Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

I will endeavour to answer all those questions. The first question was on what basis did I accept the decision, or the view, of the British Government. I was also asked about what Willie McCrea said on "Morning Ireland". I will not comment on individual voices from the DUP. I am much more interested in where the party stands. We are proceeding on the basis that all the parties accept the St. Andrews Agreement with a full Executive in place on 26 March.

On the closing date of those talks, 13 March, the Reverend Ian Paisley stated he was accepting the St. Andrews Agreement and subsequently clarified that point a second time on 24 November. This whole business must be St. Andrews Agreement-compliant, otherwise there is no basis for an election. That is a point I have made in recent weeks.

It is accepted that Sinn Féin has moved on the essential issues. If there were delays, some of them arose from the fact that clarifications, which would have helped the process to move forward quicker, were not forthcoming. That created some delays in the period before Christmas. It would be unfair and wrong not to acknowledge and accept that Sinn Féin has done what has been described as "heavy lifting" on some of these issues.

All the parties must play their part now and rise to the challenges ahead. There is a major responsibility on the Democratic Unionist Party. It may not be easy for some of them but all the parties must face this responsibility. Nobody is entitled to sit on his or her hands.

We should be clear about why an election was called for. It is worth repeating what I said about the party that wanted an election. The St. Andrews Agreement states that there would be an endorsement of that agreement. Members will recall that there was a debate for a period as to whether that would take place by way of a referendum or an election. The DUP wanted an election so that it could endorse its position to participate in this process. I cannot imagine that it could be in the interests of Unionism to frustrate the St. Andrews Agreement, which is now in legislation. The dates agreed are in British legislation. The process is also set out in British legislation and it is that an election will be held on 7 March and an Executive will be set up on 26 March. If not, the entire process will collapse in its totality. There is no provision for anything else after 26 March. Our discussions on partnership arrangements will continue as the fallback position. As I said previously, I hope that is not necessary, but I have stated that I want these discussions to continue so that we do not lose further time down the road.

It is not in the interests of anyone or in the interests of Unionism to allow this to happen, but to do so and fail to agree an Executive on 26 March would be a serious error. The advertisements the DUP took out after the St. Andrews Agreement make clear that it will be at a disadvantage if it does not fulfil its obligations. That is its position.

For the process to work we need the DUP to understand that just as it has had expectations of republicans and policing the rule of law, the rest of us, including Nationalists, republicans, everybody else and the two Governments have had legitimate, if not unreasonable, expectations of the DUP in regard to power sharing. The DUP has stated that it is prepared to engage in power sharing if the other issues were fulfilled.

I have talked to Dr. Paisley in recent weeks but Prime Minister Blair has had far more engagement and contact with him, having met him several times a week during the past number of weeks. It is on that basis that he believes that the DUP's position is that we are moving forward to an election. He is very clear that if the parties are not committed to the St. Andrews Agreement, there is no basis for an election. He is convinced that after the elections, the DUP will move to form an executive. I said yesterday — I am not saying anything now that I did not say in private — that I would have liked more clarity on 24 November, in the period prior to Christmas and in recent weeks but, based on the private discussions and meetings he has had, Prime Minister Blair believes that the DUP will fulfil this commitment on the basis that Sinn Féin has dealt with the issue of policing. Sinn Féin has also stated since Sunday that the rule of law should be upheld. It has further stated that in respect of the McCartney case anyone with any evidence or information should go to the police. That is important and was one of the questions raised. That applies not only to that case but all other cases.

Dr. Paisley, in fairness to him, has said that he would also want to see that there is co-operation on the ground in all these matters. I hope that in the intervening weeks we will see such co-operation. It should quickly translate itself. The Chief Constable should be in a position to be able to see that fairly quickly. Obviously that will be something that will influence Dr. Paisley as the leader of his party in the intervening period. It is on the basis that this will happen that we will have a power-sharing Executive on 26 March, which will get up and running immediately. It is also on the basis of what is provided for in British legislation passed by huge majorities in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

I have raised the issue of collusion in many different ways with the British Prime Minister in recent years and several reports have been published. I made a public statement on this matter when I said that over the years successive Irish Governments and many others have raised serious concerns about collusion in Northern Ireland. The recent report along with many other reports demonstrate that these concerns were well founded. It presents clear evidence that the RUC colluded with loyalist murderers and failed in its duty to prevent many horrific crimes. They are serious issues for the British Government. As I pointed out to Prime Minister Blair, they did not happen, as many of the other issues did, in the dim and distant past. Some of these issues happened under his own watch and up until recent periods.

I acknowledge that Deputy Rabbitte raised the McCord case here and he asked me to meet Mr. Raymond McCord at that stage. I have co-operated with him in recent months in this process. However, it is one of many. As I said previously, we must try to get to a position where all these cases are at least dealt with. Some families want apologies, some want other action and some want inquiries. We cannot find one solution that will cover all of them because there are serious cases such as the Finucane case in respect of which the Irish Government — Members having voted on a resolution on this last year — is committed to a particular procedure. There is also the agreement of the outstanding issues of Weston Park. However, I am also conscious that we must try to find some mechanism for most of the other cases to bring them to finality. Otherwise, people will still be raising these issues in this House in 25 years time. That is not a satisfactory position in which to leave these cases. Therefore, we need to find a way to deal with them. I have urged the Prime Minister to give this issue serious consideration and under his watch, however long that may be, to try to find a mechanism to deal with it because he understands it very well. He has been working on that for some months so hopefully we can find a satisfactory way of dealing with it. I think that covers all the Deputy's questions.

See this speech in context