Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Northern Ireland

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 24 November 2015

Tuesday, 24 November 2015

Ceisteanna (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, 31, 32, 33, 34)

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

2. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the British-Irish Council meeting that took place on 19 June 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31697/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

3. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his conversations with the Northern Ireland First Minister, Mr. Peter Robinson, and the Deputy First Minster, Mr. Martin Mc Guinness, at the British-Irish Council in Dublin Castle on 19 June 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31698/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Ruth Coppinger

Ceist:

4. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Taoiseach when his last meeting with the Northern Ireland First Minister, Mr. Peter Robinson, took place, prior to Mr. Robinson's resignation as First Minister. [31783/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

5. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr. David Cameron. [31784/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

6. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland First Minister, Mr. Peter Robinson, the Deputy First Minister, Mr. Martin Mc Guinness, and the former acting First Minister, Ms Arlene Foster. [31785/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

7. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach to detail the discussions he has had with the UK Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron, in respect of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the associated withdrawal of the Ulster Unionist Party and the motion placed by the Democratic Unionist Party; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32838/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

8. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach to outline his views regarding his comments on RTE's "Six One" on 1 September 2015 in respect of suspending the Northern Ireland Assembly; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32839/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

9. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach to outline the discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Deputy First Minister, Mr. Martin Mc Guinness, in respect of Stormont; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32840/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

10. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he spoke with the Northern Ireland First Minister, Mr. Peter Robinson, before or since the he stepped down; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32841/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

11. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Social Democratic and Labour Party on 10 September 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32842/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

12. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach to outline his views on the Ulster Unionist Party removing its members from the Northern Ireland executive and becoming an opposition party; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32848/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

13. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach in light of recent difficulties and disagreements in Northern Ireland regarding certain issues to outline the discussions he had with the British Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron, regarding the full implementation of the Stormont House Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32850/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

14. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the Social Democratic and Labour Party; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32884/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

15. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken with the British Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron, recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32903/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

16. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach to set out the number of conversations that he has had with the British Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron, since July 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32904/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

17. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his conversations with the British Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron, regarding the current crisis in the political institutions in the North; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32905/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

18. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has spoken to the Northern Ireland First Minister, Mr. Peter Robinson, and Deputy First Minister, Mr. Martin McGuinness, since July 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32907/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

19. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has received a report from the Minister for Justice and Equality on the current crisis in the political institutions in the North; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32908/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

20. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he has received a report from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade following his conversations with the UK Secretary of State, Ms Theresa Villiers, regarding the current crisis in the political institutions in the North; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32910/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

21. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach to outline the progress made from the March 2012 joint statement on Northern Ireland by the Irish and British Governments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33946/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

22. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach to outline the position regarding his meeting with the envoy of the United States of America, Mr. Gary Hart, on 14 October 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37143/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

23. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress made arising from the programme of work announced in the joint statement by the Irish and British Governments which was published on 12 March 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32911/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Gerry Adams

Ceist:

24. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the number of meetings that have been held involving the Secretary General of his Department and the UK Cabinet Secretary along with the relevant lead Departments, as committed to in the March 2012 joint statement by the Irish and British Governments; the number of civil servants who have been involved in the exchange programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32912/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

25. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has written or spoken to the leader of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, Mr Jeremy Corbyn; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33917/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

26. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he discussed the Economic and Social Research Institute report on the possible exit of Britain from the European Union with the British Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40012/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

27. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach to detail the discussions he has had with the British Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron, on actions his Government is taking on the possible exit of Britain from the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40013/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

28. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if a special Cabinet sub-committee has been set up to discuss how Ireland will prepare for a possible British exit from the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40014/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

29. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on any official meetings or contact he has had with the leader of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn. [40214/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

30. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach to outline his views on comments by the United Kingdom Indepencence Party regarding a possible British withdrawal from the European Union and its impact on Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41158/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

31. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has met the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mr. Colum Eastwood, to discuss progress on the talks in Northern Ireland. [41159/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Richard Boyd Barrett

Ceist:

32. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he has met the leader of the British Labour Party, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41202/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Richard Boyd Barrett

Ceist:

33. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach when he last spoke with the British Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41203/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Richard Boyd Barrett

Ceist:

34. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he has discussed the crisis in Stormont with the British Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41204/15]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (47 píosaí cainte)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 34, inclusive, together.

I have been asked a range of questions relating to Northern Ireland, bilateral relations between Ireland and the United Kingdom, British membership of the European Union and various meetings I have had in recent months.

