Tony Kett (Fianna Fail)

It is unfortunate that, despite all the efforts that have been made, all the infuriation and frustration endured and all the words spoken, five years after its completion, some aspects of the Good Friday Agreement have not yet been achieved. In the most recent negotiations, it became clear to the two Governments that they were unlikely to achieve full implementation unless some issues well outside the scope of the Good Friday Agreement were settled. Those issues remain outstanding. It was from this that the concept of acts of completion came to the fore. What was envisaged in that regard was nothing short of a definite settlement of the Northern Ireland issue involving, as one of its central planks, the complete and absolute end of paramilitary activity.

What emerged from the talks in 2003 was a complex set of understandings and agreements with which all parties to the Agreement were to engage. The parties came close to settling the issue at that time but, unfortunately, fell at the final hurdle. The Government is engaged in new negotiations to bring about a definite end to the situation in the North. However, there appear to be a few additional ingredients being brought to the table which might, in some way, create common ground. One can only hope that such common ground will be achieved in something that was missed in the previous negotiations. This might help bring forward some new resolution.

The elements involved are no secret. I refer here to stability of the inclusive institutions, the ending of paramilitarism in all its forms and the decommissioning of all illegally held arms. I use the word "illegally" because certain spokespersons who talk about the decommissioning of arms become caught up in the difference between what are legally and illegally held arms. Some arms are held legally in the North of Ireland, even though one element involved in the negotiations would lead us to believe that this is not the case. We must also deal with the areas of policing and human rights.

It is unhelpful in any negotiation if people seek to take one element of a deal, move it outside the only context in which it is relevant and try to make a case for it. The question of releasing the prisoners from Castlerea is a case in point. This matter is consistently raised by Sinn Féin. There is also the question of how to deal with those paramilitary crimes that were committed by people who are now on the run. How do we respond to this matter within the terms of the Agreement? The fact is that neither issue comes under the Good Friday Agreement. This was one of the main stumbling blocks in the previous negotiations. Sinn Féin made it clear at that stage that it could not convince the leadership of the IRA to make any kind of positive gesture unless the prisoners were released. Having listened to the Minister's comments earlier and those of Sinn Féin's spokesperson on "Questions and Answers", I wonder how hard that organisation tried to convince the IRA to make such a gesture.

The position of the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Government on this matter has been outlined in categorical terms and it is to the effect that unless and until complete assurances are given as to the end of paramilitarism and the completion of decommissioning, this matter will not even be contemplated. The Minister also stated earlier that, in the event of such a happy ending, he would be willing to go to see the most important people in this drama and explain his and the Government's position.

Successive Governments since the foundation of the State have tried to achieve what we are currently trying to achieve. There is no prospect of the restoration of the devolved arrangements or of the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in the absence of such a definite outcome.

Any decision the Government takes will come about in the context of this island being a better place in which to live. We would then be living in a new and historic situation which we would never before have enjoyed. The Taoiseach, the Minister and the Government should, if such a day arrives, be answerable to the people alone for whatever steps they were obliged to take in achieving that particular and desirable goal. They will not be judged by the media, in soundbite form, or by any jumped up journalist who may or may not know what he or she is talking about.