Over recent weeks the Taoiseach has resolutely refused to answer as to Ireland's position in regard to a unilateral invasion of Iraq by the United States. I do not wish to waste his time, but I would like to ask him two questions. Has the Government had discussions formally or informally, officially or unofficially with the US authorities in regard to the continued use of Shannon in the event of unilateral action being taken, or are we to assume that America is planning an invasion on the assumption that Shannon will be available to it?

The Taoiseach has agreed that he is opposed to war and that he supports the United Nations. He has agreed with the words of Kofi Annan. In the event that Ireland sticks with the Security Council, will the Taoiseach rule out action that would weaken the United Nations and will he state clearly that he is prepared to take action to that effect?

He said yesterday that he does not want to deal in hypothetical situations and that people are not giving end-line positions. "End line position" is a term used by business tycoons. I would much prefer to hear words like "morality, leadership" and "openness", but having listened to the New Zealand ambassador this morning, I noted that he gave an end-line position, as did President Fox from Mexico and others. Therefore, they do not deal in hypothetical situations. Hypothesis is also about planning. Will the Taoiseach answer those two direct questions? What is the position in regard to Shannon? Has he had discussions with the US and will he rule out action that would weaken the United Nations?

To answer the Deputy's first question, no, we have had no discussions whatsoever with the United States formally or informally, directly or indirectly. The answer to his second question is that our position is, as it has been since last summer and in the nine weeks in preparation of Resolution 1441, which was finally adopted on 8 November, that we will continue to support the United Nations. We played a key and important – although I do not wish to overstate it – role in the preparation of Resolution 1441. We have supported the United Nations throughout and we have strongly supported it in our efforts on the Security Council. We have played a consistent role, as we have done since 1955, and we will continue to do so.

We believe that war can still be avoided. Resolution 1441 and the credible threat of force which underpins it has resulted in progress. The assistance of Shannon in its own small way has helped in that, which has been acknowledged by the European Council and the Security Council.

I will not do what some leaders have done in this regard. The Deputy was correct in saying that some people have taken categorical positions. Many of them also did that last September. The position of some of the leaders and some of the countries the Deputy mentioned was that they believed that the United States would go ahead without a resolution. They discounted Resolution 1441 as a non-event that would not happen, but that proved to be incorrect.

The Deputy is correct in that we will be consistent in our position. We will stand with the Security Council and not do anything to undermine it. We do not accept the view taken by some that a second resolution is not required. Perhaps legally and technically that argument can be made, but we do not accept it. We believe the correct thing to do politically, for the world to see how the system works, is to introduce a further resolution before there is action, but we are more interested in ensuring that there is no need for action. Therefore, all our efforts at this stage should be pointed towards avoiding war and conflict and, most importantly, keeping our focus where it should be and should remain, namely, on Saddam Hussein and his cruel regime, under which he has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and his neighbours. He has followed a system of crime against his people and we must ensure that system is defeated and that Resolution 1441 and the principles of the other 17 resolutions prior to it are adopted.

The Taoiseach is an extraordinary man to split another hair. He does not agree with some of the leaders who say that a second resolution is not necessary. Is he talking about the United States and Britain? The Taoiseach does not want to deal in hypotheticals, yet on "Six-one" on Monday, the Minister for Defence did deal with hypotheticals, and real ones. He said that this country had upped its security at all its airports, that we were in constant emergency committee session, that he was liaising with medical personnel and the Department of Health and Children and that he was to report to the Taoiseach yesterday morning on the possibility of any outcome, including germ warfare.

What does this mean? Is this another debacle like the factsheets and iodine tablets? Are the people to understand that, on the one hand, the Taoiseach is dealing with hypotheticals while, on the other hand, the Minister for Defence is planning for what might arise in the event of unilateral action? Those hypotheticals are the men, women and children who marched last Saturday and who live in this country.

I hope the events of 11 September 2001 have not slipped Deputy Kenny's mind. All of the actions taken subsequently in relation to security and the efforts put into dealing with the potential for biological and chemical warfare have arisen from 11 September and do not have anything to do with Iraq. The Minister for Defence has co-ordinated his efforts with the health agencies. The Minister for Health and Children has put in place many different initiatives to deal with various medical difficulties that could arise from biological or chemical attacks. We have implemented such measures throughout the last 18 months or so and will continue to do so. We have put additional resources into looking at the anthrax scare, at the smallpox scare and at what would happen if there was an attack in Britain. Of course we have heightened security. The Government would be inept, to say the least, if it did not take account of what is going on all over the world. That is the reason we have heightened security.

The Government could not secure Shannon Airport.