I hosted the last meeting of the British-Irish Council in Dublin Castle on 19 June. The UK Government delegation was led by the UK Secretary of State, Philip Hammond. The Northern Ireland Executive was represented by the First Minister, Peter Robinson, and Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness. The council discussed the continuing improving economic situation in member administrations, recognising the interdependence and the links between their economies. The council also specifically focused on work being done relating to the misuse of substances. The council discussed the significant harm being caused by alcohol to individuals, families and society.

At the June British-Irish Council I also took the opportunity to have direct talks with the First Minister, Mr. Robinson, and the Deputy First Minister, Mr. McGuinness, in respect of the then current impasse on budgetary and financial matters. This was the last meeting I had with the First Minister, Mr. Robinson, prior to him subsequently temporarily stepping aside as First Minister on 10 September.

I am in regular contact with the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, regarding the situation in Northern Ireland and a range of other issues of mutual interest, including the EU-UK membership negotiations. We regularly use the opportunity of European Council meetings to meet and we did so most recently on 23 September and 15 and 16 October. The Prime Minister and I are in touch by telephone. We spoke on 2 September, following which we jointly invited the parties in Northern Ireland to talks. These talks in Stormont were facilitated by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. My comments in the media at the time outlined the Government's position on the prospects for successful talks. We spoke again by telephone on 20 October regarding the UK assessment of paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. The decision of those in the Ulster Unionist Party in September to withdraw their Minister from the executive was one they were entitled to make. I am unsure whether it was particularly helpful to the process at the time but I respect their right to make that call. Ultimately, of course, it is intended to make formal arrangements for an effective opposition in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I met with the then SDLP leader and senior colleagues on 10 September in Government Buildings. We discussed the situation that obtained at that point and the optimum arrangements to ensure that the talks might have a successful outcome. I hope to have an opportunity to meet the new SDLP leader, Mr. Colum Eastwood, later this week.

The US Senator, Gary Hart, special envoy of the USA, also made a welcome visit to Government Buildings on 14 October 2015. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and I expressed our appreciation for the ongoing interest of President Obama's Administration in Northern Ireland and Senator Hart's personal commitment to it. We took stock of the situation at that time and agreed to stay in close contact.

I met the Northern Ireland Minister, Ms Arlene Foster, at the Remembrance Sunday ceremony in Enniskillen on 8 November. We held a brief exchange on the current political situation in Northern Ireland. I have not yet had the opportunity to meet the new leader of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Some questions referred to the UK relationship with the EU. Ministers and Departments are aware of the strategic risks of a withdrawal by the UK from the EU, including risks for Northern Ireland and the Border region. We will continue to deepen our analysis and understanding of the issues at stake in the coming months.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs and other Ministers and senior officials meet their counterparts regularly to discuss the proposals for EU reform and issues that arise for Ireland in that regard. The cabinet committee on EU affairs is monitoring all relevant matters. The challenge for us is to play a constructive role in the negotiations that lie ahead. We are keen to work with the British Government and all our EU partners in that process to find an agreed basis for the UK's continued presence as a member of the European Union.

I am aware of the public comments by Mr. Nigel Farage of UKIP. He has set out his views on the potential impact of the UK leaving the EU on Northern Ireland. I do not agree with his view that the EU had next to no part in the peace process. I believe that the EU has been an important, perhaps underestimated, enabler of peace in Northern Ireland. It was instrumental in facilitating constructive contact and building trust between our Governments to find a political settlement.

Earlier this month, I had another meeting with the UK Prime Minister on 9 November in London. I also addressed the Confederation of British Industry annual conference that day. I discussed with the Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, the UK membership of the EU, a question of major interest to us, including in the Northern Ireland context. Our conversation focused on his letter to the President of the European Council, Mr. Tusk, and our desire to keep Britain in the EU. I reiterated my offer of support where possible in the forthcoming process.

The UK Prime Minister attended the CBI annual conference earlier that morning. In my speech at the conference I set out in some detail the implications for Ireland of a UK vote to withdraw from the EU. While the Prime Minister and I did not discuss the recent ESRI report in detail, it informed the discussion, as it clearly identifies potential adverse economic risks for Ireland and Northern Ireland in the event of a UK exit from the EU. We also discussed ongoing progress in key areas of the comprehensive work programme arising from the joint statement of 2012, including trade promotion and co-operation in respect of defence and security matters. We noted that work continues to be progressed through bilateral contacts between our respective Government officials, including at Secretary General and Permanent Secretary level. A fourth plenary meeting of this group, which oversees the progress on over 20 areas of co-operation, took place on 1 October this year. Delivery on commitments in the joint work programme will be reviewed again at the next annual summit meeting, to be held in the spring. We took stock of the situation regarding the talks in Stormont and the prospect of agreement being reached. I also raised legacy issues with the Prime Minister. On the same day, I travelled to Belfast for a meeting with the Northern Ireland First Minister, Mr. Robinson, and Deputy First Minister, Mr. McGuinness. We discussed the issues in greater detail, including the scope for financial support for certain infrastructure projects with all-island benefits.

