asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the fact that Ireland is taking part in disarmament talks in the European Political Co-operation process since the ratification of the Single European Act is a new development of the policy of military neutrality; and if he will make a statement on the Government policy on disarmament.
Ceisteanna—Question. Oral Answers. - Military Neutrality Policy.
45.
Discussions on disarmament, which focus primarily on disarmament issues before the United Nations and at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, have long been a feature of European Political Co-operation. These issues were discussed in European Political Co-operation before ratification of the Single European Act. The Act, in outlining the scope of the Twelve's activities within the European Political Co-operation, as confined to the political and economic aspects of security, formalised the practice which existed before ratification. Discussions in European Political Co-operation on disarmament issues thus do not represent any change in Ireland's long-standing policy of military neutrality outside alliances.
With regard to the latter aspect of the Deputy's question the Government remain committed to playing an active and constructive role in matters relating to disarmament and in particular in the area of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. We are encouraged by the progress in the dialogue between the US and the USSR and by the signing of the agreement on the elimination of intermediate nuclear forces. We hope that this agreement will give impetus to other aspects of the bilateral dialogue, including those relating to reducing strategic nuclear weapons and space systems and that the negotiations at the bilateral level that have been initiated in the last few weeks on nuclear testing can lead to the achievement of significant progress. Ireland remains committed to a comprehensive test ban which we believe would be a positive and practical measure in halting and reversing the nuclear arms race.
While the potential for significant progress at the bilateral level is obvious, and must be fully explored and developed, we remain conscious of the importance of the multilateral dialogue on disarmament in the framework of the United Nations. We are determined to play a useful and constructive role in the issues currently under discussion in this framework. We were pleased that discussion on disarmament and international security issues at the recent session of the UN General Assembly was marked by a fresh and generally positive approach. We hope that this can be translated into concrete results on the issues which are under negotiation at the multilateral level, including negotiations on banning chemical weapons on which considerable progress has already been achieved at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Ireland was happy to participate earlier this year in efforts aimed at enhancing the Convention on Biological Weapons which is also an important instrument in the area of arms control.
The International Conference on the Relationships between Disarmament and Development which I addressed last August also allowed Ireland to make a contribution on this aspect of the multilateral dialogue.
A third special session of the UN General Assembly devoted to disarmament will be held from 31 May to 25 June next. As we have done at previous such special sessions we will be actively participating at this special session and helping to ensure its success. The success of this forthcoming special session is important for the promotion and advancement of the disarmament process at the multilateral level.
Ireland's commitment to disarmament is expressed also in the context of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, now in session in Vienna. The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe is currently the forum for discussions on elaborating a mandate for negotiations on conventional arms reductions in all of Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, as well as for elaborating further confidence and security-building measures.
I tabled this question out of a very important point raised by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Garret Fitz-Gerald, in the course of the debate on the Single European Act earlier this year when he stated that, as Head of an Irish Government pursuing a policy of military neutrality, he had to remain silent during after dinner meetings with other Heads of Government. Would the Minister, on behalf of this Government, consider that to be the correct practice? Should an Irish Head of State not be able to discuss the whole issue of disarmament in all fora within Europe?
It is a matter for discretion to be exercised in the context of what type of discussion is taking place. As Deputy Barry is well aware, a lot of these discussions are informal and a lot are formal. One takes a different attitude when one is having an informal as against a formal discussion. It is a matter on which I would prefer not to generalise too much; that would be my general approach. The division is quite clear. Military neutrality has been always our stance. We do not want to get involved in any military discussions that arise out of European political co-operation. Our stance in regard to arms reduction, in particular in regard to nuclear arms reduction and conventional arms reduction, is well known. We are also very strong on the matter referred to earlier — of ensuring that there is a very real and effective human dimension in any arms reductions talks that take place, particularly within the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe context so far as East and West Europe are concerned.
Perhaps the Minister could further elaborate for me: do we take a different attitude at informal and formal meetings when disarmament is being discussed within Europe?
