regard, as has Sinn Féin, and the matter is still unresolved. We are unlikely to reach any position unless there is movement on all fronts. I cannot say that even if there was clearance on decommissioning, the issue of policing would be sorted out very quickly – I do not think it would be that easy. However, a major breakthrough on any of the issues would help the overall climate for negotiations. As long as everybody sits on a position – everybody is doing so – and says that is their final position, progress cannot be made. The Unionists will certainly not agree with the Sinn Féin position as they believe Sinn Féin must secure more progress from the IRA. Sinn Féin states it cannot do this. The SDLP states the current position regarding policing is totally unsatisfactory. In these circumstances the institutions are totally unstable.
There are many other issues which must be dealt with and on which we must try to move the parties, something we have not succeeded in doing since March. That is the dilemma we face. We must continue to see what progress can be made.
Regarding positive news, I detected in the talks last week that people did not think we should throw the entire process aside. They did not add much to help, but the British Prime Minister and I detected the fact that people wanted to find a solution. Therefore, it is worth everybody's time to make one last attempt at it, and put in the effort to try to achieve it. So much has already been achieved. The climate has been good in recent years. I remember answering questions in the House in December 1997, when I said it was with great regret that we did not make the progress during that Christmas break we were meant to make – I repeated this as the talks last week. There was a change in the last 48 hours of those talks, which effectively broke down at Christmas 1997. The Dáil adjourned the same day. The Official Report shows that I said it was very dangerous because every time we allowed a void in the political process people got killed. I repeated that last week and we know what has happened since, with two men being shot dead. It would appear that in both cases the shootings were sectarian. An unfortunate Nationalist on his way to work in an engineering firm while waiting at a bus stop shortly after 7 a.m. was blown away. This always happens. It seems to me – it may not seem so to everybody else – that it is far better spending time negotiating than creating a vacuum. We should not allow a vacuum to develop, as happened in 1997 at Christmas, a time of goodwill, when 11 people were shot. It would be extremely dangerous to allow a vacuum to develop at this time. Posturing, not playing one's last card or sitting on the fence is a dangerous business and not what I want to do.
Undoubtedly the Taoiseach would agree that a collapse of the peace process is beyond contemplation and not an option. The Taoiseach referred to tragic incidents which have happened in the recent past. Is he aware that this morning loyalist paramilitaries carried out the sectarian killing of yet another 19 year old Catholic man, Ciaran Cummings, in Antrim? This follows the shooting dead of another man, John McCormick, in Coleraine, on 23 June, and the serious wounding of another man in Belfast on 27 June. This is against the backdrop of the ongoing efforts to prevent Catholic schoolchildren from attending school in north Belfast, and the burning of several Catholic churches. Does the Taoiseach realise – I say this very carefully – that there is deep anger, not only among republicans, but among a growing number of Nationalists not only in the Six Counties but throughout the whole island, that at a time when peace is being violated daily by armed loyalism, almost the entire party political and media focus – certainly the focus of Deputy Quinn of the Labour Party – is on the silent and inspected weapons of the IRA?
As a representative of Sinn Féin, a party that has fulfilled its obligations under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, including the decommissioning section, I urge the Taoiseach to ask the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, to fulfil his obligations including demilitarisation and the introduction of a new, acceptable police service. I strongly disagree with the Taoiseach's belief that he can be a neutral broker.
Everybody in the House would express their utter revulsion at the vicious and cowardly murder of Ciaran Cummings in Antrim and equally condemn the other murders and violence – I am aware that many incidents are going unreported. There are problems in both communities – thankfully not killings, and there are problems along the peace line, which we also condemn.
This House has been extremely balanced in what it said on all these matters, and supportive of what I have said. Everybody acknowledges that progress that has been made and that there are four outstanding issues. The arms are beyond use because those that have been inspected on three occasions have not been used. On the other side there are commitments which have been entered into by the British Government, with which I have no difficulty. Deputy Ó Caoláin and his party know that I argued for those that have been removed so far and am currently seeking the removal of others. Agreements have been made, deadlines put down and legislation has been passed here, setting up the schemes. We have supported an independent international commission on decommissioning with eminent world figures on it. We have set down achievements that we want to reach – that the arms will be put beyond use in a verifiable way. How this is done is not an issue for us in this House – we will support it even if it is not strictly according to the legislation – if other innovative ways are found.
I hope Deputy Ó Caoláin understands me even if he does not agree with me. I cannot get the British Government to move on demilitarisation unless I get moving on decommissioning. It is not a question of me being more than an honest broker – I could go into the talks any day and lecture the various parties, but that would not achieve anything. I am trying to achieve the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement because that is the job I have to do by virtue of the overwhelming vote of the people. I have to implement it fairly and cannot reinterpret or renegotiate it. I ask the Deputy and his colleagues to understand this.