We also discussed the measures being negotiated to deal with the unacceptable vestiges of paramilitarism and the corrosive effects of organised crime on both sides of the Border. We discussed the measures being taken to address the legacy of the past, including mechanisms to ensure that the arrangements agreed in the Stormont House Agreement would be made to work for the benefit of survivors, victims and their families. I took the opportunity to urge the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to ensure that any emerging agreement would have the maximum possible support of other parties.

As the House is aware, the talks in Northern Ireland concluded successfully last week. The agreement addresses the key issues of welfare reform and financial stability within Northern Ireland. It also makes important progress on dealing with the legacy of the past, albeit that it did not conclude on the full range of issues. I very much hope that this will be done in the coming weeks.

The agreement also contains clear commitments to achieve a society free of paramilitarism and to work to disband paramilitary groups. The agreement contains important measures to tackle cross-Border organised crime, including a new task force led by officials from the PSNI and An Garda Síochána and Revenue officers from both jurisdictions. However, as always, this agreement will ultimately be judged on its implementation.

The title of the agreement is A Fresh Start, and this is precisely what the people of Northern Island will wish to see. They deserve not only a fresh start, but a sustained commitment by all of the parties in Northern Ireland to a complete transition of their economy and society. In my contribution to the British-Irish Association in Cambridge last September, I set out my vision for an island which is defined by optimism, hope and opportunity. At the heart of that vision are efficient, effective and representative devolved institutions working for the common good on a sustainable basis. There must also be co-operation to build the island economy through overseas investment, trade, tourism and utilising a competitive common corporation tax rate.

This is the real work agenda. It is one that must be processed through the agreed structures and processes that we have now put in place. In this regard, I am due to be in London for the next meeting of the British-Irish Council on Friday, 27 November. I will also attend the next meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council, which was rescheduled because of the ongoing talks and which I hope will take place in early December. As co-guarantors of the agreements, the Irish and UK Governments will continue to work closely together to further consolidate peace and reconciliation in the North and to further embed peace and the normalisation of politics in Northern Ireland generally.

The questions cover a period beginning from around June and the Taoiseach, in his reply, quite rightly covered the period up to this month, for which I thank him. However, there is not enough interaction by the Taoiseach and Government on these issues. I do not necessarily mean with the parties in the North, although that is an important element of the process. I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Sherlock, for their contribution to the ten weeks of talks. I refer instead to the Taoiseach's interaction with the British Prime Minister. It is one area with which we have difficulties because, as the Taoiseach reminded me, he is the co-guarantor of the agreement. The parties in the North have responsibilities and Sinn Féin has never shied away from facing up to them.

As we know, Peter Robinson has resigned, and I wish him and his family well in the time ahead. The winning of the agreement was quite an achievement and even though it was the best that was possible at the time, it has not dealt with all of the issues and has not adequately dealt with some others. I commend Martin McGuinness, our team and others who engaged over the period involved and the months beforehand.

The difference between this and previous agreements - this goes back to the Stormont House Agreement - is that essentially the parties in the North came together. In this case, that involved Sinn Féin and the DUP, which then went to the Governments with proposals, some of which they resisted. Much of the work that was done over the past two or three weeks involved trying to get the Governments on board. That should never be the case in terms of our Government, because it should have a different view from that of the British Government. One would like to think the Irish Government had an ambition or aspiration to be part of a united Ireland and to work with people in the North on a ongoing and daily basis to build harmony, equality and cordiality between everyone who lives on the island. The British Government has a different national interest in terms of all of these issues.

We have ended up with crisis management and the institutions being periodically on the cusp of collapse. Of course, there are times when the institutions have been dysfunctional, but that has been because the Northern state and partition are dysfunctional. Even though it is very frustrating, in particular for those of us who work in the system, it is far better than how things used to be played out on the streets.

If one looks back over the past few weeks, in particular following the killing of Kevin McGuigan and Jock Davison and how that was seized upon by the Ulster Unionist Party, one can consider the response of the leader of Fianna Fáil. He said the institutions should be suspended. What would the outworking of that have been? The Taoiseach called for the institutions to be adjourned and tried to armlock the SDLP into accepting that. What would the consequences of that have been? We have a responsibility to sustain the institutions but they have to deliver.

