Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Northern Ireland Issues.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 28 April 2004

Wednesday, 28 April 2004

Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)

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. [5581/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

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. [5582/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet with the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5583/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Northern Ireland on 19 February 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5689/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his visit to Northern Ireland on 19 February 2004. [5709/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 19 February 2004 with representatives of the relatives of those who died in the Omagh bombings. [6063/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

7 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to the Six Counties on 19 February 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6521/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

8 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Northern Ireland on 19 February 2004. [6702/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

9 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the political parties on Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6704/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

10 Mr. J. Higgins 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. [6705/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

11 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland regarding developments in the peace process. [6716/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

12 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed at his meeting with a Sinn Féin delegation on 25 February 2004; if he raised with the delegation, reports that members of the republican movement were involved in a violent incident in Belfast on 20 February 2004; the response he received; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6771/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

13 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent contacts with the British Government regarding Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7574/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

14 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with a Sinn Féin delegation on 25 February 2004; the agenda of the meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7575/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

15 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Northern Ireland on 19 February 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7576/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

16 Mr. Sargent 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. [7577/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

17 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his views on the decision by the Ulster Unionist Party leader, Mr. David Trimble, to withdraw his party from the review of the Belfast Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7785/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

18 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the timescale he is envisaging for the review of the Good Friday Agreement; if this timescale is one shared with the British Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7786/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

19 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his telephone conservation with the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mr. David Trimble, on 3 March 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8289/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

20 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on 11 March 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8415/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

21 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when he next plans to visit Britain; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8416/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

22 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meetings with the political parties in Northern Ireland at Hillsborough Castle. [9096/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

23 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his recent meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9098/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

24 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in February 2004 with representatives of the relatives of those who were killed in the Omagh bombings. [9106/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

25 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the British Prime Minister at Hillsborough on 23 March 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9561/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

26 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his discussions with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, in Hillsborough on 23 March 2004. [9564/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

27 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions with the Northern Ireland political parties in Hillsborough on 23 March 2004. [9565/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

28 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his assessment of the prospects for political progress in Northern Ireland in view of his discussions in Hillsborough on 23 March 2004. [9566/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

29 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his most recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland. [11743/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

30 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his telephone conversation with the British Prime Minister on 19 April 2004. [11744/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (48 píosaí cainte)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 30, inclusive, together.

The events in Belfast on Friday, 20 February, had a serious impact on the review and the ongoing efforts to build trust and confidence. When I met with a delegation from Sinn Féin on 25 February, I expressed my deep concern at these events. I reiterated the Government's view that the transition to exclusively peaceful and democratic means must be completed. Both Governments subsequently asked the Independent Monitoring Commission, which was established to ensure compliance with key commitments relating to the Agreement, to examine these events in the context of the preparation of its first report. The commission's report was published on Tuesday, 20 April. The report speaks for itself. It paints a disturbing picture of paramilitary and criminal activity and deals with the links between political parties and paramilitary organisations. The Government accepts the report's conclusions and recommendations.

The people of Northern Ireland want a restoration of the devolved arrangements of the Good Friday Agreement. Everyone, including the two Governments, has a part to play in this but to make real progress, it is essential that the issues raised in the Independent Monitoring Commission's report are addressed as soon as possible. Both Governments are clear that the achievement of a sustainable basis for political progress requires a full and permanent cessation of all paramilitary activity.

On 3 March, I spoke with Mr. David Trimble by telephone on the situation in the process current at that time. I met with Prime Minister Blair in Farmleigh on Thursday, 11 March, where we discussed the review and recognised the importance of injecting momentum into the review process. For that reason, together we met with each of the parties in Hillsborough on Tuesday, 23 March.

At those meetings, we explored with the parties how fully-inclusive and fully-functioning devolved government could be achieved. There needs to be a clear and definitive end to paramilitarism. There also needs to be clarity that unionism will participate fully in an inclusive process if paramilitarism is brought to a definitive end. Remedying the deficits of trust and confidence that now exist requires a fast-forwarding to completion. If this can be achieved, there will be a successful outcome to the review and it will ensure the restoration of the devolved arrangements.

