Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Mar 2004

Vol. 582 No. 1

Adjournment Debate.

Live Exports.

Yesterday, Pandoro Limited succeeded in overturning a six year old Supreme Court order which had compelled it to carry livestock from here to the continent. In asking the court to overturn the 1997 order, Pandoro, which is part of the P& O Line, complained that the association of livestock exporters, hauliers and farmers who had obtained the interim order had since failed to bring a full action before the High Court. The company, which transports freight shipments as its core business, had wanted to end livestock transport in 1997. The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory injunction which had the effect of restraining Pandoro from ceasing to provide the service of livestock transportation until after a full hearing of the action.

In July 1997, Pandoro notified its customers that, for what it considered to be reasons of commerce and reputation, it proposed to cease providing the service with effect from 1 August that year. High Court proceedings were initiated by an association of livestock exporters and others, but the court refused to grant a restraining order against Pandoro. Subsequently, the refusal was appealed to the Supreme Court. On 8 December 1997, a judgment was made by a judge who is no longer a member of the Supreme Court which allowed the appeal. An order was made that Pandoro should be restrained, pending the determination of an action of further order, from refusing to carry livestock between Ireland and the Continent.

I appeal to the Minister for Agriculture and Food to do something about this matter. It has been on the cards for the past six years and decision time has come. If the livestock trade is restricted in any way, it will spell ruin for many farmers. It is worth about €60 million to farmers at present, especially from the export of calves and weanlings.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting the important matter Deputy Deenihan and I have raised for discussion on the Adjournment. The Minister is aware of the importance of the live cattle trade to the industry, especially in terms of price competitiveness. It has been difficult for Irish farmers to deal with factories in recent years and one of the alternative outlets they have had has been the live cattle trade. In addition to the difficulty which has arisen with Pandoro, many markets are not as open as they were. I have referred previously to the famous shipment in April 2002 to Egypt which has not been repeated. It is important that people, including farmers, are allowed to trade without obstacle. Up to 100,000 farmers are involved in the live cattle trade, many of whom rely on it for their livelihood.

For an island nation, this issue is important. We export 90% of our product. It is a demonstration of the importance of this matter that somewhere in the region of 2.5 million animals have been exported in the past ten years. The uncertainty the court decision has created is most unwelcome and should have been anticipated by the Minister and his Department. The injunction which was taken out in 1997 was temporary. In his response, will the Minister inform the House what plans he has to deal with the matter? I hope he is in a position to ensure the industry steps in. It has a role to play and it could charter appropriate vessels to make up for the shortfall.

Deputy Deenihan mentioned that Pandoro was concerned about the impact on its reputation of involvement in live exports. The concept of animal welfare has gone way too far. It has led to another difficulty with which the Minister is seeking to deal at present. That is the EU proposal to ban staging posts on the Continent. I spoke to Commissioner Byrne when he addressed a meeting of the EPP agricultural group. He said he looked favourably on the concept of the availability of a staging post for Ireland because of the uniqueness of its position. I hope that, in his capacity as chairman of the Council, the Minister for Agriculture and Food will ensure that the issue is sorted out soon. As the IFA says, its support in the forthcoming European and local elections is contingent on the Minister's success. I have no doubt that he will succeed. It might be strange that I would offer that opinion.

I call on the Minister to use whatever power and facilities are available to his office to address this problem. The Minister and everyone else with an interest in ensuring that farmers obtain a fair price for their product knows that this is one more difficulty they can do without.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter this evening and I thank Deputies Deenihan and Timmins for raising it. Members will be aware that my consistent position has been that live exports provide a vital and legitimate market outlet for the livestock sector. That remains true. In promoting and preserving any commercial trade, the role of Government involves the creation of an environment in which it can be carried on in an economical and sustainable manner which makes for the maximum possible contribution to the national economy.

In the case of live exports, the preservation of the animal health status of the country, the international reputation of its veterinary certification services and the existence and application of a framework that ensures good standards and welfare considerations are taken into account are key elements. In each of these areas, our record is exemplary.

My Department's function regarding transport of cattle on vessels is to approve vessels based on statutory requirements on animal welfare. Approval for carriage of livestock roll-on roll-off vessels is considered on a case by case basis, having regard to the characteristics of the individual vessel, whereas there are specific statutory requirements which apply across the board where dedicated livestock vessels are concerned. The provision of such services is a commercial matter.