We do not have a bill of rights or a charter of rights. A charter of rights would include this State, and I know why we do not have one in the North. It is because if we had one, people would have legislative entitlements in terms of all of the rights they are currently being denied. We do not have a civic forum or Acht na Gaeilge. There is a refusal by the British to deal with legacy issues.

We got €834 million to support vulnerable citizens and Professor Eileen Evason will head a panel to figure out the best way to spend that money. The Government in London is committed to austerity, as is the Irish Government. Therefore, we will have more difficulties on the economic front in the time ahead. We got €877 million in additional funding to help a society which is unique in that it is coming out of conflict. That means we do not have additional domestic water charges or prescription charges. We have a public health service which is free at the point of delivery. That is where Sinn Féin's focus has been.

In terms of legacy issues, will the hooded men have to wait forever? What about the Ballymurphy families, the family of Pat Finucane, the families connected to the Dublin-Monaghan bombings, the families of the Miami Showband and Seamus Ludlow's family, who live in my constituency? Numerous other families have been victims of the IRA and other groups.

Does the Taoiseach have proposals to get the British Government to stick to what it committed to in various other agreements, not least the Stormont House agreement, which it then breached by introducing legislation? Its excuse is that national security is involved. What on earth causes issues of national security when some incidents happened 40, 30 or 20 years ago?

I am looking from the Taoiseach for a more proactive interaction with the Prime Minister and a clear and consistent strategic plan. I happen to agree with the Taoiseach on the effects of the British withdrawing from the EU, and we can speak about it at some other point if I am allowed back in. A week or two after we have had this agreement we have other issues, and if they are not dealt with now to be managed in advance, we will have another crisis in the North at some point. The Taoiseach knows what the problems will be. Our responsibility is to be problem solvers and solution finders, and to do this now and not wait until everybody is angsty and in a cranky mood or, God forbid, until people are killed.

Deputy Adams has raised a number of interesting points in his contribution. This morning, the Government noted its appreciation and that of the people of the work carried out by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock. I agree with Deputy Adams in this regard. The Government noted this contribution today.

I wish the First Minister, Mr. Robinson, very well on his decision to stand down as leader after a period. It should be noted that in his role as a public representative over very many years, he was one of the main engines of the various strands of ideas which came about. He was sometimes provocative, and I commend him and the Deputy First Minister, Mr. McGuinness, on being able to conclude the Stormont House Agreement. It was not an easy situation for either of them and it is an example of how they faced the responsibilities given to them by the people in respect of the Executive. From two very contradictory points they were able to work with everybody else to put together the Stormont House Agreement. While it is not complete and it does not cover all the issues, it is a pretty substantial achievement. It includes a range of mutually beneficial issues which have not been addressed in the media. Perhaps they might not attract the same level of attention. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister and the respective parties have put it out there for all others to accept or not as the case might be.

Deputy Adams spoke about the Government here having a different view, and we have a different view on a range of things. We will never have a united Ireland unless we have it by consent, and one of the issues that clearly is of relevance is the management of and state of the economic circumstances that apply North and South. This is why under the devolution theory the decision to devolve responsibility to the Executive, if it so wishes, to reduce the level of corporation tax to that of the Republic would benefit the economy of the island of Ireland in the time ahead. We have always gone out of our way, as Deputy Adams is well aware, to bring on board personnel from Northern Ireland on issues the Government here has dealt with abroad, be it during the European Presidency or trade missions. As he is aware, we had the first tripartite trade mission to Singapore, with Northern Ireland, the British Government and our Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. This is the direction in which we need to be able to proceed to prove to everybody that common sense and effective politics actually work in the people's interests, and the more we have in terms of benefits resulting to Northern Ireland, the better and easier it will be to break down prejudice, particularly for young people who might be in very difficult circumstances because of the legacies of the past or politically, in order that people see there is a genuine way forward around the blockages that have prevented this in the past. This type of issue is important.

We took a different view in respect of some of the infrastructure projects mentioned by the groupings. We need a process of preparation for planning and environmental issues. The Government is happy to make a further allocation in a number of years hence for the completion of the first stage of the A5 from Derry to Strabane, which is of particular interest to the Government here and to Northern Ireland with regard to getting to the north west.

It is true we do not have a bill of rights, a civic forum or Acht na Gaeilge, but surely the reason we are in politics is to be able to put these things out there and follow through on them if possible. Clearly the situation in the Executive and the Assembly does not allow for the completion of their implementation now. There is no reason, with the Stormont House Agreement in place and a fresh start, that these issues cannot come into focus again. I would be very supportive of this. I take the point on connection with the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron. We have been in contact as often as needs be. He has other things in focus at present which occupy his time.

