Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Mr. Kenny 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. [17208/04]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Northern Ireland Issues.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:2 Mr. Kenny 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. [17209/04]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17212/04]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the British Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17213/04]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he plans to convene a meeting of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17228/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting in London on 3 June 2004 with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17472/04]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, on 3 June 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17638/04]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:8 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation and progress in the current talks on the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. [17718/04]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:9 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair. [18248/04]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:10 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland. [18249/04]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in talks on implementing the Good Friday Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18989/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:12 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions with the British Prime Minister and the political parties from Northern Ireland on 25 June 2004. [19071/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 12, inclusive, together.
Prime Minister Blair and I, together with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Paul Murphy, and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, met the Northern Ireland parties in London last Friday. I had met Prime Minister Blair in May and early June, when we also discussed Northern Ireland and EU matters.
We need to step up our efforts if discussions are to be brought to a successful conclusion. The two Governments last Friday, therefore, announced they will lead intensive political dialogue with the parties at the beginning of September to finalise an agreement on all outstanding issues with a view to restoring the full and inclusive operation of the political institutions as soon as possible.
The issues are clear. We must reach agreement on a definitive and conclusive end to all paramilitary activity; the decommissioning, through the IICD, of all paramilitary weapons, to an early timescale and on a convincing basis; a clear commitment on all sides to the stability of the political institutions and to any changes to their operation agreed within the review; and support for policing from all sides of the community and on an agreed framework for the devolution of policing.
We cannot allow matters to drift. We are determined that agreement should be reached on these key issues at the latest by the autumn. The review will resume in September to complete its work. At our meeting last Friday, we urged the parties to maintain their engagement over the summer with a view to advancing progress on these issues and to prepare their respective constituencies for the substantial steps that will be required to reach overall agreement.
We believe the parties understand and accept the responsibility that their electoral mandates have placed on them to resolve the current impasse. This responsibility requires all parties to demonstrate a commitment to reach the fundamental accommodation we all wish to see. It is critical that Northern Ireland enjoys a summer free from violence and tension on the streets. We hope all parties will work to ensure events over the coming months create the right atmosphere for successful talks in the autumn.
The question of a meeting of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation is a matter for the chairman and participating parties. However, I expect that the focus of the parties will be on the talks scheduled for September.
Is the Taoiseach aware of a recent survey in Northern Ireland which showed that 12% of adults questioned believed that direct rule for Northern Ireland worked well, 60% did not mind one way or the other whether the Assembly was ever reconvened and only 37% said they would be sorry if it were abolished? Is this alarming level of apathy about the future of the Assembly a cause of concern for the Taoiseach? Does he agree that every effort should be made to counteract this sense of disillusionment? In that context, how does he, along with the British Prime Minster, propose to bring this back to the top of the Irish Government's political agenda? Did the Taoiseach mention this matter to President Bush at their recent meeting? Was it discussed at all?
Is the Taoiseach concerned by the remarks made by the Prime Minister that the two Governments could be forced to look beyond the Good Friday Agreement for a political way forward in the absence of any agreement between the DUP and Sinn Féin? Does he agree that it would be inappropriate if the Good Friday Agreement were parked in any way or if we discussed any possible alternatives to it?
To take Deputy Kenny's first question, that is precisely what I was saying in the House earlier in the year. Having had the Assembly elections in November, if we did not reach conclusions, the public was going to become cynical about electing people to an Assembly which was not functioning. That is exactly what is happening. People were very supportive of the Assembly and the executive when they were up and running but when they are not and people in office still receive allowances, the public becomes cynical. The public sees that action is not being taken and direct rule is in operation.
Clearly if we continue to have peace, which we want, then people can become laissez faire about this, and I appreciate that although, if it were the other way around, people would change their minds very quickly. This is always a dangerous vacuum and we have been working for the past five to six weeks to ensure the summer is peaceful. There has been much hard work to achieve a peaceful summer among all the parties, including loyalist groups. The change in the Parades Commission decision on the Whiterock parade last week was something that offended Nationalists but we are glad the parade was peaceful.