Since 1995, my Department has approved 18 dedicated livestock vessels and three roll-on roll-off vessels for the carriage of cattle. It works closely with applicant companies for approval to ensure that the conditions aboard such vessels are consistent with national and EU animal welfare requirements. Within this framework, 221,000 animals were exported in 2003, an increase of more than 50% on the previous year. This trade provides a valuable outlet for categories of younger animals and a degree of competition, thereby sustaining prices.

Following the Supreme Court judgment yesterday, the question of whether Pandoro Limited continues to carry cattle from Rosslare to the Continent is a commercial one for the company to make. In this regard, I have had no indication from the company that it intends to make any immediate decision to discontinue its live export service. In any event, it is neither appropriate nor possible under EU law for the State to intervene by subsidising this trade. I hope Pandoro continues to provide a service. There are other actual or potential operators available. Bearing this in mind, I assure the House that my Department will continue to discharge its responsibilities on the live trade by ensuring that any such applications are dealt with in a thorough, professional and efficient manner and that our animal health status continues to allow producers to have access to markets in the EU and elsewhere.

Serious allegations have been made by one person involved in the Supreme Court case against Pandoro to the effect that officers of my Department obstructed him in pursuing the case. He alleged that documents relating to the case were taken in December 1999 and retained by departmental officials. The information available to me is that these allegations are without foundation. I understand a list of material seized was furnished to the individual the following day and a second list of returned documents, including the alleged missing documents, was given to his solicitor and receipted by him some days later. A recent examination of these lists did not disclose any discrepancies. Nevertheless, following recent approaches, it was suggested to the person concerned that the relevant parties involved should go through both lists of documents but he declined this offer.

This gentleman has in the past made other allegations and complaints against officials of my Department none of which have been upheld by the courts, by the Ombudsman's office or the national bureau of criminal investigation. The Government has more than fulfilled its duties in supporting and encouraging live exports.

Port Development.

This matter refers to the future of Rosslare ferry port and New Ross port, both of which are in County Wexford. These ports are far too important from both employment and economic perspectives in Wexford for any more uncertainty to exist. I am delighted to see the Minister of State from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Browne, in the Chamber as this is his responsibility and the ports lie in his constituency. This is important as the Minister is making a big decision on the future of these ports.

I am totally opposed to Waterford Port having any control over these ports, particularly Rosslare ferry port. Even though millions of euros have been invested in it over the years, Waterford Port is still losing money. An authority comprising these three ports will only see Waterford taking the profits of Rosslare ferry port to shore up its own operation.

Rosslare ferry port is profitable and will remain so if proper investment is made in it. CIE has not had any great interest in the development of Rosslare ferry port. If the Waterford Port authority was to take over, not only would it kill off any future development of the port, it would probably kill off the economy of County Wexford in the process. This is a unique opportunity for the Minister of State to protect Wexford's economy.

I support the principle of partnership in the south east in a number of issues, such as in cancer treatment services. However, the Minister of State must couple the New Ross and Rosslare ports together if we are to see them thrive in the coming years. We will not be easily misled by the fact that €6 million has been put aside for the development of Rosslare ferry port; this may be just softening us up for the future. We must be careful that Rosslare gets a substantial share of any future investment. This is an opportunity for the Minister of State to put his stamp on the future development of County Wexford, especially as he has the complete say on how this will work out. If Waterford becomes too involved it will be considered a sell-out in Wexford.

The Taoiseach has announced €13 million for the development of a sewerage system in the Rosslare harbour area. This, together with the future development of the port, can lead to a massive influx of investment into the harbour area. This can only attract more jobs and investment into the area.

There is also the issue of the men and women who currently work with CIE. They are concerned about the uncertainty that exists and are looking for clear and unambiguous answers as to what is the future for Rosslare ferry port. The Minister of State is in a position to give these clear answers. This was an election issue in 2002 and we have not heard clear answers about what is to happen with the ports in the south east.

Rosslare Port is unique in that it is always accessible and does not need substantial regular dredging. With investment in its infrastructure, it will provide a great return. Waterford Port is approximately 15 miles upriver from the sea. It is also a tidal port and there are severe problems with dredging at it. It is questionable why so many millions of euros have been invested in this port when the same investment has not been made in Rosslare ferry port. Rosslare ferry port offers a fantastic service for passenger traffic and many of the cars that are imported into this State come through it. There is the possibility of developing a significant roll-on roll-off service. There are also plans to develop a marina at this area and this has not been progressed for many years.

