I want to talk today about the State's approach to international security. This is my first time to address the House in detail on the outcome of the Consultative Forum on International Security Policy since it took place in June this year. I thank the many colleagues who participated in the sessions, particularly those from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I also pay tribute to the many members of the public who took the time to attend, watch online or to submit views in writing. It was my intention when launching this process to start a national conversation and I believe we successfully did so.

The forum was ably chaired by Professor Louise Richardson, who brought her extensive academic expertise to bear and managed the proceedings over the four days with grace and skill. Professor Richardson's report was published a number of weeks ago. Having reflected on its findings, I wish to address the future direction of our international security policy.

When I first addressed the Dáil on the subject of a consultative forum last May, I set out the security landscape that we face, focusing on the implications of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia, for European security more broadly, as well as for our own security in Ireland. In the intervening period, the situation in Israel and Gaza, in the aftermath of the heinous terror attack by Hamas on 7 October, is bringing untold suffering to far too many civilians, including children, and has ramifications across the region and beyond.

Although the subject of today's discussion is not the Middle East, I want to outline the core principles underlying the Government's position. The Middle East peace process has long been close to the hearts of the Irish people. However, it is also striking how the current situation has touched us so directly. We tragically lost one of our own citizens, Kim Damti, in the attack on 7 October. Emily Hand, an Irish-Israeli nine-year old, whose father Tom and sister Natali I met in Dublin last week, is still a hostage in Gaza. The Department of Foreign Affairs has been working tirelessly to support Irish citizens in Gaza, and my own visit to Egypt, Israel and Palestine last week saw the exit of just over 50 citizens and dependants through the Rafah crossing. They are now back in Ireland and my Department will continue to support the small number of citizens and immediate dependents remaining. Members of our Defence Forces also continue to bravely contribute, in increasingly challenging circumstances, to peacekeeping efforts in the region, particularly on the border between Israel and Lebanon.

Across the world, including in Ireland, instances of hate speech, disinformation, Islamophobia and antisemitism have been increasing, especially online. There is no doubt that the Government's response to this crisis has been shaped, and indeed aided, by many of the areas highlighted during the forum. I refer to our commitment to promoting international law and ensuring accountability. I also refer to our commitment to the United Nations and multilateralism and our commitment to humanitarianism and peacekeeping. These are the values that underpin our response to this crisis. Moreover, these are the values that we apply equally to all crises. I assure the House that this has been acknowledged and appreciated by our partners in the region during my intensive engagement over the past six weeks.

These events also offer a clear illustration, if illustration were needed, of the importance of a strong and independent Irish foreign policy. Professor Richardson's report makes clear that there is a striking degree of consensus on many aspects of Ireland's international engagement. This is important. It is too easy to highlight divisions, encourage polarisation and play politics with foreign, security and defence policy issues, but these issues, at this time, are far too important for that, so let us start with what we agree on.

First, a theme that came though very strongly in the forum was that Ireland should continue to be active in the maintenance of international peace and security by supporting the global multilateral system, with the UN Charter at its heart, and by continuing to vocally defend international law, particularly international humanitarian law, and human rights.

Our contribution to peacebuilding has meant that we engage for the long term and that our commitment to countries affected by conflict and injustice, and to those trying to rebuild after active conflict had ended, is one that is serious and sustained. Sometimes our work is public and recognised; more often, it is below the radar. We link what we do on the ground with what we say around decision-making tables in New York, Brussels and Geneva and vice versa and we put our money where our mouth is, by investing in peace and security, and by focusing on those most vulnerable to conflict and extreme poverty.

Our engagement internationally reflects our own experience of building peace on this island. One example of this is our engagement in the peace process in Colombia, which mirrors the importance of the international support we secured for the peace process in Northern Ireland. This week, as we mark the seventh anniversary of the signing of the 2016 peace agreement with the FARC, I am particularly proud that Ireland has been acting as a guarantor for the dialogue process with the FARC-EMC, as part of the Colombian Government's "total peace" policy. Our consistent political support, engagement on issues such as human rights and women's participation, our lesson sharing as well as targeted funding, are all making a real difference on the ground.