Deputy Kenny asked about the issues. They have not changed for the last few years. The difficulty lies in getting people to face up to making decisions on paramilitarism, decommissioning, policing and stable political institutions. Those crunch issues have all been identified by the parties and must be resolved. We must reach agreement on them, and that has not changed since October 2002 when we made the acts of completion speech. We have been working since then on this and we made two efforts last year, in March and October, to bring the matter to finality. While some progress was made on the Joint Declaration, we did not reach the point we wanted. The review, in which much good work has been done, has been going on for some months and we hope that this will come to a conclusion in the autumn. However, if we are to make progress that makes a difference, then the issues I referred to must be addressed, and that is where we have centred our efforts for the past month or two. The parties will stay in touch with the Government over the summer period, but at the beginning of September, we must see if we can resolve these issues.
Deputy Kenny asked about the British Prime Minister's comments. He is not abandoning the Good Friday Agreement but the public, not to mention the Governments and parties, is asking where we go next if we cannot find resolution on these issues. What is the alternative? Do we go back to direct rule, as it is? That is not something I support. Do the two Governments become more involved? That is inevitable if we are unable to proceed with the Good Friday Agreement exactly as negotiated. My preference is for the Agreement, the institutions, the Assembly, the executive and the North-South bodies to be all working effectively.
There is not much point in going on and on. Nothing new has been said by anyone in recent meetings and we are really going around the houses to a boring degree. We all know the issues but unfortunately there is not much I can contribute to the ending of paramilitarism. There is nothing I can do about decommissioning. I can do a lot to create stable political institutions and we have done our work on policing. Naturally we would like to see everyone play a part in that.
We have identified other issues such as equality on which the Irish and British Governments must work but everyone knows the position. It is a question of whether we can finish these issues. As I have said to Deputy Kenny before, if we do not finish these, we cannot proceed with the other ones. That is the difficulty. There is no hope of us achieving stability in the institutions if we do not deal with the other issues first. That is crystal clear to everyone and there is no point in my saying any more because everyone knows it and there are no alternative views. The question is whether we can do this and we will have to see in September.
Some time ago I asked the President of Sinn Féin if he thought the IRA would go out of existence. He said that if the Good Friday Agreement were implemented in full then the IRA would fade away. I asked if he would contribute to making it fade away but I am not too clear on his response.
Obviously we would aspire to having paramilitarism in all its forms abolished. The International Monitoring Commission report indicates clearly that there is substantial activity in this area, bordering on racketeering, crime, paramilitarism and other matters of grave concern. I am glad the Taoiseach will reconvene discussions with the British Prime Minister in September. I hope the fact that Sinn Féin has made gains in the democratic process and formed working arrangements with Fianna Fáil in several counties after the recent local elections will make its members see that having travelled some way on the road to democracy, the links between the party and paramilitarism should be cut forever. Other parties in Northern Ireland with fringe links to paramilitarism, although to a lesser extent in some cases, should also see the value of that. If we are talking about the new Ireland of the next 20 years, then this is critical to the Taoiseach's work and I will support him in those discussions with the Prime Minister.
When the Taoiseach begins his discussions with the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, in September, will those discussions start at the point where agreement ended in the previous discussions? We were almost at a point of conclusion on this last year but Mr. Trimble decided not to go through with it. In that context, will the Government still put forward the proposition that in a final conclusion to this, the McCabe killers, for instance, will still be eligible for early release? In other words, when the Taoiseach starts his discussions with him, is he starting from where he last concluded? In that particular instance, can he say, "No, these people must serve their full time"?
I appreciate Deputy Kenny's support for the overall framework. We will continue to move on. In regard to violence and paramilitarism in all its forms, loyalists have been responsible for much of the paramilitary activity in recent months and we cannot forget that. There has been a significant amount of loyalist activity of one form or another. We want to try to end it. In terms of getting the Executive and the institutions up and running, IRA paramilitarism is the issue we must crack.
