Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Chairman is being very positive today.

As part of this discussion, we should reflect on how this latest round of talks came about. We know there are difficulties within the political institutions and two individuals were killed in Belfast by criminals, which led to a serious crisis in the process. There were also difficulties concerning cuts in services for the most vulnerable in society, including those on welfare.

We approached the talks on the basis that we wanted to get the political institutions up working again. We should note that this was successful. A workable budget for the Assembly to protect the most vulnerable was also necessary and additional moneys, £500 million in sterling, are being made available for the Executive over the next four years. The spending of £584 million will impact those hit the most by cuts to benefits and tax credits. People will argue it is not enough and that the institutions should have been pulled down but that was a political call to be made. There was a positive response to tackling criminality and the continuing existence of armed gangs and we will see this being rolled out in the next couple of days and weeks.

The British and Irish Governments lived up to their commitment on dealing with the past. First we had the Stormont House agreement, which dealt with this area. The frustrating thing is that meetings are held into the late hours and so on and agreement is reached and then someone decides to pull back from it. This is a difficulty. Does the Minister of State agree that this type of approach, with one party to an agreement deciding to pull out, cannot continue? In this instance, I argue it was the British Government that pulled back.

I want to focus on the legacy issues. I facilitate an all-party committee that deals with this area by chairing it.

We had a meeting with some of the groups only last week. One of the concerns related to the question of legacy. When will the talks resume? I facilitated a meeting between the relatives and members and Martin McGuinness last week. He made it clear that he is available up to the Christmas period - it is not the first time the discussions lasted up to Christmas on this question. What is the view of the Government?

The British Government is spinning that this is a matter for the parties. My understanding is that there was an agreement on many of legacy issues with the parties at the discussions, but the British Government view on the idea of national security was a game changer and amounted to introducing something new.

I note the United Nations rapporteur has come out strongly on the question. He has said the legacy of the past continues to bring challenges and division. He said the matter requires urgent and decisive attention. He also said, "Despite some significant initiatives, especially in the area of truth, justice, and institutional reforms, these have not been comprehensive and are characterised by fragmentation". He asked why 40 year old security concerns should impact on the consideration of the rights of victims today. We should ask the same question. That is the main message from people coming from this situation.

We put forward two options to try to break the impasse. I am not asking the Minister of State to endorse these views but does he believe the two options represent potential for movement? One relates to the national security veto engaged by the British Government. We have suggested that in respect of the commission of a criminal offence relating to the death or attempted murder of someone, information should be disclosed to the maximum extent that does not endanger life. I do not see how anyone could disagree with that. Another suggestion is that information should be disclosed to the maximum extent that does not damage the effectiveness of current methodology for prevention of certain acts. We proposed two options. First, the British Government should make clear the need for full disclosure to the historical inquiries unit such that the director would have full discretion in respect of onward disclosure. Second, in the case of onward disclosure, the British Government would be subject to an appeal panel. The suggestion was for a panel made up of an Irish, British and international judge. Again, the rapporteur suggested there would be difficulties if parties saw that one side of the conflict had a veto over the process. He suggested that using national security as a blanket term ends up obscuring the reality. In particular, the rapporteur stated, "national and international obligations, can only be served within the limits of the law, and allowing for adequate means of comprehensive redress in cases of breaches of obligations."

There are a number of areas where, I am confident, we can move forward on this issue. People have talked about stumbling blocks and said that it could not be done. However, we have moved forward. We have the institutions up-and-running. Again, people said that could not be done. The affected families have concern about the next steps and when the serious talks will resume. Some people are saying that because of the potential elections in the South this may be a stumbling block. Does the Minister of State view it that way? Others believe the potential elections in May in the North will have an effect. Does the Minister of State see a window in the run-up to this?