All of the other European Governments and Foreign Ministers are fully aware of our stance. It is well established, well adumbrated, quite clearly stated. They have no difficulty in understanding our position. We are not members of NATO or of the Western European Union. They fully understand that matters relating to those two organisations are ones in which we do not get involved. That is the position but we do have a very real interest in disarmament, as a subject, and have expressed that interest in international fora over the years. We have a very real view on a reduction in conventional weapons, indeed a reduction in tension generally in Europe. That view is well known. We do not get involved in any matters concerning military alliances. The two main military alliances within Europe are NATO and WEU. We do not get involved in any discussions formal or informal pertaining to those two organisations.
May I seek some factual information from the Minister? I would welcome Ireland, as a neutral country, taking part formally in disarmament talks. A former Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, said this year that he found himself in a position, as an Irish Head of State, having to stay silent at meetings with other Heads of Government within the EC.
The Deputy is making a statement rather than asking a question.
The Minister has drawn a distinction between the position of Ireland formally and informally.
I am sorry, Deputy, I must end that question.
If the Deputy wants an answer I find no difficulty about it.
But what do we do at formal meetings and at informal meetings?
I have explained to the Deputy what we do. We do not get involved in any discussions concerning the two military alliances that operate within Western Europe, the Western European Union or NATO. Nor do we get involved in any discussions concerning them when they take place.
So we sit there silent?
So we are like the three monkeys — hear nothing, see nothing, say nothing.
The Foreign Ministers of the countries that are concerned with NATO will meet, on margin, in a separate way. I personally have never encountered any problem in that respect. Our position is quite clearly understood.
On a point of order, with respect, Sir, may I draw your attention to the fact that of the three questions nominated for priority today, two, Nos. 44 and 46, were linked to earlier questions? As you know under Standing Orders, that prevents those questions being raised as priority matters. Would I be in order in drawing your attention to this matter? Might I invite you, Sir, within the realm of your role, to discuss ways in which, if a question that has been nominated for priority is to be linked to an earlier question for oral answer, that fact could be communicated to the initiator of the question nominated for priority so as to enable that Member——
I observe the point.
——to designate another question? Otherwise the object of nominating questions for priority is lost.
It is not uncommon that questions that are clearly related are taken together, and Members are afforded——
On a point of order——
Just a moment, Deputy Barry. Members are permitted to ask supplementaries at that stage and do in fact do so at some length.
My point is in relation to questions nominated for priority. I had three questions nominated for priority on the Order Paper today. One was disallowed because it was a repetition of a question down for written reply some months ago. The other was disallowed because there is to be a discussion on emigration this evening and my priority question related to that subject. I would hope the rules could be changed so that, in the event of questions being disallowed, for whatever reason, the Member whose question had been nominated for priority would be afforded an opportunity to move some of his ordinary questions into priority. That would better serve the purpose of questions nominated for priority.
That is a matter which could be taken up with my office or, indeed, with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
It is precisely because we have an opportunity, having regard to the time, to bring these matters to your attention under points of order that I should like to support Deputy Barry in suggesting to you, Sir, and your office that you might perhaps take the initiative having regard to the mechanics of the way in which questions operate, to come forward with a proposal suggesting that if a question is to be linked, which has been the normal convention, the person who has nominated the priority question which is now going to be linked for a reply would be so advised in sufficient time to enable him or her to nominate another question for priority.
That is a matter more appropriate to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I recommend that the Deputies pursue it through that avenue.
May I take it, Sir, that you would prefer that we should take the initiative in raising it, rather than you do so yourself?
I should prefer if it were taken up with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I have given you notice that I wish to raise, by way of Private Notice Question, the position of an individual with two Irish children who is currently held by the Chilean authorities.
I have replied to the Deputy in respect of that matter.
I am giving notice that I should like this matter considered for the Adjournment——
I shall communicate with the Deputy.
——bearing in mind the dangers to the health of the individual concerned.