On the negotiations, since the beginning of the year the work of the review has been useful so it is not really a question of from where we are starting or where we ended last year. I think we have moved the situation on. Even last week we discussed much good work that has taken place across the three strands. People have put forward proposals and there have been very good papers and good suggestions from all the parties. Obviously, we must get consensus before they are implemented but useful work has been done.
In regard to where the Government stands and the issues it has, our position on this has been clear throughout. What we must achieve is a complete end to IRA paramilitarism and decommissioning. It is in that context the possible release of the killers of Jerry McCabe would arise. That is what I said last year. It could only happen specifically in the context of acts of completion. That is understood. Acts of completion means arms decommissioning as well as an end to all forms of paramilitarism by the IRA. That would mean the IRA moving definitively away from violence. What is required is a complete transition to peaceful, democratic means in Northern Ireland. It is only then that we can consider these and other issues. There are the OTRs which will affect the South as well, although it may not affect many people. There is also the issue of participation in debates on the North in the Oireachtas. These are issues I support but which can only be done in the context of reaching a finality.
We will continue to work during the summer. Parties will be away at different times which will not help that work, but we will keep in touch with spokespeople who are here and will continue to make as much progress as possible. At the beginning of September, we will see if we can make progress on these issues.
What is the Taoiseach's realistic assessment of the prospects of success in the autumn in the context of statements from some of the parties? For example, the DUP seemed quite optimistic about the prospect of successful discussions in autumn, while Sinn Féin described the latest talks as a waste of time.
I wish to go back to Prime Minister Blair's comment that if the talks in autumn were not successful, an alternative would have to be found. Can the Taoiseach be any more explicit with the House? Is there a plan B or was that just a statement to inject urgency into the proceedings? I accept the absolute necessity for urgency to be injected into the talks but does the Taoiseach not accept that the hothouse approach of intensive discussions surrounded by much hype over a couple of days has failed in the past? If it was to fail again against the backdrop of the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach apparently assenting that some plan B would have to be resorted to, that would be a fairly serious matter if we had to depart from the Good Friday Agreement.
I agree with a number of points Deputy Rabbitte made and I will try to answer the questions he asked. We do not disagree on the issue of urgency. He asked me for my best assessment. One must always remain optimistic and hopeful about the process. If he asked me whether I was confident, I would fall a good bit short of that. To give my best assessment, I think the parties are up for doing what is necessary. The difficulty is that they are not talking to each other. It is a bit like being back where we were a number of years ago in 1998 when we were trying to deal with parties from the middle ground. Obviously, the two Governments have been correctly able to give each other an assessment of each other's papers. The choreography, in so far as one can do that, is good.
If one stands back and looks at the situation with the two main parties not talking to or meeting each other, it is a significant move to bring that forward to a situation in which the two parties are in the Executive running Northern Ireland together. I find that a stretch and it is difficult for me to see that happening in a short time. However, it is possible.
It is a case of whether all sides are generous enough about dealing with the issues which have, quite frankly, been analysed and talked to death and which are obviously resulting in boredom among the people of Northern Ireland. Deputy Kenny referred to opinion polls on the views of people on Northern Ireland. If we could look at the issues and if people were to take these steps, they would be prepared to work together and to get on with it. I have continually said to them that if we go past the first anniversary of the election, do not move to that position and, as is inevitable in Northern Ireland, feed into the January period which looks as if it could be a run in to a general election in Britain, although I do not know the date — there are local elections anyway — I know the difficulties that will cause because I have been at that stage so many times before. I hope we have a good chance, although it is hard to say it is a great one. However, we have to make a great effort.