The Minister of State should let us know exactly what are the plans for Rosslare ferry port. He should let us know what the people of Wexford can expect now, and not what they can expect in ten or 15 years' time.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. While there may be a view that the amalgamation of the three south-east ports is a means of creating a vibrant regional grouping with critical mass in the south-east no decisions, in principle or otherwise, have been taken. On the current ownership of the three ports in question and recent discussions on their future status that have taken place involving my Department and the Department of Transport, both New Ross Port Company and the Port of Waterford Company are commercial State port companies operating under the Harbours Acts 1996 to 2000 and are responsible for the management, control, operation and development of the harbour. Both port companies operate under the aegis of my Department.

Rosslare Harbour is part of the property owned by the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company, an Anglo-Irish company dating back to the nineteenth century. I understand that with the passage of time, responsibility for the management and operation of the harbour now resides with Iarnród Éireann, which operates under the control of the Department of Transport. In May 2003, I published the high level review of the State commercial ports operating under the Harbours Acts 1996 and 2000. The purpose of the high level review was to critically review the current model for the governance of the port companies. Rosslare, as one of the country's key commercial ports, was included in the review. Among its many recommendations, the high level review recommends that consideration be given to the merging of neighbouring port companies so as to enhance the commercial viability of these ports. The high level review suggests many possible merger groupings, one of which was the merger of the ports of Waterford and New Ross. When I published the high level review, I also initiated a full public consultation process on its findings and recommendations. It is my intention to publish a comprehensive policy statement over the coming months, drawing on the high level review and the subsequent consultations process.

Last year, following consultations with senior officials of my Department, the chairpersons of both New Ross Port Company and the Port of Waterford Company wrote to me indicating their intention to explore on a joint basis the case for a merger of the two companies. My Department will consider further the case for such a merger in the context of maintaining the viability of these ports and critical mass in port operations. I will make a final decision in this matter in the context of the above-mentioned comprehensive policy statement.

As I have said, Rosslare is not a commercial port under the 1996 Harbours Act and my Department has consulted the Department of Transport on the future of Rosslare port and its relationship to the ports of New Ross and Waterford in the future. I would like to inform the Deputy that initial consultations between my Department and the Department of Transport have shown that legislation would have to go through the Parliament here and the UK Parliament before we could make any decisions on Rosslare port. Legislation would not go through the UK Parliament before 2005 or 2006. Therefore, there are no immediate decisions to be made on Rosslare port.

The House should also be aware that it is essential the ports sector throughout Ireland operate as efficient and effective elements of public infrastructure in support of Ireland's trading economy. Any such future decisions, irrespective of location or format, would and should be made following full consultation with all interests, both local and national, to ensure our port services maintain their economic value at an optimum level.

Hospital Staff.

I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for the opportunity to raise this matter.

The European Working Time Directive is now law and must be complied with not just in Ireland but across the European Union. It will apply from 1 August 2004. From that date, non-consultant hospital doctors must work no more than an average of 58 hours per week. At present, junior hospital doctors in Ireland work an average of 75 hours per week — many of them work up to 100 hours per week.

Even though such reform is long overdue, it is clear the Government is incapable of meeting its obligations to comply with the directive. The Minister for Health and Children has repeatedly stated that he will fulfil the requirements of the directive by the due date. When launching the Hanly report, which the Government fully endorsed, the Minister spelt out how the August deadline will be met. He spoke about cross-cover and new working and training patterns, and the public believed him. It is clear that yet again we were sold a pup. The working time directive deadline will not be met. Again the Government is breaking its word and the Taoiseach muddies the water while he back-pedals on a promise, as he has done so often in the past. On Sunday, 7 March, he said on RTE radio that it was next to impossible to meet the directive deadline and suggested that other EU countries were experiencing similar problems. On Monday, a spokesperson from the EU Commission stated there was no evidence that other countries were experiencing difficulties. She also reiterated that the directive is now law.