In Ukraine, we are also working to translate political support into the practical implementation of President Zelenskyy's peace formula, which we believe offers a comprehensive approach to securing a just and lasting peace. We are engaged directly in a number of areas covered by the plan, such as nuclear safety, food security and the restoration of justice. Our own history has taught us the importance of accountability in restoring trust and building a prosperous future. Indeed, those who attended the forum will have heard directly from many Irish men and women working across multiple organisations and continents for a more peaceful and more just world.

For examples, we heard from former members of the Defence Forces, such as retired Major General Michael Beary, who has been leading a UN mission to support peace in Yemen; former senior Garda, Maura O'Sullivan, now working in Ukraine to reinforce that country's policing and rule-of-law structures; Kate Fearon, a founder member of the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition now working with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE; Patricia Lewis, a leading expert in non-proliferation and disarmament and a recent recipient of the presidential distinguished service award; and from Renata Dwan, who has spent decades working with the UN on conflicts in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC, Mali and Syria. It is these kinds of tangible contributions that represent a real-life expression of our foreign policy values.

Our term on the UN Security Council taught us many lessons. One of the most important was that we can be most effective when our advocacy at multilateral level is informed and guided by detailed, nuanced, practical experience, working directly in communities affected by violence and conflict.

Our diplomats and military women and men need to both to be at the top tables and getting their boots muddy, and I am very proud that they are more than eager to do so. What we heard at the consultative forum is that the Irish people are proud of this work and want us to do more of it and that is what I want us to do. One practical outcome from the end of our Security Council term was the establishment of a new peace and stability unit in the Department of Foreign Affairs. This unit will develop and sustain partnerships in peacebuilding and conflict prevention across the globe in conflict affected states. Our unique history and relationships of trust leave Ireland well placed to support partners in this regard.

A further area of agreement across virtually all speakers and contributors to the forum was the need for investment and support in our Defence Forces. When the Commission on the Defence Forces delivered its report in February 2022, it recommended significant and wide-ranging changes for the Defence Forces and defence provision in Ireland, including changes to high level structures, defence capabilities, organisation, culture, human resources and funding.

I am deeply committed to the positive transformation of our Defence Forces into a modern, agile military force, capable of responding to increasingly complex security threats. This is reflected in the Government’s approval of a high level action plan to progress the recommendations and to commit the State to move to the level of ambition 2, with a commensurate increase of the defence budget from €1.1 billion to €1.5 billion, in 2022 prices, by 2028.

The Government has followed through on this commitment by increasing spending on defence in budget 2023 and 2024. Yesterday, I published the detailed implementation plan for the report of the Commission on the Defence Forces following approval by Cabinet. It has been a priority for me that this plan is both ambitious and credible, recognising that transformation efforts of this magnitude take time and are only successful if they are built on solid foundations. This is a once-in-a-generation transformation. I am confident that we can and will build on the strong foundations developed and realise our shared ambition for a transformed, modern, forward-looking Defence Forces. This is part of our ongoing investment in our Defence Forces; in its people, infrastructure, capabilities and culture

Ireland has always played an essential role for peace, a fact tangibly demonstrated by our unbroken and distinguished involvement in UN peacekeeping since our first deployment in 1958. However, we also need to look honestly at the challenges to that engagement. We cannot ignore the systemic challenges facing the UN Security Council. That is most evident in how difficult it is to agree or renew UN peacekeeping mandates, which we saw at first-hand while on the Council in 2021 and 2022. It is striking, for instance, that not a single new peacekeeping mission has been authorised by the Security Council since 2014. It is much more than that. Let us be clear that many crises the Security Council deals with never get near the stage of discussion on a peacekeeping mission or even on a comprehensive peacebuilding plan. On Ukraine, for reasons we all know, the Security Council has not even issued a statement on the issue, never mind agreed on a resolution.

On the Ethiopia question, we worked tirelessly to prevent atrocity crimes and to bring to light grave violations of international humanitarian law. While I am proud of our engagement and believe that this meant that the Security Council was ultimately able to play a role, it was never even able to agree to formally place the issue of Ethiopia on its agenda.

Let us look at what is happening now in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. It took almost six weeks after the attack by Hamas in Israel and the terrible loss of life in Gaza for the Security Council to agree a resolution calling for humanitarian pauses. The implications of this for Ireland and our current policy is simply something we have to take seriously. We cannot just revert to sound bites. We have to be honest about the fact that in respect of many of the worst crises internationally, where rapid, impartial and decisive international action is desperately needed the Security Council has not been able to act.