I refer to Prime Minister Blair's comments and to some of my own. Perhaps I was a bit more cautious in what I said, but one has to wonder what would constitute a plan B if we cannot find a way forward. Much as I hate to ask, if we cannot get this to work, is it satisfactory to leave the situation in limbo and to hope that one can make progress? I have to be honest and say that over recent months, I have started to ask if there is another way or means by which we can do this. I will be frank in reply to Deputy Rabbitte, which I think he will appreciate. If both sides, particularly those in the driving seat, so to speak, continue to take the view that we have not quite got there or reached a finality even though we are making progress, is that good enough for everybody else?
The Deputy will appreciate there are other parties. A parallel in this House, which I do not think is an unreasonable one, would be if Deputy Rabbitte and I were having a barney outside, were not meeting each other and all the other political parties were not in the frame. Increasingly, I must listen to what the other parties are saying because they have a point. We must think beyond where we are. I am not saying it is a game or a tactic. However, if it becomes an inevitability that the game goes back and forth like ping-pong, everyone else is outside watching it and if we never get a result, that will create many problems. That is reflected to me more and more.
It is very much plan B so we have to press ahead with this to see if the words turn to deeds. That is why I hate the hothouse and was very resistant to it for a number of months. Everything the Deputy said about that is correct — one builds an expectation, which builds international publicity. More than others, people in Northern Ireland expect something, but very little occurs so we are further back than before. Unless much of it can be pre-cooked, I do not like the concept of the hothouse and I do not think we are at that stage.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply, which bears re-reading and is very interesting for a number of reasons. As regards his passing reference to those in the driving seat, will he assure the House in respect of that point? Prior to the Assembly elections there was a feeling, which I shared, that the focus of inclusion was on the Official Unionist Party and Sinn Féin. That was to the exclusion — perhaps I should not use the word "exclusion" because the DUP excluded itself — or diminished involvement or participation by the SDLP. On this occasion the focus of inclusiveness seems to be on the DUP and Sinn Féin, while the Official Unionists and the SDLP are very much playing supporting roles. Will the Taoiseach assure the House that for the process to reach a successful conclusion the involvement and parity of esteem, if I may adapt that term, is important in terms of including all the parties concerned with the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland?
The answer to that question is "Yes". The reality is as Deputy Rabbitte has set it out. It is not always possible to have people 100% in, but the House has my assurance that everyone will be involved in so far as one can keep people fully involved. As the Deputy knows, in the review we tried to engage everyone as completely as possible. The UUP had difficulties with participating fully in that, but the Government has emphasised to the British Government all the time that we should try to keep everybody in or close to the process. Whatever happens ultimately, it will take all political parties to sell it to their respective constituencies and groups. They may change in size from time to time but it is still important for everyone to be involved. That was the whole basis of the Good Friday Agreement — it was an inclusive agreement appreciating everybody's parity of esteem and accepting that everybody had a contribution to make. We will certainly endeavour to involve people on a cross-community basis.
Following my earlier question about the Taoiseach's meetings with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, I wish to ask about plans that may exist either here or in Britain for referenda to ratify the European constitution. Has the Taoiseach discussed this matter with Mr. Blair? If not, would it not be appropriate to discuss the merits of having both referenda on the same day, given that institutions and organisations throughout the island of Ireland would then have an opportunity for a considered debate that would also reflect on the implications for political institutions and democracy North and South? In the context of trying to build a momentum for the restoration of the institutions, as well as facilitating the Good Friday Agreement in the three strands that exist, would there not be merit in holding the referenda on the same day?
A recent poll carried out by researchers in Queen's University and the University of Ulster suggested a growing disenchantment with the Northern Ireland Assembly and a rising acceptance of direct rule from London, especially among Unionists. Does that indicate the need not to reward a strategy of prevarication, which seems to have been well ingrained in the DUP and certain sections of the Ulster Unionist Party? What will the Taoiseach do to address that acceptance of a strategy of prevarication, which seems to be deliberate? Is there any counter measure to that strategy, which could advance the momentum so that the prevarication does not take further root?
I have not had discussions on the referendum, although there has obviously been discussion at European level about the process of co-operation between Governments concerning the European Constitution. I have not had discussions on a referendum in Northern Ireland.
