Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

The Taoiseach does not appear to acknowledge the rising public concern, North and South, about this issue and the succession of secret bilateral deals, details of which are still emerging. How can he make the comments he has made in the wake of the House of Commons debate? I will cite, for example, the words of SDLP leader Mark Durkan in the House of Commons regarding the negotiations preceding the Good Friday Agreement:

People asked whether there would be an amnesty or a wipe-out or whether the files would be closed. Assurances were given by Minister upon Minister, including the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, that all the outstanding cases would continue to be pursued and that those who had issues to face would be brought to court. It was said that, if convicted, they might have to spend only two years in jail, but they would appear in court, they would be convicted and they would spend time in jail. That is what the victims were told at that time. It was on the basis of that expectation that many people struggled to vote in favour of the agreement and did so.

How can the Taoiseach dispute Deputy Kenny's remark? The Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, is shaking her head about the secret deals. She must have brushed up on the matter since her performance on television on Sunday night when she was at sea on it. I have sympathy with her and understand the reason for her performance.

In 1993 the Taoiseach introduced a tax amnesty under which it was mandatory for offenders to come forward and confess. Can he imagine introducing an amnesty — the arrangement for on-the-runs is an amnesty — which has no mandatory dimension and allows people to continue to conceal the crime they have committed? Only if they are caught at any indefinite stage in the future can they resort to using the amnesty. The proposal is indefensible. While the Taoiseach indicated it was known at Weston Park that fugitives needed to be dealt with, never was there any mention, nor is there any in the United Kingdom legislation, of the ambit and scope of the measures introduced.

Further, it was never clear that the measure would have application to the security forces. As a result of this side deal with Sinn Féin, we now find that the arrangement covers members of the security forces who are guilty of dozens and dozens of murders in Northern Ireland, were not intended to be included in the arrangement and were never referred to either in the Good Friday Agreement or at Weston Park. The Taoiseach informed me last week that he made clarificatory requests to the British Government about the Hain Bill. He either made an input or did not make an input. He was either involved in the side deals with Sinn Féin or not involved in them. Which is it?

See this speech in context