As matters stand, the legislation governing the despatch of contingents of the Defence Forces for overseas peace support operations ensures that these may only take place where that deployment is approved by the Government, approved by Dáil resolution if the proposed deployment is more than 12 personnel, and that the operation in question is mandated or authorised by the UN. In effect, this triple lock system hands the five permanent members of the Security Council a veto over our national sovereign decision to deploy troops to peacekeeping missions as we see fit.

Of course, as we saw over the course of the forum, there is no single consensus over how to proceed with the triple lock but we saw ample evidence of other options on how to allow agility and responsiveness while ensuring our actions comply with the highest standards of international law. It would, therefore, make sense to amend our existing legislation in a manner that would allow us to respond to crisis situations with more agility and where, in making these important decisions, we are not surrendering our sovereignty. I have, therefore, instructed officials in the Department of Defence to prepare legislative proposals without delay that would govern the future overseas deployments of our Defence Forces. These could, for example, allow us to despatch Defence Forces personnel to multilateral missions overseas where these are organised by a regional organisation such as the European Union or African Union, or where the host country is requesting such support from the international community. While these proposals may not necessarily always include a role for the Security Council, they will, of course, remain fully consistent with the principles of the UN Charter and international law. By making this change in the future, we would remove the veto power of Security Council members over Ireland's engagement, while safeguarding the essential link with international law and good governance.

During the consultative forum, many contributors also expressed a clear view in favour of working more closely with our international partners. I firmly believe we should broaden and deepen such co-operation, either where we can add value or benefit from the expertise of others. For a country of Ireland’s size, and for a country that has always been outward looking and whose foreign policy is based on partnership, it is sensible that we would look at the options available for partnership, rather than go it alone. We are already doing this successfully as active members of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy, including through permanent structured co-operation, PESCO. Rather than some notional European army, what PESCO provides for in reality is a menu of projects that allows us to work with and learn from EU partners, in a way which is suitable and beneficial to our security needs.

The area of maritime security is an excellent example of where we are well placed to take advantage of training and capability development offered by our European partners. I am pleased that Ireland became an observer in the critical seabed infrastructure protection, CSIP, project earlier this year. However, we should go further and do more. In that spirit, we recently concluded a new individually tailored partnership programme, ITPP, through NATO’s Partnership for Peace. It should not be necessary for me to say it again but for the avoidance of doubt, let me once again be entirely clear that this Government has no intention of taking any steps towards NATO membership or altering our policy of military neutrality. That is simply not on the agenda. That being said, I have no hesitation in stating that the Partnership for Peace programme in place since 1999 has offered us valuable opportunities to enhance our defence capabilities. Importantly, the focus on interoperability of our Defence Forces has greatly facilitated Ireland’s participation in UN and EU missions overseas, including our current engagement in the Irish-Polish battalion in UNIFIL.

The latest ITPP represents an opportunity for Ireland to continue this exchange of expertise and training and broadens our engagement into new areas that will benefit Ireland. These include co-operation on cybersecurity, resilience and maritime security.

Our continued commitment to a principled, values-led foreign policy does not exclude a dedicated and clear-eyed focus on our own national security. As I have said previously, Ireland cannot rely on its geographic isolation for its security or isolate itself from world events. In fact, as the discussions at the forum clearly showed, the nature of the threats we face are unlike those we have seen before. They may include cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns that seek to undermine our social cohesion, or interference with our energy and telecommunications infrastructure. The havoc wreaked by the malicious actors who attacked the HSE in 2021 offers a salutary reminder that neutrality is no safety blanket when it comes to such threats. The response to the cyberattack also put into stark relief the essential need for close co-operation with international partners on security issues.

We have already taken important steps in recent years to bolster our national security institutions, for example, through the allocation of significant resources and capabilities to the National Cyber Security Centre. Internationally, Ireland's membership of the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats has allowed us to take advantage of world-class training and policy development opportunities.