That is what we are trying to do.
If we can achieve that then we can make real progress. If people do not work on it then I cannot.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the statement from the IRA on 6 May last year was very helpful in that it stated among other things that the ceasefire or the peace process were not under threat and that they would engage with General de Chastelain to put arms beyond use? Does the Taoiseach further agree that the main obstacle to successful negotiation is the fact that the engagement with General de Chastelain has not led to putting the arms beyond use, or indeed to making any progress since 6 May last year to the end of June this year ? Will the Taoiseach comment on the views attributed to Seamus Mallon, that under certain circumstances, Sinn Féin should be excluded from the executive, and that if they were to be excluded the onus would be on the two Governments to initiate the action to do so?
Seamus Mallon said that this is one of the considerations – he was not recommending it, but said it may come up. As I said on Monday, that issue should be considered at the end and not the beginning of these negotiations – and Seamus Mallon would agree with this approach.
I am trying to frame the progress that has been made as positively as I can. We have the IRA statement from 6 May last year that arms will be put beyond use in a verifiable way that is satisfactory to the public and that they will engage with the independent commission. There have been inspections by Martti Ahtisaari and Cyril Ramaphosa – and that is to be welcomed. I consider those arms to be beyond use because they have been inspected and are being reinspected and there is no indication that will not continue.
All of those things are positive, but the reality is that we have to move to a position that complies with the implementation of the legislation. There has been re-engagement since April. It appears to me that the IRA took the view that certain issues which they expected to arise out of the 6 May statement did not happen in May and June. The British Government contests that view and insists it fulfilled its obligations. There is no use arguing about it, but both sides have different points of view and these issues have to come back into the current negotiations – which brings us back to demilitarisation and decommissioning. It does not really matter what the delays and difficulties were, we are still in the same position. I could negotiate substantial movement on these matters – I might prove to be unsuccessful – but I believe I could get considerable progress on demilitarisation if I could get progress on decommissioning. If that happened it would not solve the policing issue, but would put it in a different light and we would be able to make progress. The issue of policing is sometimes under-estimated, but at least if we could make progress on other matters then we could deal with the stability of the institutions – which is irritating, and particularly so for the people who are suspended. Progress on one issue will assist the others, but progress will not be made if everybody sticks.
I apologise Deputy Quinn but I lead 70 Members of the Oireachtas and of the 13 questions that are being answered eight of them are in my name.
Other Members submitted questions as well and the Chair has no choice but to call them.
I would not pursue that logic.
The conclusion to which I was pursuing it was that somebody who leads 54 Deputies and 15 or 16 Senators is entitled to as much time as the sole representative of another party in the House. However, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is allowing me to ask a supplementary question. Will the Taoiseach outline the timetable, as he sees it, for negotiation over the next six weeks? I understand he is to meet the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair for dinner this evening in Downing Street? Where does it go from there on in?
Since our meeting last Thursday along with our officials, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State, Dr. John Reid, there has been a great deal of contact trying to establish a framework that we could use as a basis for this discussion for next week. Tonight, that is what we will work on to see if we can develop a framework taking the Good Friday Agreement from where it is now into a negotiating position with the parties for next week to see what progress we can make. There are no surprises in that – they are all the same issue. Maybe there are nuances to reflect discussions and meetings that have taken place, but nothing that is not clearly in the public domain.
It is my view and that of the Prime Minister that other than getting into a round of long, protracted negotiations in an effort to try to make progress, there is no other way. Effectively, we have been at this since 8 March. The election, needless to say, interfered with it. The parties agreed even though these are the two difficult weeks of the year with the marching season, 12 July, Drumcree Sunday and all of those issues, that it was still important that we should do it during this period. It will take a matter of a few days. The issues have been so well debated, it is a question of whether we can get movement. I cannot see new light being shed on the issues – it is really whether people are prepared to move.
On policing, there is some clear discussion. There have been meetings between the parties and the Secretary of State. There have been meetings between the Minister, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell and the parties. Other dialogue is going on. Tonight, we will try to put all of that together and then try to arrange a meeting with the parties for the weekend.
Will the Taoiseach join me in welcoming the clear statement made by Deputy Ó Caoláin on behalf of Sinn Féin that it would regard the falling of the institutions as a major mistake, calamity or tragedy – I am not exactly sure what precise word the Deputy used – and as something to be avoided? Will he agree that all the parties in this House, certainly the Labour Party, have condemned violence and paramilitary activity from whatever quarter? However, it is Sinn Féin which is linked to the IRA that is in Government in Northern Ireland. The onus of making the next leap falls on that party given its links with the IRA. There is no longer a question of an imposition of a deadline by David Trimble or the British Government but the requirement from all the people represented in this Parliament that some imaginative breakthrough be made this side of the end of the six weeks so as to avoid the possibility of an election, which would have to flow under the legal structures underpinning the Good Friday Agreement and the Assembly, that in all probability, would lead to an outcome that would be more hard-line on both sides and, therefore, make the coming together of a new Executive all the more difficult. It is incumbent on all of us in this House, in so far as we have influence, to become – to borrow a phrase from another time –"persuaders" of those people who have key cards in their hands to move to the point where the four issues the Taoiseach identified can be unravelled and resolved.