Prime Minister Blair and I recently considered the possibility of an intensive engagement with the parties towards the end of April. However, when I further discussed this with him last week, our judgment was that sufficient progress across a range of issues has not been made that would enable us to achieve a positive outcome at this time. However, we will continue our efforts in a number of other formats over the coming period.

Earlier this week, I had a meeting with the Sinn Féin Party leader, Mr. Gerry Adams, that sought to establish whether there is a clear basis on which progress can be made. On Friday, I will meet with the SDLP leader, Mr. Mark Durkan. The reconvened review also allows opportunities for contact and engagement. The review, which met yesterday, will meet again next week. Its activities may have to be curtailed in light of the elections in Northern Ireland. I regret that the Ulster Unionist Party is not participating in the review. I hope it will reconsider this decision and find it possible to resume participation as soon as possible.

Last week's meeting in London of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, chaired by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, was also a timely opportunity to review progress in a number of areas identified in last year's Joint Declaration. I will meet with Prime Minister Blair again next Sunday. This meeting will afford an opportunity to assess the prospects for the intensified efforts that will be undertaken in the coming weeks. Our aim, with the help of the parties, is to make as much progress as possible in this period. In June, I will visit Britain as part of a series of visits to EU capitals in my role as EU President prior to the EU Council meeting.

In the course of my visit to Northern Ireland on 19 February, I met with the SDLP leader, Mr. Mark Durkan, in Derry. Our discussions focused on the review and other issues. I later visited Coleraine University at the invitation of the chairman of the council, Dr. Gerry Burns, and the vice-chancellor and president, Professor Gerry McKenna. In my address to the university entitled Partnership As The Only Way Forward, I emphasised that a viable partnership in Northern Ireland can only be constructed on the basis of total equality between the prospective partners. There can be no half-way house between violence and democracy and no comfortable resting place between exclusion and partnership. For the republican movement, this means bringing definitive closure to paramilitarism and an absolute commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. For unionism, it means signing up to the imperative of a total partnership, based on the inclusion of all parties whose electoral mandate gives them a right of participation.

Following my address at the university, I visited the bomb site and the memorial garden in Omagh accompanied by Mr. Alan Rainey, chairman of Omagh District Council and Mr. Danny McSorley, chief executive. I then attended a meeting at the council offices with public representatives, a meeting with victims and relatives of victims of the Omagh bombing and a reception for representatives of local community groups.

At my meeting with the victims and relatives of the victims, I reiterated the Government's resolve to do everything possible to bring the perpetrators of the bombing to justice. All our efforts to sustain and implement the Good Friday Agreement and to keep politics working are intended to ensure that the conflict is over for good and that no one else will ever suffer such terrible pain. I also confirmed that the Government intended making a substantial contribution to the Northern Ireland memorial fund. I expect that it will be possible to make that contribution within weeks through the Remembrance Fund Commission.

Following my engagements in Omagh, I travelled to Belfast where I met with the Lord Mayor, Mr. Martin Morgan, and other public representatives at City Hall. I then travelled to the Springvale training centre to meet with representatives of the west Belfast partnership, local public representatives and community groups.

In Dublin on Thursday, 11 March I met with the Omagh self-help group. Among the issues discussed at that meeting were the civil action being taken by the relatives, the Nally report and the inquiry and investigation into the bombing. Following my meeting with the group, its members met separately with the Garda Commissioner at Government Buildings.

I welcome the publication on 1 April of the four reports by Judge Peter Cory into the murders of Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright. I again express my thanks to Judge Cory for the work he has done and the commitment and energy he devoted to this difficult and complex task.

The reports give rise to very serious concerns about the rule of law. The delay in responding to the recommendation of Judge Cory for a public inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane is disappointing and conflicts with the view of Judge Cory that a public inquiry in this case is more important than prosecutions. I am deeply conscious of the impact that this decision has had on Geraldine Finucane and the Finucane family. The British Government has stated that it stands by its Weston Park commitments. It is vitally important for confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland to ensure that the delay in establishing a public inquiry in the Finucane case is not prolonged and that such an inquiry is established as quickly as possible.