There was a clear consensus among contributors to the forum that it is now time to take forward the next steps that will be essential to strengthening our national security arrangements. I, therefore, make a commitment today that the Government will deliver a national security strategy in the coming months. The strategy will lay out the threat environment and clearly set out the systems and structures required to address these. It will also make reference to the development of a fully functioning national security authority to deal with the protection of European Union classified information, as well as personal and facilities security clearance, underpinned by appropriate legislation and furnished with the resources it requires.

As an island nation, the question of our maritime security is paramount. I am also announcing today our intention to develop a maritime security strategy with the necessary resourcing, accompanying legislation and decision-making systems in place. This strategy will have a particular focus on subsea infrastructure. It is also important that the actions and services that we deploy in support of our national security are underpinned by robust and modern legislative arrangements. Work will be progressed across government to modernise and enhance these arrangements, including with respect to information gathering and sharing, cybersecurity and, crucially, independent oversight of our security legislation.

As I have repeatedly stated, the changed geopolitical context and wider threat environment in Europe call for consideration of our approach to national and international security issues. The consultative forum offered us an opportunity to start a national conversation, one based on facts and evidence. It was a chance to bring together leading international experts to discuss the matters of security most important to us in an open manner, with the opportunity for every citizen to take part. The actions I have set out today will allow us to realise a vision of a confident and forward-looking state, one that does not shy away from playing an active role in upholding international peace and security or efforts to build peace and uphold international law. At the same time, I want to ensure that we can be proud to claim a well-resourced and highly skilled Defence Forces, with cutting-edge security infrastructure and responsive and dynamic systems to deal with whatever threats we may face. I am committed to taking this process forward and I hope my colleagues in the House will join with me in doing so.

If ever we wanted evidence that the so-called consultative forum on international security was not a genuine exercise in public debate or discourse and was, rather, an attempt by the Government to reshape public opinion, those doubts have been well and truly answered by the Tánaiste's comments today. There is clearly an agenda within government that seeks to reframe the definition of Irish neutrality and to undermine the principle of Ireland having an independent foreign policy. In my view, the forum was an exercise in attempting to advance that agenda. In that regard, I would have considered that the exercise was a failure - it was a failure because it became undone. In advance of the forum, the Tánaiste actually pre-empted any public debate by stating, almost as if it were a fact, that there was a need to deepen collaboration with NATO and he repeatedly sought to undermine the triple lock, which requires a UN mandate prior to Irish participation in overseas missions. Today, we can see why.

On the eve of the forum, an opinion poll was published which clearly showed that the vast majority of Irish people disagree with the Tánaiste and they value our neutrality. The poll, published by The Irish Times, showed that 61% of voters support Ireland's current model of neutrality and just 26% want to see it changed. There was then the welcome intervention by President Michael D. Higgins, who warned of the dangers of a drift in foreign policy and, unlike the Government, actually set out the positive legacy of an Irish foreign policy based on humanitarianism and unequivocal support for international law and the UN charter. The decision by the Tánaiste to exclude any formal role for the Opposition was not only a strategic mistake on his part, but was actually a poor way of doing business. Those of us who had the opportunity to be at each of the forum hearings endured no less than five lengthy Government speeches while Opposition representatives had to raise their hands from the floor. That is not debate or consultation.

Following all the hearings and pronouncements, what did we end up with? The chair of the forum, reflecting the views of the considerable majority of those who spoke or wrote at the forum, recognised that there is at present no public appetite for a change to the current position in respect of neutrality. From my perspective, while the forum was a failure in terms of the Government's objectives, it was not completely a wasted exercise. I attended each of the forum meetings and, on behalf of Sinn Féin, I made a considered written submission. While the panels were not as balanced as I would have liked, each contribution was valid, even those I would consider to be fundamentally wrong.

The forum has also presented a challenge to those of us on the left and others who value our neutrality. While we have always been very good at articulating what we are opposed to, and that is important, we have not always been as effective as we should be in setting out the positive and constructive role that neutrality can help Ireland to play internationally. I have outlined to this House previously that Sinn Féin's vision is for Ireland to play a constructive role in the wider world, committed to diplomacy, humanitarianism, peace-building and co-operation with other states on global challenges, including poverty, world hunger, climate change and conflict resolution. In order to play that role, I strongly believe that we must have an independent foreign policy, with military neutrality at its heart. There is a renewed need to shine a light on the reasons that we should be proud of our military neutrality. We have to have a logical and contemporary rationale that counters those who seek to recast it as a weakness or a failing.