Last week, the Irish Presidency introduced a discussion on the issue at an informal meeting of EU employment Ministers in Brussels. This was a clear indication that some change is envisaged to get the Government off the hook. At the very least, the public is entitled to know what is Government policy. In essence, I am asking what is the position of the Government regarding the directive? Will doctors in our hospitals continue to be exploited beyond August 2004? Will patients continue to be denied the right to be treated by doctors who are not overworked and, if so, for how long will they have to wait before the matter is addressed? If the Minister for Health and Children tells us, can we believe him? It would be helpful if the Government published the paper presented for discussion to the EU Ministers. It is not acceptable that such a policy change is being discussed by Ministers from other countries while the Irish public is kept in the dark.

The Irish Medical Organisation has called on the Government to clarify its position and has asked whether it will attempt to renegotiate the directive during the Irish Presidency. The IMO is still waiting for an answer. Meanwhile, around the country, problems surrounding the issue are already surfacing. Alarm has been expressed by hospital consultants who are as bewildered as the rest of us as to what is going on. Dr. Barry Ward of Portlaoise hospital said in this week's Medicine Weekly that this will lead to willy nilly implementation of this directive. We need leadership.

Portlaoise hospital has advertised for registrars for 1 July. How many other hospitals will do the same? It is currently unable to tell applicants at interviews what will happen on 1 August because, as Dr. Ward points out, it is just not known. This dilemma is replicated across the hospital sector. Clarity on the issue is now being sought and it is about time we got it.

I am happy to have the opportunity to clarify issues surrounding the implementation of the provisions of the European Working Time Directive as it applies to doctors in training. I need not point out the obvious, that the EU Presidency is a different entity from the Irish Government in certain matters.

As the Deputy may be aware, Ireland is legally obliged to begin applying the provisions of the European Working Time Directive to doctors in training from l August 2004 and I am determined that every effort will be made to give effect to these employment rights. The European Commission recently initiated a review of the working time directive as it applies to all workers, not just doctors in training. Changes, if agreed and supported by member states, would require a new directive and new Irish legislation.

A number of member states have expressed particular difficulties in regard to the implementation of certain aspects of the directive. A number of member states articulated to the Irish Presidency that they would have certain difficulties with the directives. These difficulties relate to two rulings by the European Court of Justice. In the "SiMAP" and "JAEGER" cases, the court ruled on the definition of working time, defining all time spent by a doctor on-site on call, even if the doctor is resting, as working time. Ireland has been in compliance with this ruling for some years. From an Irish perspective, a more significant issue raised by the court concerns the requirement to grant immediate compensatory rest to a doctor, following a period of work while on call, and before the doctor returns to work if they have worked more than 13 hours in any 24-hour period. Ireland, with a number of other member states, has highlighted the difficulties this will create for rostering doctors on duty in a hospital, where round-the-clock medical cover is required.

I understand that employment Ministers will give these matters further consideration at future meetings. Negotiations with the Irish Medical Organisation on the reduction of NCHD hours are ongoing in the Labour Relations Commission. The most recent meeting took place on 2 March and the next meeting is scheduled for next Monday, 15 March. Management and the IMO have confirmed their commitment to substantive engagement to achieve the required reduction in non-consultant hospital doctors' working hours. A number of further meetings have been scheduled over the coming weeks and every effort will be made to complete these negotiations at the earliest possible date. To reduce NCHD hours, the following measures must be progressed, There must be a reduction in the number of grades of doctor on call at any one time, the introduction of cross-cover arrangements, the introduction of centralised rostering and shift work and changes in skill-mix and practice for other grades of hospital staff.

It has been acknowledged that we need to establish a working group in each hospital to implement these measures and to monitor progress on the reduction in NCHD hours. A national implementation group will co-ordinate the work being undertaken at local level. These groups should include appropriate hospital managers, consultants, NCHDs, nurses and other relevant health care professionals. The urgent need to establish these groups at both national and local level has been discussed with the Irish Medical Organisation at the meetings in the Labour Relations Commission. To date, the agreement of the IMO has not been forthcoming to the establishment or operation of these groups despite the fact that three years ago the IMO campaigned on the basis of reducing doctors' hours. We negotiated with them and were generous in terms of the package offered. Somehow the urgency went out of it.

It is imperative that the groups commence their work and it is my wish to have them operational at the earliest possible date. I call on the IMO to agree to their establishment with a view to progressing the complex issues involved and to help ensure that the working hours of non-consultant hospital doctors are set at the required level. This is a situation that the IMO has been lobbying for many years to achieve.