Deputy Adams mentioned the legacy of the past and victims, and I noted the comment of the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, Judith Thompson, on national radio on Sunday. She indicated that she had invited me, as Taoiseach, and the Prime Minister to engage in a meeting with her. I checked before I came down and I have not yet received a letter from the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. If she has written, it is still in the system or it has not reached me, and I will be very happy to respond when I receive it.

Deputy Adams also mentioned a number of other issues, including Justice for the Forgotten in respect of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. We support fully the motions passed in 2008 and 2011 urging the British Government to allow an independent international judicial figure access to all original documents in its possession relating to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. This is also part of the return of Ireland's most famous rock band at present, regarding a declaration in respect of Justice for the Forgotten. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has raised the issue umpteen times with the British Government, most recently on 8 October. He has received assurances from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the British Government is actively considering how it can respond to the Dáil motions. One of them is seven years old and the other is four years old, and the question is whether there is a willingness to do it. We continue to push for this and I will raise it again with the Prime Minister.

I have spoken before about Kingsmill. A particular set of legal issues arose in the process of the preparation of materials for An Garda Síochána to transmit to the coroner regarding the inquest into the horrific murders at Kingsmill. In June this year, the Government identified a way forward which involved making regulations under the Data Protection Act and issuing a directive by the Minister for Justice and Equality under the Garda Síochána Act 2005 which helped to provide a legal mechanism for the transmission by the Garda of the relevant material. The Government also formally agreed that as much information as possible, in accordance with the law, should be provided to the inquest, and the directive and the regulations have helped the Garda authorities who have made the transfer of relevant materials to the coroner in accordance with the law. The Garda authorities' co-operation with the Northern Ireland coroner is part of an ongoing legal process, and they will continue to work with the coroner in respect of the inquest.

We also had the motion, as Deputy Adams knows, on Ballymurphy. The Clerk of the Dáil wrote to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the House of Commons communicating the motion to both legislatures. The Minister, Deputy Flanagan, has brought the motion directly to the attention of the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Ms Villiers, including at their meeting in September in Dublin, requesting follow-up. It should be said the Secretary of State reiterated the position, as outlined before by the Prime Minister, that the British Government feels the balance of interest does not lie in favour of creating an independent panel - I am disappointed with this - and that the existing legal procedures, processes and bodies under the Stormont House Agreement are the best means of establishing those facts not already in the public domain. I regard this as a test of the Stormont House Agreement with regard to dealing with the past because, in theory at least, it provides for an opportunity for an independent person to supply material that has not been provided to persons bereaved or aggrieved over the years. We will continue to press for an independent panel inquiry, and when it reaches the stage of being a test of the Stormont House Agreement, I hope it measures up.

In the Pat Finucane case we continue to hold the very strong view that an independent public inquiry be established into his murder in line with the commitments entered into at Weston Park.

The British Government has rejected that and we continue to have a serious difference of opinion with it about that.

With respect to Bloody Sunday of 1972, 14 people were shot dead and there is an ongoing criminal investigation by the PSNI into these murders. I do not wish to comment on the arrest of a former British soldier in connection with that. The Saville report and the subsequent apology received has helped Derry to move on and to begin building a brighter future for the citizens of that city. One never knows, the ongoing PSNI investigation may, I hope, bring the justice demanded by the families and the relatives of those murdered and further assist the healing process.

For information of the Deputies, I met members of the Omagh support group on 6 October and was accompanied by the Minister for Justice and Equality. We had a very good discussion with Mr. Gallagher and his delegation, and that followed through in the commitment I gave in Glenties in July that I would meet him. I assured him that the Government will continue to work with the people of Omagh to pursue every avenue to get to the truth and ensure that those who perpetrated this particular atrocity are brought to justice. I indicated that the Government would give a full response to all the issues raised in the report submitted to the Government following the conclusion of current criminal proceedings. These are obviously matters that will not be concluded in the short term but if we can make small steps of progress, demonstrating the honouring of commitments in the interests of truth and reconciliation, it can all be a help in the longer term.

I also welcome that events are not, as one previous speaker noted, being "played out on the streets" of Northern Ireland in the way they used to be. Unfortunately, the agreement signed in Stormont is called A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan but it is not a fresh start for the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. It is a continuation of the sectarian politics that has dominated the North for decades and it is also an acceleration of austerity in the North. This merits much discussion and examination for people in the South as well. For example, it is bad news for working class people as the agreement would implement austerity and a range of cuts in welfare and other departments by the two big parties. It is also a shifting of the economy more towards profit of multinationals, with a massive cut in corporation tax that has been argued for by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I make these points for the Taoiseach's comment.