The legacy of Irish neutrality is our role in working for nuclear non-proliferation, our humanitarianism, our contribution to the drafting of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, our peacekeeping and the proud record of our UN peacekeepers. This has been our contribution to making the world a better and safer place. It is a contribution that has served us well and I contend that it is a contribution that has served the world well.

The Sinn Féin contributions to the consultative forum set out a roadmap to enshrine the principle of neutrality within the Irish Constitution and EU treaties, to ensure Ireland can adapt to a changed global security environment and to address the historical underinvestment in our Defence Forces. We also set out our approach to international and EU arrangements and organisations, underpinned by the triple lock and the primacy of the United Nations, and Ireland's opportunity to be a positive force for conflict resolution across the globe.

Hard-earned reputations can be easily lost. Sinn Féin believes that the historical role of the Defence Forces as a neutral force engaged in UN peacekeeping is something the Irish people are rightly proud of. That is why we have made detailed proposals to this House seeking a greater role for the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and greater scrutiny of proposals brought forward by the Government. Unfortunately, we have found ourselves against a Government that appears unwilling to engage with the Opposition or see itself scrutinised in any meaningful way. A recent example of this was Irish participation in four European Defence Agency projects legally requiring the assent of this House. A 55-minute debate was scheduled to discuss all four, with only a single vote being taken on all four projects. In rejecting Sinn Féin's motion that it be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, the Government was not just rejecting greater or enhanced scrutiny, but it effectively voted against any scrutiny at all, essentially treating this House as a rubber stamp for Government policy. Indeed, in recent weeks and months, we have seen the Government skirt around what is possible in terms of the deployment of Irish Defence Forces personnel and the missions they may take part in, and even, at one point, use the triple lock as cover when that had no relevance at all.

To be clear, Sinn Féin wants to be in government and we have made no secret about that. We seek to raise the bar, not stymie the current Government, but ensure full and appropriate checks, balances and conventions for all Governments to come.

Much was made by the Government in advance of the forum and by many at the forum of the changed context arising from Russia's illegal and contemptible invasion of Ukraine. The argument, as it went, was that the actions of Russia determined the need for a common European foreign policy to cast aside the triple lock requirement of UN approval and align Ireland entirely with NATO in terms of defence actions.

If anyone bought into those arguments, if anyone had questions about the absolute necessity for Ireland to maintain an independent foreign policy, those questions were answered the day the Presidents of the European Commission and European Parliament landed in Tel Aviv and gave unequivocal support to Israel as it embarked on its ferocious illegal assault on Gaza. That position does not and would never represent the views and the values of the Irish people and it reinforced the need to ensure no European officeholder can ever speak for Ireland without our direct consent and agreement.

Ireland has been part of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, mission since 2013. That mission has been in place since the 1970s and has remained in place to uphold the ceasefire between Israeli and Syrian military forces in the Golan Heights and to monitor the implementation of the disengagement agreement. The role of the Defence Forces on the Golan Heights is one we should be very proud of. It was a perilous mission. The onset of the Syrian Civil War led to one of the most dangerous periods for peacekeepers in the mission's entire history and during it UN troops were sometimes used as human shields and abducted. The Irish peacekeeper battalion had been deployed multiple times to secure exit routes for UN colleagues under fire. Throughout the ten years of Irish presence, our Defence Forces have been noted for their bravery and positive contribution to this vital UN mission.

The reason I mention the Golan Heights mission is twofold. The first is it represents very clearly the important and constructive role Ireland can and indeed has played in international peacekeeping under the UN flag for over six decades. The second reason is Irish participation will come to an end very shortly. Opponents of Irish neutrality - we heard this often during the forum - claim that it and especially the triple lock leave us beholden to Russia or China. However, those opponents are not against Ireland being beholden to others when it comes to foreign and defence policy and simply want to choose who it is we are beholden to. Irish neutrality means not being beholden to others at all. It means, as I said, having an independent foreign policy. Ireland will withdraw from the Golan Heights peacekeeping mission not at the behest of the Russian or Chinese Governments but because of the Irish Government. It will withdraw our forces from important UN work so it can divert resources to EU battle groups. The Tánaiste has made great play of the fact no UN peacekeeping mission has been approved, but he is withdrawing us from the mission we are involved in.