The idea of non-consultant hospital doctors' normal working or training day being within a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. period is unacceptable and will not meet the needs of the 24 hours a day, seven days a week acute hospital service. Similarly, payment of the majority of non-consultant hospital doctors' working hours at overtime rates places an undue burden of €250 million on the Exchequer and cannot be sustained in the long term. This is part of the overall package of moving to a consultant-provided service. However, substantial progress is being made in reducing working time for many non-consultant hospital doctors. All non-consultant hospital doctors must benefit from reduced working hours.

In recent weeks, chief executives of health boards and hospital managers, together with senior officials from my Department and the Health Service Employers Agency, met to discuss developments to date and agree further steps at national and local level which are required to implement the directive by 1 August. A national co-ordinator and support team have been seconded to oversee the implementation process in the health agencies. Medical manpower managers, appointed under the 2000 non-consultant hospital doctors agreement, are also playing a central role.

One example of these preparations is the work-up of draft indicative rosters for a representative group of hospitals based on detailed information which has been collated. Neither myself nor my Cabinet colleagues underestimate the significant task facing the Government and the health agencies in ensuring that non-consultant hospital doctors' working hours are reduced as required. It is acknowledged that achieving full compliance may be difficult within the time available. However, the existence of such difficulties in no way alleviates our legal obligations and only serves to emphasise the urgency of making rapid progress on implementation. Every effort is being made to achieve the optimum compliance with the requirements of the European working time directive as they relate to doctors in training.

Notwithstanding these requirements, I am determined to continue with further reductions in non-consultant hospital doctors' working hours. Excessive working hours are unsafe for both the doctor and any patients concerned. All interested parties must now co-operate to achieve a healthier and safer working environment and equally important, the safer provision of services to patients.

Organised Criminal Activity.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this matter on the Adjournment. The recent disclosure by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, of Sinn Féin involvement in criminal activity and punishment beatings in Dublin is disturbing and must be condemned by all democrats. The response of leading members of that party to these disclosures has been to impugn the Minister's motives and to dismissthe revelations as electioneering. This is unacceptable.

In a parliamentary democracy it is the duty of all politicians, whether in Government or Opposition, to be vigilant and to ask questions about any dubious activity on the part of anybody purporting to be involved in the political process. When questions have arisen about the Fianna Fáil Party's past, we rightly have been vigorously and doggedly pursued by both the media and the Opposition. Elected office brings with it serious responsibilities, one of which is accountability.

Sinn Féin has travelled a long road over the past decade and Fianna Fáil, as well as others in this Chamber and north of the Border, have played their part in bringing that party into the democratic process. We are glad members of the party now sit in the Dáil. However, when it comes to democracy, there can be no half measures. There is no acceptable compromise between the ballot box and the baseball bat. The transition must be made completely.

There is a precedent for this transition. The men and women who founded Fianna Fáil in1926 unconditionally embraced parliamentary democracy. Six years on from the signing of the Good Friday Agreement and the referenda North and South on the island that overwhelmingly endorsed it, it is now time that Sinn Féin disavowed paramilitarism and dedicated itself totally to the democratic process. There is no halfway house.

Sinn Féin likes to portray itself as the guardian of the working class. However, this self-appointed role does not sit easily with the information about their criminal activities recently disclosed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Those who prosper from crime and punish by savage beatings anyone who gets in their way are no defenders of the interests of the working class or the less well-off in our society. It is the working class communities that have suffered most from organised crime. Those are the communities that are attacked, undermined and destroyed by criminal activity. There are so many examples around Dublin city where this has happened over the years. It is important to stress that, if Sinn Féin claims to be the defender of the working class, it should be the first to stop such criminal activity rather than being ambivalent towards it.

These people are the enemies of society and it behoves us all, especially at a time when the people are considering their choices in the forthcoming elections, to highlight their activities and hold them to account.

I thank my constituency colleague, Deputy Eoin Ryan, for giving me the opportunity to address this important topic in the House. The time has come for all true republicans and democrats to stand up and be counted. I realise I have presented some serious challenges to the Sinn Féin leadership in terms of the provisional movement attempting to have it both ways, and to it being accepted as an orthodox political party on the one hand and, on the other, having at best an ambivalent attitude to criminality and violence. Specifically, my comments on "Morning Ireland" earlier this week related to persons associated with the provisional movement being involved in ongoing criminal activity in Dublin Port.