I welcomed the statement of 24 February by the UDA and UFF announcing an indefinite extension of their military inactivity and the efforts of those who worked to bring this initiative about. If the aspirations of the statement are to be realised, the future actions of the wider organisations must match the words of its leadership. I hope that this development will help ease tensions on the streets and further develop a climate of confidence between both communities.

Perhaps Mr. Sutcliffe will give our Minister the benefit of his advice and experience for some problems we are experiencing here in the areas of employment, skills and trade.

I welcome the report of the Independent Monitoring Commission. Do its findings tally with the information available to the Government on criminal activities engaged in by the IRA? Mr. Paul Murphy made it clear, in responding to the commission's report, that the Progressive Unionist Party and the Sinn Féin Party were linked with paramilitary groups. The Taoiseach has indicated that Sinn Féin and the IRA are two sides of the same coin. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, has claimed that Gerry Adams is a liar and that senior members of Sinn Féin are involved in paramilitary activities, some of which fund political activities in this jurisdiction. Does the IMC report tally with the intelligence held by the Government on criminal activities?

Is it still the Government's belief that some of the moneys raised through criminal activities are being used for political purposes in this jurisdiction? If that is the case, will the Government take similar action to that recommended by the IMC? The recommendation is that where such activity is known, parliamentary financial assistance to parties involved in that activity should be withdrawn.

The Deputy should not use the word "liar" in the House even if he is quoting another person.

I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle.

I am grateful to those who worked on the IMC report because it was thought the report would not be out until the summer but we asked it to be brought forward. I am also glad it was not introduced on top of the elections. The need to avoid this was a valid point made by a number of people. The peace process goes on regardless and has nothing to do with elections, North or South. The report stands by itself — there is no point in my trying to analyse it. It deals with what is happening in Northern Ireland. Obviously, it is based on the intelligence report. As I said, the Government accepts its recommendations. It is a clear analysis of issues I have mentioned many times. People have been asking about proof or evidence. This is provided in the report.

I hope that ongoing investigations into various issues do not lead to similar actions in the South. I am more interested in stopping these actions and removing links with criminality and gangs. Some of the activities that have gone on over the last number of months have helped in this area, particularly in the matter of gangs operating at the docks. The Government believed with certainty that there were paramilitary groups involved. The facts were disputed by these groups but according to our intelligence these people were closely associated with, if not actively part of the IRA. I hope the events that have taken place over the last number of months have resulted in the ceasing of these operations. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform continues to monitor matters.

The next IMC report will be issued in the autumn. If we are to make progress in this area, we must see a substantial change. Otherwise, we will continue to run into the sand. All parties know we cannot continue in this vein. There must be a change in the intelligence reports on these matters. The only way in which this can happen is for people to cease these actions. It is to be hoped we will see a change — that is what we will all be working towards.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said publicly that senior elements in Sinn Féin had been involved in criminality at Dublin Port. I note that in the last week the Taoiseach had a frank discussion with the president of Sinn Féin, Mr. Gerry Adams. Did he raise this matter with Mr. Adams? The IMC report states clearly that senior politicians in the PUP and Sinn Féin have an influence on their paramilitary associates. If we are to have a serious change before the next IMC report in the autumn, senior politicians must use their influence. If the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has substantial evidence backing up his public statements, that should be taken into account. In the full and frank discussions the Taoiseach had with Mr. Adams, did he raise this matter? We all want to see an end to this business if we are to stay on the road to peace.

I noted in the Taoiseach's reply that he met with the leader of the SDLP, Mr. Mark Durkan, on 19 February. Two days before that, on 17 February, the Taoiseach had failed to mention during a reply to the House that the Government intended to hold a referendum on citizenship. He said he had discussed a review of the Agreement and other issues with Mr. Durkan. Did he discuss the question of the Government's intention to hold the referendum on 11 June? Can he tell the House whether he raised the Government's intent with the other parties, namely the UUP, the DUP and Sinn Féin? What was the extent of consultation with the Northern Ireland parties? We have heard their various concerns about the implications for the Good Friday Agreement of the Government's intention to hold the referendum on 11 June.

I did not discuss that issue. I only discussed matters relating to the peace process at that stage because the Government had not made a decision. I did not discuss that matter with the other parties but I did discuss it with the British Government. It was the understanding of the British and Irish Governments which I set out in the reply to Mark Durkan. I put most of that on the public record last week.

