To follow up on earlier questions to the Taoiseach, to what extent is he aware of the sorties being carried out by US and UK war planes over southern Iraq on a daily basis and of the bombing of radar stations – which obviously leads to casualties – and civilian areas? To what extent is he aware of that aggression and the fact that it does not have a UN mandate? By participating in that aggression, Ireland is in breach of Article 28(3) of its Constitution which states: "Ní dleathach cogadh a fhógairt ná páirt a bheith ag an Stát in aon chogadh ach amháin le haontú Dháil Éireann". In other words, Ireland shall not declare or participate in a war save with the agreement of Dáil Éireann. Will the Taoiseach bring the Government into compliance with the Constitution on this matter, given that the State is already paying the Irish Aviation Authority for every military landing at Shannon and is thereby fully involved in the movements to date? Regarding international law, is the Taoiseach willing to support an escalation of the war in Iraq if a new UN resolution is not in line—

This is not questions to the Taoiseach, this is Leaders' Questions. The Deputy may address one question, not three, to the Taoiseach on a topical issue.

This is a topical issue.

Yes, they are all topical, but the Deputy may only ask one such question under Standing Orders.

My question is about compliance—

The Deputy has already put two questions to the Taoiseach.

Is the Taoiseach prepared to comply with Article 2(4) of the UN Charter which states that all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state—

Sorry, Deputy, I cannot allow you to go on.

I presume the answer will be—

The Taoiseach to reply.

As I said earlier during questions to the Taoiseach, it is the Government's view that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 of 8 November 2002 should be complied with. We have not changed our position on that. Hopefully, following the events of the weekend, more time will be given to the weapons inspectors. It is now expected that they will report back on 14 February, so we must wait to see what happens then. It is the Government's hope, as we have always stated, that there would be a new UN Security Council resolution. That would of course have to be based upon what the inspectors say in their report, and I cannot say now what the likely position will be.

In the meantime, the Government hopes that Saddam Hussein will listen to what the inspectors stated to him on 27 January, when they made it absolutely clear that while he was very good on the substance of some of the debate, he was not delivering on other matters. They asked in particular that he consider allowing scientists to talk to the weapons inspectors without the presence of Iraqi intelligence at such meetings. They also stated that they should be free to fly over parts of the country where they obviously wish to carry out checks. We will just have to wait and see what happens in this regard.

I do not have any security information on what is happening on the ground in Iraq or on its borders beyond what is in the public domain. The latest information I have is that inspectors will return to Iraq on 8 February to discuss their requests with the Iraqi authorities. Hopefully, they will get a positive response on those issues that will then form the basis of their report on 14 February. It will then be for the UN Security Council to decide on the way forward. The Government's position remains the same. We await developments and will then return to the issue here. As I have always said, my preference is that Saddam Hussein would start behaving himself and give a break to his people and everybody else. This issue could then be resolved.

Checking radar stations is different from bombing them, unless the Taoiseach means the same thing, I am not sure. Why was it only in January that the Air Navigation Order 1973 and section 3(17) of the Defence Act 1954, were signed in relation to munitions and uniforms from a foreign state passing through the country? In signing these, has the Government taken a view as to whether it will agree to participate in any further actions against Iraq if weapons of mass destruction are used by, for example, the United States, the UK or any member of the coalition? Which weapons of mass destruction would be unacceptable to the Taoiseach: the nuclear weapons that are allowed for in a classified US presidential directive; the daisy cutter bombs that incinerate everything within 300-600 yards; or the depleted uranium missiles which burst into flames on impact and disperse an aerosol of particles? Which of those weapons of mass destruction are unacceptable to the Government?

The Minister for Transport has made it absolutely clear that we have followed national aviation law and our Constitution, and we are getting reports now on every aircraft entering the State. We reminded the relevant authorities that they have to comply with these provisions and they are being complied with. If they were not being fully complied with before, they are now. I do not think there is any difficulty with that position.

I asked about weapons.

The Deputy would like to draw me into equating the Americans or any of the other armies hopefully involved in enforcing a UN resolution with the Iraqis, and their weapons of mass destruction—

A bomb is a bomb.

They used those weapons against their own people in the Iran-Iraq war—

Which we condemned also.

They used them to kill thousands of Kurds some years back, weapons they obviously still have—

We all condemn that.

They have failed to explain the disappearance of these weapons. If Deputy Sargent was asked about the disappearance of 6,500 chemical bombs he would at least be able to advance an explanation. The Iraqis have failed to do that. I am far more worried about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction than about anybody else's at this stage.