With regard to the resignation of Mr. Peter Robinson, he is an example of the type of politician who has been part of the problem in Northern Ireland and not the solution. He is somebody who has blocked marriage equality most recently, and social progress, colluding with other parties to prevent, for example, women having the right to control their bodies, as the Abortion Act 1967 was not extended to the North. He stoked up sectarianism not long ago: the flags issue was quite recent and well documented. Other key parties have space in one community and politics has been reduced to a sectarian head count. That is still the case.

It is a credit to ordinary working class people, both Catholic and Protestant, that they will not allow the region to go back to the Troubles of the past. It is worth noting that the trade union movement is still probably the only organisation where Catholic and Protestant people organise together. I raise the warning that although the Troubles are gone, unfortunately sectarianism has not gone away and there has been an increase in the separation between the two communities. That is well documented if one visits the North. We need a new generation of political representatives who will build unity among ordinary people rather than sowing or fomenting division.

The other key element of the Stormont agreement is the massive austerity programme that has been accepted by the parties in the North to be implemented in conjunction with the slashing of corporation tax. This austerity agreement represents a turning point because lines have been crossed, including by Sinn Féin. The party stated it would not cross those lines and that core payments in social welfare would be protected. It is a warning to those placing hopes in Sinn Féin in the South for the next election.

Let us call these cuts what they are; we cannot just call them "reforms" when it suits. The welfare cuts that have been agreed for implementation will mean an estimated 20,000 job cuts in the public sector. It also means benefits will be cut and day centres etc. will close. The cut in corporation tax equates to another massive hand-out to big business while ordinary people experience cuts in their living standards. That is the reality of the agreement. The cushion money being touted of £585 million over four years also has to cushion the effect of tax credits, defence and other areas, so it is not solely to protect people suffering welfare cuts. The money will last for four years but with the last agreement it was to last for six years. There is less money in this agreement to bulwark against austerity than there was in the previous agreement. Northern Ireland workers will also lose £110 million from tax credits being introduced.

This "fresh start" includes recommendations for cost reduction targets in nine departments. It includes the phrase "structural reforms" to take place-----

I must ask the Deputy to finish.

I am just finishing now. They will take place in education, health and justice. "Structural reform" is troika language for major cuts. These cuts and reforms will lead to services closing and benefits being cut. We have already seen how the Belfast City Hospital accident and emergency department has been closed and there is a threat to the Mater Hospital accident and emergency department as well.

If one opposes austerity on principle, how can anybody go along with this agreement? If a struggle was waged against the agreement, it would have received massive support in Northern Ireland society. We have already seen that with the public sector and other strikes that have taken place in the North against the Assembly and Westminster cuts.

Two other Deputies wish to ask questions.

We need a new non-sectarian left party that will mobilise communities against these cuts and link with workers in Britain fighting the Tory cuts as well.

The document is entitled A Fresh Start but it clearly must deal with a range of issues that have been ongoing for many years, current matters and challenges for the future. It is a good title and from having met the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and other members of the political spectrum in Northern Ireland, this was particularly challenging for many of them. The situation evolved and was agreed. Britain would retain responsibility for welfare but because Northern Ireland is recognised as an economy emerging from conflict, an extra £500 million plus would be made available to deal with top-ups with respect to particular credits.

The best way out of poverty is a job. An economy in trouble or with reputational damage suffered either by perception or the reality of paramilitarism or criminal activity would not progress as freely as one might wish. In that sense, the decision taken first by the British Government to devolve authority to the Executive speaks for itself. It is also an indication of a sense of confidence and belief that the Executive fought for so hard through the Good Friday Agreement and others can work, with the responsibility being given to politicians to make it work, which will have a benefit for Northern Ireland.

In our area down here, the figures for corporation tax in 2015 will be the biggest ever, exceeding the €6.7 billion collected way back in 2006.

There are reasons for that, many of which relate to changes in the way this is assessed and paid. There has also been an increase in opportunity in firms that contribute between €100,000 and €1 million, with an increase of 20% in the numbers down here. In terms of the island economy, a straight 12.5% corporation tax rate across the board will make the island of Ireland more attractive for investment from abroad.

In the budget the Minister for Finance brought in the first OECD-compliant patent knowledge box, which is 6.25%, half the corporation tax rate. That will make the Republic even more attractive for that kind of investment, and I cannot say whether the Northern Ireland Executive will follow suit in due course.

First, I join others in wishing the Northern Ireland First Minister, Peter Robinson, the very best in his retirement. I dealt with him in my capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs and negotiated with him in the context of the devolution of justice and related matters over a three-year period. In many instances I found him straight up in negotiations, although he came from a difficult position, dealing with many difficult strands within his own community and party and facing many challenges as a result. Throughout his career, he also went on a journey and changed from a strong hardline position in the earlier part of his career to a position where he brought the DUP into the Northern Ireland Executive and into the broader agreement and peace process.