In my view it was not necessary because it was the understanding of the two Governments, not the parties.

On the first question, I discussed all these matters with the president of Sinn Féin, Gerry Adams, on Monday. I am anxious to get on and move forward. We also discussed the individual cases mentioned by the Deputy. All those issues were discussed but there are two key issues. We must find some way of dealing with paramilitarism. It is not just a question of saying that. The difficulty is that we will not be able to make the process work to achieve devolved government so a substantive leap forward must be made. We will not be able to do so in the current climate no matter what happens unless some mechanism is found to deal with and bring closure to the issue.

Equally, we must find a way whereby unionism will accept fully and conclusively that exclusion is not part of the equation, that this is an inclusive process and, under the Good Friday Agreement, that means sharing power with the parties that have the mandate, which, in this case, clearly means the DUP and Sinn Féin. People must accept the two issues and it is not a question of measuring out punishment to one side or the other. That is the reality of the situation. I want to move forward constructively and positively to deal with those two issues.

It is a year almost to the day since we almost got to that position and we had another good effort last October, which was run into the sand. I discussed the history of that also with the president of Sinn Féin because fundamental difficulties were created last October. It is not, as somebody said over the weekend, that I was in a huff over them. That was the reality of what happened and issues cannot be resolved unless people accept the reality and how we will move forward.

Clearly, the parties want to try to find a way forward. We will have discussions, meetings and contacts. There will be a number this week but there is not much point in having those until people accept the two main issues and we have pressed for that. Given the parliamentary system and a British decision, meetings relating to the process cannot be held within 30 days of an election. Effectively 5 May will be the last day of the review talks and we will not resolve everything by then. It is just not realistic. Some people say we can rush over a few days and resolve the issues, but there is not a hope of that. Given the state of mind of all the parties, it is not possible. However, progress could be made to devise a process to deal with the issues later in the summer. Summer in the Northern Ireland political system tends to be a little earlier than in ours. Once one hits the beginning of July, that is it — the week before Drumcree Sunday and 12 July.

We are trying to devise a plan that can get us back into engagement in late August, early September. That is the reality and we need to address that reality, otherwise we will drift seriously. On top of that, we need co-operation between parties to get through the summer. Positive work on trying to manage the summer, as happened last year, is going on, which I strongly commend and support. We can do that over the next few weeks.

Does the Taoiseach agree with the former Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, who recently said all this bashing of Sinn Féin is counterproductive and that we would all be better concerned with trying to involve it in the administration of policing, for example?

I agree with Deputy O'Donnell that if we could find the solution to policing, it would provide the vehicle to resolve the issue of paramilitarism. The reason people think paramilitarism is required in many areas — I do not accept this — is that policing is not accepted and cannot work in those areas. A few years ago, we thought progress had been made on the policing issue and Sinn Féin would take substantive steps in that regard. That was not long after the Weston Park talks, in which Deputy O'Donnell was involved as Minister of State and she will be well aware of that. If progress had been made then, it would have been easier to bring the paramilitarism issue to an end. Paramilitarism and the future of policing are interlinked. There is no doubt about that aspect.

With regard to the ongoing comments about Sinn Féin, I would be the happiest person in the world if we could stop commenting about all these issues and make progress because one sounds like a long playing record, saying the same things over and over again. Unfortunately, there is no way around that when progress is not made. We have not made any substantive progress in the past 12 months. I could think of a few things that would be of some substance but the only thing we achieved was that we managed to force the British Government to have the election. This week last year, it postponed the election but we managed to force the British Government to hold it. However, nothing else has been achieved other than to keep everybody working together to get through a successful summer and keep the level of violence low.

If a substantive move is not made, we will be back in a vacuum and that is always a dangerous position. Thankfully, we have not reached that and that is why a substantive move must be made. However, policing is a key issue.