It is entirely disingenuous to set that as a rationale to undermine the very basis of Irish neutrality and it is beyond ironic-----

The Deputy is talking nonsense.

-----the same parties who want to undermine our neutrality have overseen the systemic underfunding of our Defence Forces, bringing us to the position we are in where there are only about 7,600 members across all sections of the Defence Forces. That is against an establishment need of 9,500 members and a level of ambition 2 target of 11,500. The Commission on the Future of the Defence Forces also set out the capital investment our Defence Forces needed. It said we needed capital investment of €246.5 million each year for the past ten years. Last year that target was missed by €70 million and next year that target is again going to be missed by €70 million, yet Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael laughably suggest it is others that cannot be trusted with Ireland's security.

I will respond to the proposals set out by the Tánaiste in respect of undoing the triple lock. He mentioned of course the veto at the UN Security Council. He did not refer to the triple lock also allowing for a UN General Assembly mandate to be provided-----

It is time the Deputy got real.

-----at which there is no veto. The Tánaiste has not answered the question of what mission he wants the Defence Forces to participate in that the triple lock has prevented. He has not given us an outline of what impact it would have on the reputation of Ireland and Irish troops were we to participate in a military mission that does not have UN approval. That has not been answered and I would hazard a guess that putting our troops and credibility on the line in the way the Tánaiste has outlined would be a very new and grave risk for us to take.

What the Tánaiste has announced today is a fundamental shift in Ireland's foreign policy. It would radically undermine Irish neutrality as we know it and every single time they have been asked the people have shown Irish neutrality is something they value. The triple lock was a key, pivotal argument for those who advocated agreement to multiple EU treaty referendums, especially those on the Lisbon and Nice Treaties. I could produce for the Tánaiste all the commentary from the Governments of the day on how the triple lock provided a key protection to address any concerns people had in respect of those treaties' impact on Irish neutrality. In light of that I put it to him that any proposal the Government wishes to bring forward must also be put to the people. Will the Government have-----

Idiotic.

The Government would not dare put it to the people because it knows what the response would be.

The Deputy is being idiotic and stupid.

What he has outlined today is a proposal in respect of fundamentally changing Irish foreign policy that he knows does not have the support of the people. If he is so clear-----

I just do not want Russia vetoing everything we do, that is all.

-----what he is doing is in the best interests of the people he should give a commitment today-----

So stupid, for Christ's sake.

-----he will put it to them.

Finally, I will talk about the ongoing, slow shift we have seen. I have mentioned on a number of occasions that the shift can be seen very starkly in the response the Government has made in respect of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a response we wholeheartedly supported at every single step.

Sinn Féin did not do so in 2014. It backed Russia in 2014.

We can compare that with the response to the Israeli actions in Gaza. I have put forward an amendment to the Government's amendment that simply adds two words on condemning the killing of children and civilians "by Israel" because the Tánaiste has not uttered the words that he condemns Israel. Why not?

You are playing politics all the time with this issue.

No. The Tánaiste is the man----

You have been a disgrace.

Through the Chair. This is not questions and answers.

-----who has made a career out of pointing-----

You have been a disgrace on this.

-----to the fact of whether people condemn or do not condemn. We unequivocally condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We unequivocally condemn Hamas's actions on 7 October. We unequivocally condemn Israeli actions that have led to the deaths of thousands of innocent children. Will the Tánaiste do the same? It is a fair ask. It is "Yes" or "No". Will he condemn Israel?

Go raibh maith agat, a Theachta.

Do not lecture me on the loss of civilian life, Deputy. You know a lot more about it than I do-----

You are on the mic-----

-----and your organisation does.

Do you condemn the actions of Israel?

It is a bit rich for you now to be lecturing us.

Do you condemn the actions of Israel? "Yes" or "No".

Do you condemn the Provisional IRA?

It is not a question and answer session Deputy.

The Tánaiste appears to want to answer every question apart from the one I am putting to him.

Tá an t-am caite anois. Go raibh maith agat. It is not a question and answer session, unfortunately. It is statements and does not allow for this.

Bogaimid ar aghaidh leis an Páirtí an Lucht Oibre agus an Teachta Howlin.