On the fresh start agreement, as it is called, we all hope it is not a false start and I am somewhat concerned about Deputy Adams's remarks that, before we know it, there will be another crisis if certain things are not done. That is what upsets much of the middle ground in Northern Ireland, the sense that it is going from one crisis to another and they are becoming immune to it at this stage in terms of the stop-start nature of the operation of the Executive and the Assembly. Deputy Adams can go into semantics, but essentially the Executive was not working for the past while. One can say it was adjourned or call it what one likes, but it was not working because there was a crisis. The crisis was not caused by political parties. Two men were murdered. The PSNI made a judgment in terms of the links of the murders to paramilitaries and in particular to the Provisional IRA. We did not make that link and we did not seize on that. An attempt is being made by Sinn Féin to say the PSNI was wrong to say what it said, every other political party is wrong to say what it said, that Sinn Féin's narrative is the correct one and that everybody else was doing it for politics. That is wrong, so-----

You wanted the process abandoned. That is what you wanted.

No, I certainly did not.

That was the most ridiculous thing of all.

Please, we have only seven minutes left and Deputy Boyd Barrett has three questions.

In fact, if one watches all the interviews I gave, I am very clear about wanting the talks to succeed and wanting the institutions to survive.

That is not what you said.

Deputy, would you please-----

I have to remind him.

You do not have to remind him of anything, you have to stay quiet.

It is not Sinn Féin's process, it is everybody's process. It belongs to the people of Ireland. A number of aspects of the agreement would concern people. The financial package does not quite add up and there is a bit of play going on in terms of changing six years to four years and taking money from one department to fund another department. In fact, in some respects, the package is less if one looks at the contraction in the number of years. There is a bit of kicking the can down the road in terms of the finances. Would the Taoiseach accept that? Even financing the corporation tax reduction will be left to the Executive. In terms of the welfare package, other departments will have to cough up and there will have to be cuts in other departments.

Of more interest, and I would ask whether the Taoiseach agrees with this, is that for some reason Sinn Féin and the DUP, in an extraordinary Machiavellian manoeuvre, have given power over welfare back to Westminster whereby, without even debate in the Assembly, a motion is passed which says the welfare cuts and the welfare reform package are to be decided in Westminster. The Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, was adamant for the past year that there could be no rowing back on or reversal of devolution. He said it would be unacceptable, but in essence welfare powers have been taken back by London in respect of this package. I do not know whether that is to facilitate Sinn Féin, to spare its blushes and to make it look better, as if it is not doing this but merely facilitating someone else in doing it. That is a very interesting aspect of the agreement and I would like some explanation as to how that came about. I note that the UUP and the SDLP have voted against that.

They have voted against the entire agreement.

You were in favour of it.

Through the Chair, please.

The issues with the UUP and the SDLP have not just started this summer. There has been a lack of inclusivity around how the Executive works. I would put that to the Taoiseach. Will he indicate to me whether any progress was made on the need to involve all parties on the Executive in a much more inclusive way in terms of the governance of Northern Ireland, particularly in terms of the operation of the Executive? I asked him questions about the UUP and the SDLP and his meetings with them. That has been a consistent view of theirs, that they effectively have been squeezed out by the DUP and Sinn Féin in terms of any decisions taken by the Executive, that they are the last to know and that certain memos are frozen or do not get circulated. That has really undermined the working of the Executive. That has been a long-running saga. I can recall meeting the current Northern Ireland Minister for Justice, David Ford, who did not even realise his name was being touted. Sinn Féin and the DUP orchestrated that the Alliance Party, not the SDLP, would get the justice portfolio. Sinn Féin thinks the SDLP should toddle along and support everything, but there is a price to be paid for that. Governments, including our own, facilitated that as well.

What about suspension?

One cannot always expect the SDLP to cosy up to any deal the big two parties make, to the exclusion-----

They did not take your advice about suspension.

I did not advise them at all. I let the SDLP make up its own mind. I did not advise the SDLP at all because I would have had more respect for it in that it has its own processes and is in command of its own situation to make its own informed judgments, which is what it has done.

Will we let Deputy Boyd Barrett in?

I will indeed. The one big difference between this agreement and the Stormont House Agreement is that the issues around the past have essentially been parked in this latest iteration. I have always had the view that the British Government and Sinn Féin are probably the two main protagonists who never want full disclosure about the past, but I am concerned about why this agreement parks it and that we do not see any advances in respect of the issues that have been raised.