The Taoiseach said no progress has been made over the past 12 months. What does he say to people in a number of quarters who say that is at least partly due to a change of attitude at Government level and that, for whatever reason, he has consciously decided to unleash the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in a fashion that, on the eve of elections, some commentators are tempted to view as about electoral politics rather than the substance of the matter? If no progress has been made in the past 12 months, what is his assessment of the prospects between now and the summer break of making real progress? He met Mr. Adams recently, as did Prime Minister Blair. Is there a prospect of the impasse of the past 12 months, to which the Taoiseach referred, being broken? Is there cause for conviction that progress can be made in the few months immediately ahead?

What is the Taoiseach's response to the monitoring commission's report in this regard? It came into existence because every difficulty that arose during the lifetime of the institutions in Northern Ireland could not put their future at risk and, as a result, the commission was established to validate alleged breaches and so on. Has the commission contributed to doing that or is the existence of the report an insuperable obstacle to getting back to where we were and getting the allegiance of the parties in Northern Ireland to allow a devolved administration to function again in Northern Ireland?

We are sufficiently removed from the elections in Northern Ireland for everyone to be calm. A number of issues arose over the past few months. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform spelled out the position as he saw it, particularly regarding the Tohill incident on 20 February, the issues of last year, the connections with paramilitarism and the actions of the Dublin docks gang, whether they were official or unofficial paramilitaries. Those issues were brought before the Minister by those concerned with security. He made his points quite forcibly. Had he said nothing, he would have been accused of not making people aware of the facts.

With regard to Northern Ireland, there has been no change in Government policy over the past year. The year could be considered in two distinct periods. People said no progress could be made in Northern Ireland until an election took place. The five years were up for the Assembly, and people needed to get a new mandate. The Governments wanted the contexts for those elections to be positive, particularly for the parties who had contributed to and worked extremely hard in the Executive, in particular the SDLP and the UUP. Every party and everyone in Northern Ireland would have benefited from those elections and a positive approach to them. We failed to involve ourselves in a positive way because the scenario we envisaged with all the political parties did not work out. That led to what were seen at the time as the two more extreme parties, the DUP and Sinn Féin, doing better in the election than the other two parties which had tried to work the Agreement. I do not know if the election results would have been different. However, Mr. Trimble's party fell short by only three seats. If the outcome had been more positive for him, there is no doubt he would have done far better.

Since the elections, nobody will move until a change occurs regarding paramilitarism. The key issue in Northern Ireland is whether people genuinely want to move forward positively. The Deputy has asked what direction our talks are taking. The effort must be to establish whether Sinn Féin can achieve something significant in the area of paramilitarism, and whether the DUP will then honour the terms of the Agreement and share power in a devolved administration. That is where the discussions stand.

Deputy Rabbitte asked me for my analysis. It is difficult to achieve the two aims I have just mentioned, because they involve major changes for the two parties involved. I have some sense that people will engage in a process directed towards those ends, but I do not see it happening in a matter of weeks. There is no chance of that. North and south, elections come and go, and everyone realises the work that must be done. We have not got a very long period to make things happen. Progress must be made over the next few months. Otherwise — as regularly happens in Northern Ireland — by Christmas, people will be turning their attention to the Westminster elections, and the merry-go-round will begin again. As a result of the situation in Northern Ireland, with people watching elections in the North, the South and in Westminster, the windows of opportunity are permanently narrow. There was a window in the autumn and there will be one after the summer, but little or no chance of one before the summer. Some people disagree, but people regularly tell me that others are saying certain things, and when I contact them, they deny it. Small talk is cheap until one has to get down to it.

There is an opportunity for us now to attempt to understand what benchmarks people are setting down and to work hard in that area after the summer. There are two main issues. There are other issues which can be solved. However, two main issues remain: whether Sinn Féin will use its influence and power to make a significant move on paramilitarism, and, if that happens, whether the DUP will alter its position and move towards inclusive government. The smaller issues are surmountable. It is in the two major issues that we are involving ourselves directly, and have been doing for some weeks with the various parties — sometimes quietly, sometimes not so quietly — in an effort to make progress.

The Taoiseach said he hoped there was no association between Sinn Féin and criminal elements in this jurisdiction. I assure him and Deputy Kenny, and other Members of this House, that there are no such links. Sinn Féin is not and has not been involved in, or been a beneficiary from, such activities, either in this jurisdiction or in any part of this island or beyond. Will the Taoiseach note that on behalf of Sinn Féin, I roundly reject any and all such activities? I also reject the barrage of accusations directed at Sinn Féin by some politicians and some journalists whose anti-republican bile apparently knows no bounds.

