Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)

It is the case that the Taoiseach and Prime Minister Blair have spent an enormous amount of time deliberating about Northern Ireland. However, it is also the case that Governments over the years have put in place parts of the jigsaw that allowed that to happen. This is why my party has always consistently supported the Government's efforts to achieve and implement the Good Friday Agreement in full. It would be remiss of me not to refer to the part played by Liam Cosgrave, Garret FitzGerald and John Bruton, as leaders of my party and as taoisigh, in respect of the Sunningdale Agreement, the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Framework Document, all of which were central to the process which has brought us to a point where the Taoiseach and Prime Minister Blair attempt to do their duty in bringing about a conclusion to the Agreement. In that sense, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to these statements.

I welcome the progress made by the Provisional movement towards democracy in the past 15 months. I agree that the evidence produced in the Independent Monitoring Commission's reports speaks for itself. I hope the IRA has moved away from the activities in which it was previously involved, as the Garda Commissioner recently announced. This is welcome. I hope it is the case and will always continue to be so. I accept the statement by the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that the impetus of the Garda Síochána will be to see that this does not happen, if it is humanly preventable.

I hope the positive signals emanating from the loyalist community in recent times will result in the loyalist paramilitary organisations formally ending their activities, as the IRA has done. I urge the Taoiseach and Tánaiste to assist in the delivery of new measures to support the development of community projects in these areas. I have visited these areas on a number of occasions and it is obvious there is a deep-rooted frustration and resentment at some of the progress made in other areas, as seen by loyalist groups. The good people in these communities should be supported in their desire to see democracy work for their communities. This requires demonstrable evidence of investment in community facilities that are evident in many other areas, so such communities do not feel alienated from the political process.

It should be acknowledged and recognised that there has been increased willingness by the Democratic Unionist Party to engage in dialogue with the political parties and other organisations in the Republic in recent months and for the future. As leader of Fine Gael I have had two meetings with the Reverend Ian Paisley in the past nine months and I have witnessed this openness at first hand. Dr. Paisley was genial and open but expressed the very frank view that he would not be shoved around by anybody, and that he would state his views very clearly. His willingness to have this dialogue is to be welcomed. I heard the message about his desire for his grandchildren and the next generation to have a community to grow up in of which they can be proud. I also heard the message that the DUP is not likely to be, or prepared to be, constrained by any agenda or timetable other than its own.

Against that relatively positive background, I welcome the progress made at St. Andrews towards restoration of power sharing, although the original November deadline cannot now be met.

It appears, however, as if all parties recognise that full and unconditional support for the police and the justice system is essential if we are to have any durable settlement here. It also appears that we are now in sight of the end-game position.

It should be remembered, however, that the St. Andrews agreement is an agreement between the two Governments and that reaching agreement between the parties is a far greater challenge. This has been brought into sharper focus by the abandonment of the meeting yesterday. I was not surprised by this nor do I believe was anybody else. We should prepare ourselves for possible further setbacks along the way as all parties will seek to reassure their individual communities. What is more encouraging, however, is that none of the parties has walked away from the process or rejected the timetable that was set out between the Governments in the St. Andrews agreement.

I want to express two causes of concern. The first is that part of the latest problem appears to have its origin in a private side arrangement between the Government and individual parties. Dr. Paisley speaks of a piece of paper from the British Prime Minister. A similar situation arose here previously, about which I made a case, when a sort of agreement was made with Sinn Féin at the time about the proposal to release the murderers of detective Garda Jerry McCabe. It also arose in regard to speaking rights in the Dáil and the presidential pardon for the so-called on-the-runs. The issue yesterday appears to have centred on an agreement or a piece of paper given to Dr. Paisley by the British Prime Minister and Dr. Paisley said he would produce that in public if that were necessary. If we are into the business of doing side deals again, it lessens the impact of all the parties wanting to get on with this business. That is the reason I repeat that I am concerned about what I believe is the continued marginalisation of the SDLP which has always courageously opened up political dialogue with the republican movement and others, and I am concerned that this should not be cast aside. Both Governments need to recommit themselves to the inclusive all-party transparent model of negotiations envisaged by the Good Friday Agreement.

I welcome the Taoiseach's pledge to consult the Opposition parties on the mechanism for creating democratic approval for the revised timetable. As part of that consultation, I would like to see clarity on whether the proposals have any constitutional implications. I would like to see the advice and the analysis of the Attorney General before we move on that. My first reading of the proposals indicate that they encompass relatively minor rather than fundamental changes to the Agreement. They appear to be very similar to the changes set out in December 2004 in a draft comprehensive agreement, and at that time there was no question of a constitutional referendum being flagged. My belief is that if a constitutional referendum on the fundamental issue of the agreement is not required, this House could give a democratic mandate and a democratic political imprimatur to the changes being made arising from the St. Andrews talks. I believe that would have the support of everybody concerned and we would not have to stray into a fundamental constitutional issue. I hope the Attorney General's advice will be given to us. Members of the public in the South would be happy to have a political endorsement from the Dáil of all parties and all Members who support this rather than having to stray into constitutional business.

The Taoiseach said that some form of electoral endorsement on page four of the agreement as a whole will be required in the new year. I ask whoever will reply to this debate to clarify if that is in respect of Northern Ireland only or the island. The Taoiseach spoke of electoral endorsement and possible constitutional implications. Dr. Paisley has made it clear that he would like an election at an early date and if that is an electoral endorsement in the North, that is a different matter.

In respect of the vote on 24 November, somebody might clarify whether this is to be on the appointment of those concerned as designated First Minister and Deputy First Minister only, which would relieve Mr. Martin McGuinness of having to take an oath which might cause him a problem in the event that Sinn Féin cannot have an Ard-Fheis before 24 November. I know that arrangements were made previously for cross-compliance here without a vote being required from Dr. Paisley or Sinn Féin. Perhaps that matter will be elaborated on or clarified. If we are to have agreement and dialogue, perhaps some arrangement will be made, or in that respect what is to be involved?

See this speech in context