Having listened to Deputy Martin's questions, I am not sure what precisely Fianna Fáil's position is on this agreement, other than to score political points.

Put your questions, please.

The Taoiseach welcomed the agreement in the first instance and has been joined in support of it by Sinn Féin. How can he and anyone who has signed up to this agreement, including Sinn Féin, seriously call this a fresh start when it is clear this is the stale, regressive old austerity? It is the Northern Ireland version of the troika assault that was imposed on people here over the past six years and it would better be described as a fresh offensive against the poor and working people in the North rather than some sort of fresh start. Is it not the case that public services are going to be assaulted? The agreement warns of "challenging cost reduction targets for each of the nine new departments", which will include "structural reform in health, education, housing and justice". We all know from the troika agreement that "structural reform" is code for savage cuts. Some 20,000 public servants are to be cut from the public service in the North in areas like health, education and housing. How can the Taoiseach welcome that? How can that be anything other than an assault on those services?

Do we not know that from our own experience? Does the Taoiseach not know, and should not Sinn Féin know, that when one slashes - as we did down here - 30,000 staff from the public sector, what one gets is a crisis in health and housing, and that what we are lining up to do now in the North is exactly the same? Is it not inevitable that this agreement will have the same devastating effects on the North as our austerity package had on the South?

Could the Deputy let the Taoiseach in to respond to his point?

How can anybody justify cutting the corporation tax rate and having the North now joining the race to the bottom where corporations that make significant profits will pay less tax while at the same time we will have cuts in social welfare and cuts affecting those on disability? According to the Northern Ireland Department for Social Development, 25% of those currently on disability living allowance will not receive anything under the new personal independence payment and 33% of them will have a reduced award. How can this be justified? Is it not merely an austerity assault on the poor of the same sort that did such damage to people in the South?

Deputy Martin raised a number of points. When I met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, I encouraged them to bring in the SDLP so that they could brief that party on the developments that were taking place at the talks, both under the auspices of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Secretary of State. The UUP, with its leader, Mr. Nesbitt, has stated it is going into opposition but that does not mean it should not be informed of what is happening. The SDLP, which was in a slightly different position, was welcoming in principle of many of the issues and was opposed to others. While I did not advise them, I certainly encouraged the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to do that and not have drift between the parties. I take Deputy Martin's point.

I felt that if one is now going to have a different system that applies across the United Kingdom, then the question is whether one accepts responsibility to deal with welfare in the first place. The decision was taken by the politicians - it was not our strand to deal with - that this should be based in London and the extra £500 million was given as a consequence to deal with an economy emerging from conflict. In respect of the past, it was always going to come down to that at the end of the day.

Will the Stormont House Agreement and Fresh Start be able to deal with the legacies of the past and will the historic unit - the independent person - be able to have access to material that is currently off limits? It remains to be seen, whether in the case of Ballymurphy, Finucane, Kingsmill or whatever.

In response to Deputy Boyd Barrett, we have come through some fairly difficult choices down here. This year will be the best year ever in terms of collection of corporation tax. We will exceed, as I stated, the €6.5 billion plus gathered in 2006. That is because there are more firms now paying tax. Between those which pay €100,000 and €1 million, it is up very significantly.

I do not agree with Deputy Boyd Barrett that this is a stale, regressive, old austerity agreement. I believe it is the politicians, elected by the people, measuring up to implement this agreement, which contains a lot of beneficial elements on a North-South basis and particularly for the people of Northern Ireland.

Clearly, on the question of the return to greater austerity, there will have to be structural changes made in Northern Ireland. We had to make them here and look what has happened in four and a half years-----

The health service is banged up.

What about the mass emigration and patients on trolleys?

-----with the deficit about to be eliminated in 2018, interest rates down from 15.2% to less than 2%-----

For the health service and housing.

-----and unemployment down from 15% to 8.9% and heading in the right direction, the national debt falling towards European norms, and 130,000 jobs created. One gets the economy moving. As Deputy Boyd Barrett will be aware, the best route out of poverty is a job. Therefore, making Northern Ireland more attractive is a decision under devolution of the politicians of the North to introduce a common corporate tax rate, here and in Northern Ireland.

They are getting rid of jobs.

It will be 12.5%, the same as ours. It will make the island more attractive for foreign direct investment, but no more than this Government-----

There will be 20,000 jobs going.

-----focusing on small and medium-sized enterprises, access to credit, ease of business, ease of employment and making work pay and demonstrating that it pays, that is as it should be. That is partly the adjustment that the politicians in the North will have to accept.

Written Answers follow Adjournment.
Barr
Roinn