Regarding Questions Nos. 39 and 57 in my name, does the Taoiseach accept that the basis of the peace process is inclusiveness and the recognition of electoral mandates? Does he accept that the success of the peace process so far has rested on, and has been built on, that principle, and that any attempt to place any party beyond the Pale, which has clearly been the agenda of some, is a recipe for the failure of the peace process, the success of which I and my colleagues in Sinn Féin are totally committed to?

I will ask some questions to highlight certain contradictions. Can the Taoiseach explain why he and the British Prime Minister requested the so-called IMC, the Independent Monitoring Commission, to investigate and adjudicate on the Tohill affair while the trial of persons connected with that incident is pending? The inquiry recommended by Judge Cory into the murder of Patrick Finucane is meanwhile denied on the basis of ongoing legal proceedings. Does that not indicate gross double standards on the part of both Governments?

What is the Taoiseach's view of the British Act of Parliament that gave effect to the IMC, the so-called Northern Ireland Monitoring Commission Act of 2003, which established the commission, but to which, interestingly, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform made no reference — I have looked at his contributions at the time — when he introduced the corresponding IMC legislation in this Chamber? Is the Taoiseach aware that the British Act allows a British Minister to dismiss a Minister from the Executive in Northern Ireland without a vote in the Assembly, and that not only in my view, but in the view of others I have talked to regarding this very serious disparity, this is in clear breach of the letter and spirit of the Good Friday Agreement? I would like the Taoiseach to give us his views.

Does the Taoiseach still acknowledge — he made an acknowledgement in this House when I questioned him at the time — that the very significant IRA initiative of last October in putting arms beyond use was, as he then described it, sufficient for the Irish Government? Those were the words the Taoiseach used. Does he accept that such progress, and it was progress, must be built upon and that the removal of all armed groups and armies from the political equation on any part of this island, or in the engagement between the peoples of these islands, can only happen in the context of progress on all issues addressed by the Good Friday Agreement? That is not something that I or any other representative of Sinn Féin can just wish away with the stroke of a magic wand.

Does the Taoiseach agree that there can be no return to the days of preconditions to real engagement with any party and megaphone diplomacy which, all too sadly, we have seen examples of in the recent past, or to scapegoating any party? We have to recognise that these are totally inappropriate and that both Governments have the responsibility — I emphasise that — to lead all parties on the path towards the restoration of the institutions. It is in the gift of both Governments to see that situation arrived at.

Deputy Ó Caoláin has asked a number of questions and I will try to recall all of them. I can be very clear on the first one. The implementation of the Good Friday Agreement has always been an inclusive process. Partnership is at the heart of the Agreement. We have made progress but to achieve it on a sustainable basis it is important that all outstanding issues are resolved collectively. I totally accept that. If, in the final analysis, that proves to be impossible it will be for the two Governments, as guardians of the Agreement, to decide on the best way forward. That also has to be accepted.

On the IMC, I recall what Deputy Rabbitte said about its history. I can understand Deputy Ó Caoláin not fully liking the IMC, and I also understand what he said about an arbitrary dismissal. As he is aware, I argued against some of those issues.

I do not like it at all. Let us be clear about that.

I appreciate that but we should recall what Deputy Rabbitte said about the reason for it. These are the only democratic institutions in the world which have had four suspensions in a five year period. We have to try to find a way forward.

Arbitrary suspensions.

No buts. They were arbitrary suspensions.

I want to try to be constructive. I can recall why they happened but the Deputy does not need me to do that because it does not help matters. Apart from that it upsets him but they did not suspend for no reason. They suspended for a fairly good reason in most cases. Let us be honest, if there was no IMC and we did not have the process, and if the institutions had been up and running they would be suspended again over the Cory incident. I would not have stopped them, nor would anybody in this House. The other parties to the Agreement would have walked out again, and the institutions would be down. I know the Deputy accepts that but that is the difficulty. While it is an inclusive process it means that those who are part of it have to be reasonably happy, not politically, that if they are in government with other parties they are not operating on some basis that they cannot accept. That is the issue, without going into the blunt detail of it. It is why paramilitarism in all its forms has to stop.