Will the Taoiseach do so?
It would be interesting to check the position, although I am not too sure how it would be taken. I take the Deputy's point and we will see what happens in forthcoming discussions.
On the Deputy's second question, is he referring to prevarication by the DUP?
Yes, a strategy to hang on to direct rule.
That is not what they are saying, although I know there are some concerns. In fairness to it, the DUP at this stage — I might change my view in due course — has brought forward its proposals for the three strands, which have been discussed in the review. Like all the parties to the review, the DUP has to persuade other parties of the merits of some of the issues. Needless to say, I do not agree with many of the proposals the DUP has brought forward, but it is entitled to bring them forward. A point of view has been expressed that the DUP is trying to hollow away some of the North-South aspects of the Agreement, and I expressed my views on that directly to Dr. Paisley. All I can say is that I do not think he is doing that. Obviously, he is putting forward the party's negotiating stance, but I think the DUP is prepared to work to obtain consensus on these issues.
I have had a number of meetings with DUP representatives over the past six months and I think they are advanced now about moving forward from where I perceived them to be in the past. I have some concerns about the pace of events and whether the DUP is prepared to move quickly. I do not think I am misquoting the DUP, however, in saying that the key issues for it concern decommissioning and the ending of paramilitarism. In its overall thinking about North-South issues, the DUP has a more forward-looking view than I would have thought even a year ago.
At the outset, I join the Taoiseach in expressing the hope that the forthcoming summer period will be peaceful and that those who can do so will exercise themselves to help defuse any interface that might arise.
In reply to an earlier question the Taoiseach said: "They are not talking to each other." Will the Taoiseach please avoid giving the false impression that Sinn Féin was or is unprepared to talk to the DUP? He knows well that is not the case. Does the Taoiseach accept it is the DUP that is refusing to engage?
Does the Taoiseach agree that substantive talks are essential at the earliest possible opportunity? Is he aware there is serious concern within a significant swathe of opinion, North and South, that substantive talks have been deferred until September, an agreement reached by the Taoiseach with the British Prime Minister to which Sinn Féin is opposed? Does the Taoiseach also accept that there is growing concern that this deferral is working to a DUP agenda, which wants to see repeated delays because that party is opposed to the Good Friday Agreement?
Is the Taoiseach further aware that at a meeting of Lisburn City Council on 24 June, the Unionist majority once again excluded the representatives of all Nationalist opinion, including Sinn Féin and the SDLP, from every position of authority? Is he aware that, as a consequence, some 20,000 non-Unionist voters in the borough have effectively been disenfranchised? Will the Taoiseach advise whether a commitment was given by the Irish Government to have a representative at that council meeting? If it was made, it was not honoured. If this is the case, why did a Government representative who had been committed to attend to monitor the ongoing reality of sectarian discrimination within that borough not do so?
Deputy Ó Caoláin is correct that it is the DUP which will not meet Sinn Féin rather than vice versa. I do not think I gave the impression the position was otherwise. Nevertheless, the effect is the same to me if the two parties do not meet each other and I am in the middle. I need not remind the Deputy why the DUP holds this view, on which it will move as soon as it sees progress on some of the other issues. It would be much more helpful to the Irish and British Governments if the party did not hold that position but we must live with it as best we can and make progress. It would help if we could get both parties to deal directly with each other. We succeeded in doing this after many years with the UUP, Sinn Féin, SDLP, PUP and Alliance and we made a great deal of progress. However, we must try to build on that progress despite that the DUP holds such a position.
I read the DUP statement last Friday morning and noted its language, which referred to parity of esteem, its electorate and its electoral mandate. If I had put my hand over the DUP letterhead, it would have almost read the same as a Sinn Féin document from a few years ago in that it used the same words. Therefore, it seems the parties are at least reading each other's statements, even though they are not talking, because they are beginning to use the same language. As I said to Deputy Rabbitte earlier, I live in hope that the position will change quickly.
