Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

What did the paragraph say? It stated that the Minister can bring forward a paper to the Executive. It does not mention Acht na Gaeilge, which is a commitment that was made in the St. Andrews Agreement by both governments. I asked the Taoiseach a straightforward question. Why did he sign up to a paper which does not mention Acht na Gaeilge or a bill of rights and which acquiesces to the British Government on the use of British national security interests and also seeks to close down Article 2-compliant inquests? The British Government made no offer of £1 billion.

The Taoiseach is not a passive spectator here. He is the Taoiseach and a player, not a junior partner. There are outstanding commitments, and this is on the Taoiseach's watch. A civic forum in the North does not exist, nor does an all-Ireland civic forum. There is no bill of rights, no all-Ireland charter of rights, no joint North-South committee of the two human rights commissions, no compliance with the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and no Irish language Act. It is my view that the current talks can succeed and a deal can be done. The Sinn Féin team is there to do that, but it cannot be on a purely British or Unionist agenda. Irish national interests must be upheld. That is the Taoiseach's responsibility. These propositions were hard won over many years and the Government cannot be allowed to dilute them.

The Taoiseach was present when the British Prime Minister told me that he would not be establishing an inquiry into the killing of human rights lawyer Pat Finucane, as he is obliged to do under the Weston Park Agreement. The Taoiseach sat silently and did not utter a word on the issue. It is clear that this Government and London still try to obstruct efforts to get to the justice and truth that victims of the conflict are seeking. Why did the Taoiseach sign up to this agenda? A deal can be done and will have to be done. Will the Taoiseach explain how he intends to be part of this, as opposed to a spectator to, or a commentator on, what happened?

See this speech in context