Those comments, and others of a more general nature, were not conjured up out of the air. It is without doubt that Sinn Féin and the IRA are two sides of the same coin. We hear few outside Sinn Féin itself seriously disputing that contention. I should in fairness point out, however, that my remarks on Dublin Port should not be taken as a direct reference to those who would be associated in the public mind in this part of Ireland with the leadership of Sinn Féin.

The briefings I receive from security sources strongly confirm the links between the IRA and Sinn Féin. In my view, the public is entitled to know that there is rock solid intelligence confirmation for what it has always strongly suspected. However, to suggest that, having provided this confirmation, I am then somehow obliged to disclose the precise nature of the intelligence briefings I receive from the Garda amounts to a flawed reasoning of "put up or shut up". No democrat should shut up on a real and sinister threat to the integrity of the democratic process, nor should any democrat have to put up with the mixture of violence and crime with politics.

I will not be drawn, on the basis of such flawed "put up or shut up" reasoning, into disclosing the nuts and bolts of the security briefings given to me as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, especially when such briefings relate to ongoing paramilitary activity, engagement in punishment beatings or criminal activity undertaken for personal gain. As my predecessors have before me, I rely heavily on the ability of the Garda Síochána to establish the extent of the continuing threat to the security of the State from paramilitary groups and others who, by their actions, threaten our democratic process. As a Minister privy to sensitive information, sometimes relating to the safety and security of the State, I do not intend in any way to hamper the continuing efforts of the Garda Síochána to deal effectively with such threats. It would be irresponsible of me if I were to disclose sensitive details of Garda security operations, aimed as they are at ensuring the protection of our hard-won rights and freedoms.

That, however, does not mean I should not or cannot share with all decent and law-abiding citizens the conclusions to be made from such security briefings. That is why I will not be deterred from saying that the IRA is engaged in ongoing serious crime and paramilitarism and that, unless it desists now from that activity, it will not be possible to convince other parties, especially the parties in Northern Ireland, that they should participate as equal and trusting partners with Sinn Féin in fully working the Good Friday Agreement.

The point of my speaking out on these issues is not, as some would argue, to undermine a political party or gain some short-term electoral advantage. That misses the point. What I and other responsible politicians are saying, is that Sinn Féin and the IRA are two sides of the same coin. If one side is rightly condemned because of criminal activity or continuing paramilitarism, the other will stand ineligible when it comes to sharing political office, whether in Northern Ireland or, at some future stage, in this jurisdiction.

I note that Deputy Eoin Ryan and I have one thing in common, apart from representing the same constituency. Both of us come from families that made considerable personal sacrifices in the process of establishing and building up the Irish Republic. It is not anti-republican, nor would it be anti-Sinn Féin, nor is it hostile to the peace process to point out what needs to be done by the IRA to convince all shades of Nationalist and Unionist persuasion that Sinn Féin is eligible to participate as a full and equal partner in the day-to-day running of the affairs of Northern Ireland or is eligible to do so in this State. It is much more in keeping with genuine republican traditions and values to tell the truths that need to be told, even if, at times, they are a source of discomfort to parties who pretend not to hear them.

There are important lessons that we can learn from history of the mortal dangers of combining in one movement a political ideology and violence. As long as the republican movement, as it calls itself — I regard Sinn Féin as having nothing to do with republican values — maintains an à la carte approach towards political activity and violence, the general public has every reason to be extremely wary about lending any electoral support to Sinn Féin.

I do not doubt that some in Sinn Féin have made and continue to make genuine efforts to shake off the shackles of the past. Perhaps too, the transition from paramilitary to parliamentary politics may in the past have needed a period of constructive ambiguity. However, as Deputy Eoin Ryan points out, almost six years after the Good Friday Agreement, any further ambiguity on paramilitary activity is destructive ambiguity. The day the leadership of Sinn Féin manages to convince everybody that the shadow of the gunman is genuinely fading forever is the day that genuine and stable politics will replace violence and instability in Northern Ireland. That is the day that full democratic politics will reign supreme and I earnestly look forward to it.

As an Irish republican who works towards and aspires to the unification of this country and the reconciliation of the people in both parts of it, I know that we have now arrived at the bare bedrock of the problems that prevent the complete implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Provisional paramilitarism is and remains a deadly threat to that Agreement. I am saying, and I know Deputy Eoin Ryan agrees with me, it must end now.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 11 March 2004.
Barr
Roinn