I am aware of what happened in Lisburn and how the operation of the votes in the council broke down. However, I am not aware of the issue of an Irish Government official to which the Deputy referred. I will look into the matter for him. Normally, our officials attend such meetings when they say they will and they attend most meetings. I will find out if a decision was made to hold someone back, but I doubt that is the case.
The facts are that an Irish Government representative agreed to attend the meeting of Lisburn City Council and confirmed his intention to be present but, on the night before 24 June, he stated that instructions had come from Dublin that he or other officials were not to attend. Can it be the case that the Taoiseach would not know that instructions had issued from Dublin that the official was not to attend? Does the Taoiseach not agree that such a climbdown is unacceptable, particularly given that a commitment had already been extended to both of the Nationalist views represented on that council? Does he accept that significant anger and disappointment has clearly been caused in that area and within the politics of Sinn Féin and the SDLP?
I ask the Deputy for brevity because other Deputies are offering.
What steps will the Taoiseach take to address and correct this matter?
I will not comment on a situation of which I am not aware. If the Deputy is correct, I will check the facts.
These are facts.
I am not aware of the situation to which he refers. Normally, if officials were due to attend a meeting, they would do so unless there was another reason. It is unlikely that our staff in Northern Ireland would take direct decisions from anyone in Dublin because they act with autonomy in attending meetings. There may be other circumstances, which I will check.
Will the Taoiseach revert to me?
I will send the Deputy a letter. I know all the individuals and they would only do something like this if there was a reason. I will check the facts.
Deputy Ó Caoláin is correct that it would have been better if we could have progressed the talks during the summer but, as happens every year, the holiday cycle is different for the various groups, about which I cannot do much. It frustrates me every year that as soon as we get in sight of Drumcree Sunday, loyalists and Unionists go on holiday and, once we get to August, the other parties do so. It means that, in July and August, one or other party is away, which is annoying. Usually, I am available to both sides whenever there is a problem and have to take calls in July and August one way or the other.
We would give up our holidays.
I will not go back over the years and state where I spent many August months dealing with problems. I have returned to Dublin during my holidays more times than I wanted to in the past seven or eight years because of Northern Ireland, but I am not complaining about that. The position is that the tradition in regard to holidays is that loyalists and Unionists are away in July and Sinn Féin and other parties are away in August. I cannot get agreement on some of the major issues and I am unlikely to change the holiday cycle in Northern Ireland. That is the difficulty.
Holidays are not the issue.
The Taoiseach made an important point earlier that, when the Assembly was up and running, people felt part of the movement of politics in Northern Ireland because decisions were being made that affected them locally. The Taoiseach understands and has pointed out himself that, when the Assembly is not in operation, people become cynical. In that context, the SDLP recently proposed that the Assembly be restored and the relevant sections be run by administrators pending a return to the political masters and an agreement that it should be run politically.
Given that the Assembly was useful when it was working, does the Taoiseach consider that this proposal has any merit or validity and will he raise the matter with the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair? It could be promoted in the context of encouraging elected representatives to concentrate and focus on the real efforts. One could have an Assembly making effective decisions in the interests of the peoples of Northern Ireland.
Was the issue of the release of the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe discussed on Friday or in any of the Taoiseach's recent discussions with parties in Northern Ireland? Has there been any change in the Government's position on the matter?
A number of interesting proposals exist in regard to Northern Ireland, of which the SDLP proposal referred to by Deputy Kenny is one. They all merit consideration but one must get broad consensus before any of them will fly and, frankly, I do not think that will happen. Nonetheless, we hope we will not have to try to find another settlement. If broad consensus is achieved, we will have to examine all these proposals and take them seriously. I have discussed these and others with the British Government. All our energies are on trying to find an agreement based on what is clearly set out in the Good Friday Agreement and what the people on this island have voted for.
Deputy Rabbitte asked about the murderers of Jerry McCabe. There is no change in our position. It has not been discussed. As I said earlier, it can only be considered on the basis of a complete ending of IRA paramilitarism and decommissioning.