I accept what Deputy Ó Caoláin has put on the record again but my accepting that will not get the UUP, the DUP and others into an inclusive arrangement to work with Sinn Féin. We have to agree some basis on which they will do that. As the Deputy knows, there is no point in me giving my view when I get into those discussions. He is aware of the issues that come up — putting arms beyond use, the IICD report. I repeat that what happened in October was substantive and it was sufficient for me, but we still have to get finality in an IICD recommendation of John de Chastelain. That is the number one priority.

We still have to get finality on paragraph 13, which has been an issue for well over a year and the basis of which has been an issue for 18 months. We have to get an understanding on paragraph 13, and Deputy Ó Caoláin understands all the issues in paragraph 13. We have to find a way whereby the IMC, even if the Deputy does not like it, as an independent body set up by statute, can give positive reports. That is an issue with which we must deal. I believe we can then get into meaningful discussions to try to get an inclusive Government but I cannot do it the other way around. For the past 12 months I have tried every way, and his party's president knows that, but it cannot be done unless those issues are addressed. The Deputy asked me if it was an inclusive process. I agree it is an inclusive process and he must accept, therefore, that the people who are part of that process have to be satisfied but, unfortunately, they are not. That is the rationale.

I did not set this agenda. The people of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland voted for it but we have to make it work, and all I am asking is for the Deputy and his party to play their part. I am clearly stating that the DUP in particular has the other side to play and that is that it accepts the electoral mandate of the Deputy's party. It has an obligation to accept that the Deputy's party is part of the Executive of Northern Ireland, and we can get on with the issues. There is no other way of doing it.

Very briefly——

If Deputy Sargent gives way to you, Deputy Ó Caoláin, you can come in. If he does not, I will call on Deputy Sargent.

That is a very unfair request to make.

Taoiseach's Question Time is concluded, Deputy. I should not be letting you in at all. The Deputy should be very brief.

It is ironic that we are talking about an inclusive process. I have five questions to ask and the Ceann Comhairle is asking me to give way to another Deputy on the basis of his being allowed to say a word or two. I ask you, a Cheann Comhairle, to take that into account when we are organising these questions in the future.

I want to ask the Taoiseach about the implementation of his own commitments undertaken in the Joint Declaration. Since April 2003 we have been waiting for some movement on the rights, equality, identity and community aspect of the declaration. As the Taoiseach appears to have renewed his interest in the process I wonder if he has anything to say about work that has been done on that aspect of the declaration since April 2003. Has he learnt any lessons from the debacle over the lack of debate on the constitutional referendum in regard to the parties in Northern Ireland? Will he agree that the spirit of the all-party Agreement specifically requires consultation, which did not take place? Has the Taoiseach learnt any lessons in that regard which will ensure we do not have the DUP celebrating the lack of consultation and wishing to see the breakdown of the process?

I do not know what planet the Deputy lives on but——

The same one as the Taoiseach.

——I cannot renew my interest in something that one does not get away from seven days a week.

That is not what Denis Bradley said.

Does the Taoiseach not remember him?

The Taoiseach might know him.

I know him in current capacity but he does not deal with the everyday peace process.

Does the Taoiseach know him?

Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

I met him about three years ago when he sought a meeting.

That is a long time ago.

Exactly, and he has not been at any of the hundreds of meetings since.

The Taoiseach did not talk to him either.

If he comes along some time I will enlighten him.

Perhaps the Taoiseach is as concerned about the nature of the policing boards as we are in Sinn Féin.

Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.

What I am trying to do is get Deputy Ó Caoláin to talk to the policing board.

I will talk to Denis Bradley any time. I remember all the players. I do not drop them all.

Deputy Ó Caoláin, you had six minutes to submit a question.

There was a time when he was close enough.

Taoiseach, if you address your remarks through the Chair we might not provoke interruptions.

I know his history too. In reply to Deputy Sargent, it is an inclusive process and on all issues that are relevant we actively engage with all the parties and we continue to do that, even the smaller ones.

The Taoiseach did not answer the question on the Joint Declaration.

Barr
Roinn