I agree with what Deputy Quinn said – we have to try to be persuaders. The issues have been well and truly spoken of and documented. The Deputy was correct in his analysis. The only point on which I would probably disagree with him is in regard to going to the end of six weeks. I know he is not making that as a core point, but I would consider it very dangerous as that would open up the scenario and we would see the kind of terrible things we have seen today. Moving now is far better. Otherwise the scene will just unravel.
In regard to Deputy Quinn's analysis of what will happen afterwards, what he envisages is inevitable because the parties will move to an election and there will be a hard line position. The Ulster Unionist Party will be forced into a hard line position, as will others. On the other hand, a very closely balanced Executive has done very good work. It has not actually worked as it was configured because the DUP did not turn up and did not work in collective responsibility. Others were suspended from the North-South element of the Executive and there were a number of other difficulties. However, those difficulties apart, the Executive worked relatively well and has the capacity to work better. Everybody in this House would want to see that happen.
I met all the parties recently except the DUP, but I understand it is its view as well that it does not want to see the institutions fall. There is agreement on one thing and I am very happy about that. We need agreement on a few other things, or at least partial agreement. Nobody is being asked to surrender anything. All that people are being asked to do in the best terms of negotiated agreement of the Good Friday Agreement, is to help to move the Agreement to its full implementation. I know everything was not clearly written in the Good Friday Agreement. If it had been, there never would have been agreement on that either. The intention was clear enough. People on all sides, using their imagination and their best efforts, even if it is difficult for them, can make this work, otherwise we will be dealing with the fall-out for a long time.
(Dublin West): I thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for not bending to the implications of what Deputy Noonan said about the gagging of small parties in Dáil Éireann which is ironic in the context of questions on Northern Ireland.
A question please.
It would be a fair man to gag Deputy Higgins.
(Dublin West): How does the Taoiseach explain that the peace process has also been a process of sectarian polarisation, and that unfortunately, there is more division now in the physical distribution of the communities than probably at any time in the past and low intensity territorial warfare is going on daily? On reflection, does the Taoiseach agree the Good Friday Agreement institutionalised sectarian divisions in its structures and we are seeing this mirrored politically across the North, including in the recent elections? Does he agree there is a need for a new non-sectarian political force which would give an alternative to the increasing number of people in the North who are disgusted at, for example, the sectarian atrocity this morning and the sectarian excesses which accompany the marching season each summer?
In his discussions with the Prime Minister, will the Taoiseach use this opportunity to prevail on him to ensure the information demanded by Mr. Justice Barron, who is chairing the Commission of Inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings, is provided as soon as possible? It is a source of major concern to those involved that there seems to be a slowdown in the provision of this information. This would be an ideal opportunity to do that.
Taking Deputy Deenihan's question first, both the Opposition parties and the Government were canvassed by the relatives. I raised it with the Prime Minister Mr. Blair last week and the previous week with the Secretary of State, Dr. John Reid. I asked them to try to remove whatever difficulties there are in regard to that information which is causing upset and annoyance to Mr. Justice Barron, not to mention the relatives, which we fully understand. I will mention it again tonight, although I mentioned it last week.
In regard to Deputy Higgins's point, I am certain it is not correct. At this time of the year, one witnesses the sectarian divide. Maybe there is polarisation on some issues but in an enormous amount of areas, there is not. There is a huge amount of co-operation across the divide and people working at community level. Former paramilitaries are attempting to calm the situation and contact lines have been established to address these matters. There is an enormous level of co-operation on North-South issues. Even as compared with last year, the political parties, including those which in the past had paramilitary connections, are making huge efforts. During the riots last week, the problems experienced in the Ardoyne area and other recent difficulties, political representatives sought to resolve the difficulties within their communities.
While the level of violence seems to increase dramatically at this time of the year, it is only a fraction of that which prevailed in the past. In a recent speech, Mr. Ken Maginnis stated that the current level of violence represents only 3% of the violence which occurred a few years ago. We should avoid only seeing the dark side of what is happening. Tensions remain in the North. Deputy Quinn was correct when he stated there would be a return to polarised positions if this falls. This would pose a terrible dilemma as it would result in an election based on polarised and hard line positions contested by people who genuinely tried to make the Agreement work. I accept that all party leaders are making efforts but some are in a better position to do so than others. There must be give and take. That is the order of negotiations; if there is no give and take, it is impossible to negotiate.
That concludes Taoiseach's Questions.