Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Deputies for raising those issues. Deputy Richmond raised the issue of the North-South Ministerial Council. I agree with him. He also spoke about the need for co-ordination of the vaccination programme and around the whole Covid issue. I wish to make clear that such co-ordination is continuing between our Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Tony Holohan, and his counterpart in the North, Dr. Michael McBride. There is also co-ordination between the health services, which are sharing experiences and trying to keep their processes relatively parallel. That is not always at an optimal level and the North may take measures ahead of us.

Deputy Haughey raised the issue of the latest state of play in respect of the protocol discussions in the context of the retirement of Lord Frost. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney, has met with the Secretary of State, Liz Truss MP, and Commissioner Šefčovič has also had meetings with her. Suffice to say there is good engagement and goodwill on both sides, the European Union and the British Government, to get this resolved. Timelines are challenging in respect of elections in the North and so forth. It is extremely important that we get an agreed resolution. The most recent meeting between the UK foreign secretary and Commissioner Šefčovič was useful. Those discussions will continue with a view to bringing about a resolution. The European Union has been very committed to this and has been open in terms of endeavouring to get it resolved.

The matter of cross-Border trade and the patterns of trade that have developed since Brexit are interesting. It is interesting that aspects of the Northern Ireland economy have done well as a result of the operation of the protocol. That needs to be put on the record. Continued access to the Single Market is critical for businesses and enterprises and for jobs in Northern Ireland. No one is arguing for that access to end anytime soon, from what I can tell from the engagement I have had with all of the Northern parties. It is at a delicate stage. It is important to keep faith in the process.

In response to Deputy Smith's point, which others have also raised, there is no question of the Irish Government supporting an amnesty in any shape or form. We do not agree with the British Government's proposals in respect of legacy. We believe it is wrong because such a step would give everybody who has committed murder, including state forces, paramilitaries and whoever, an amnesty. That would be totally unacceptable. It would be a betrayal of the victims of all violence. I take on board what the Deputy said about the upcoming 50th anniversary of Belturbet and the other attacks in Dublin and Monaghan. I accept his point that for many victims, there is not yet any sense of closure or of answers in terms of who did what.

Deputy Tóibín mentioned that we met the victims of the Glennane gang. I accept the point that there is an extra onus on the state but that does not excuse what happened on Bloody Friday or at Kingsmill. I was watching, the week before last, the episode of "Reeling in the Years" dealing with 1974. It was shocking. The Birmingham bombs and the Guildford Four featured. The caption on the footage made it clear that no one has ever been brought to justice for committing that atrocity. For the victims of that atrocity, that hurts to this day. We need to acknowledge that too in respect of what happened in a whole range of situations during those very dark years. Many people feel that they are being forgotten about or the loss of their loved ones is being completely forgotten about and there is no balance in terms of how we approach that. I believe that the British Government has dragged its feet too long on legacy issues. Agreement was reached ten years ago between the two Governments. We believe that British soldiers should be brought to justice for atrocities such as Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy and others. As I said earlier, state forces were involved with all paramilitaries. Operation Kenova is revealing a lot too, according to what I have read in various reports in the media and so on, about the operation of intelligence operatives in the North during a prolonged period of time.

It seems to me that the people who do not want closure the most or do not want a light shone on this are all those who were engaged in the killing. I get the sense that it is almost unspoken. I have been dealing with legacy for a long time. I can go back to the Eames-Bradley report. I was sceptical then that those who pulled the triggers and planted the bombs would ever come forward and tell an unvarnished truth about what happened, and that has not happened - they have never come forward. The result is that a lot of families have never got answers as to why their loved ones were killed. That is an issue. In any event, we are all agreed in this House that we are against the legacy proposals of the British Government and the idea of an amnesty. Clarity and transparency need to be brought to what happened.

See this speech in context