Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

My point is that we would like to have debates here in which all there is to talk about are normal, routine issues that we would discuss in any event. We have North-South structures: the North-South Inter-Parliamentary Association, chaired by the Ceann Comhairle and the Speaker and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. I am not sure how often it meets. I will not object to Deputy Adams’ suggestion, as followed by Deputy Ó Fearghaíl, that there be a quarterly reflection on issues regarding Northern Ireland. We could, I suppose, have it on the basis of different sectors of the economy, cross-Border involvement in the agri-sector, jobs or whatever else. I will discuss that with the Chief Whip but I will not object to it. I need to speak to the members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement about the possibility of regular discussions but Members might prefer to have the discussion here in the House.

I agree with Deputy Ó Fearghaíl that significant progress has been made over the years. When between the 1970s and the 1990s Governments required face-to-face engagement, Northern Ireland was ruled directly by the House of Commons, with a Secretary of State appointed by the Prime Minister. Now, after the Good Friday Agreement, there is a directly elected assembly. We should never forget that and we intend never to go back on it. The people of Northern Ireland vote for it. A very specific method of making appointments and allocating responsibility was followed through with the d’Hondt system, based on the criteria set out for seats and votes required by the parties.

The Deputy’s question about when it is time for involvement here is a constant, but I would not in any way denigrate or attempt to do down the initiative taken by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in inviting Dr. Haass and Dr. O’Sullivan to see if they could propose any further suggestions on the issues. They did, as the Deputy knows. They proposed devolving authority from the Parades Commission to the government in Belfast, and provided for the establishment of a new office for parades, select commemorations and related protests, which would receive event notifications and promote dialogue and mediation. They proposed that the authority for public adjudication would in some cases set aside conditions on a relatively small number that require particular consideration. A seven member panel, led by a qualified legal person, would take the decisions and all the affected parties could pursue an internal review, and a judicial review, if they wished. They included principles in that for a new code to be enshrined in the law. On flags and emblems, they proposed the establishment of a committee on identity, culture and tradition to hold public discussions throughout the North. In contending with the past they called for the establishment of a comprehensive mental trauma service. This is something I came across when I met the people from east Fermanagh, Enniskillen, and the group of survivors of the Kingsmill massacre. I have no doubt that some connections of the Ballymurphy people are in the same situation.

There was also a proposal to establish a historical investigations unit with the full investigative powers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI, to take over the cases that the Historical Enquiries Team is following through and the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland historic unit. Where the evidence would warrant or require the investigation, the unit would refer cases to the Public Prosecution Service. That and the independent commission for information retrieval, ICIR, were the main propositions to come out of the process. It is important to note that the ICIR would not provide for amnesty for those who came forward with particular information about the conflict. It would provide that those who might come forward would have limited immunity to be known as "inadmissibility", for statements. In other words, if person X said, “I know who carried out that particular incident" or whatever else, the ICIR would not provide amnesty or immunity-----

See this speech in context