Vol. 455 No. 1
2 Mr. R. Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs when the report on the decommissioning of IRA weapons will be published if Irish and British civil servants are unable to produce the report in time for the planned meeting between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister in Cannes. [11712/95]
3 Mr. O'Malley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether there is justification for any party or its associates seeking to retain possession of arms and explosives while entering into talks with other parties and the Irish and British Governments regarding the future of Northern Ireland in view of the fact that the necessary elements in a political settlement in Northern Ireland are well known and easily identifiable; and if he will make a statement on the matter setting out the Government's approach to the problem. [11886/95]
30 Miss Quill asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the proposals, if any, the Government has made for the decommissioning of arms by subversive or paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11725/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 3 and 30 together.
The Government has repeatedly made clear the importance it attaches to progress in removing the stocks of weapons held by paramilitaries. It is self-evidently the case that dealing with the paramilitary arsenals is an essential element in the peace process and crucial to the achievement of a lasting peace. As the Tánaiste stated in the House on several occasions, most recently on 23 May, it is impossible to envisage a lasting peace without the objective of the removal of paramilitary arms having been achieved. This approach underlies the position taken by Government representatives, both publicly and in all relevant contacts on this issue.
The Government welcomes the widespread agreement in principle on all sides that the decommissioning of such weaponry is one of the key issues which must be addressed in the search for overall agreement. Our efforts now must be geared to creating the context where this can be achieved.
It is important to avoid a circular argument whether prior decommissioning is the condition for political progress, or political progress for decommissioning. As a political reality, neither issue is likely to be fully resolved in isolation from the other. As the Taoiseach stated in the House on 25 April, "Without progress on the arms issue there will not be progress on other issues. Equally, for there to be progress on the arms issue there are many other issues on which there must be progress.
I hope serious discussion of decommissioning will be paralleled by serious discussion of the various political issues which are the responsibility of political leaders, and which are necessary for a resolution of the problem.
As the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have both emphasised, the peace process is not a single issue agenda, and progress in any one area is more likely in the context of movement on a range of issues. The objective of permanent peace will be achieved only by a coordinated process which involves movement on all sides.
Our task now is to build momentum by developing progress across the entire agenda which must be addressed. We will continue to press for this, both in regard to the oversearching goal of launching comprehensive political negotiations, and on the specific issue of decommissioning of paramilitary arsenals.
All of these issues, including the decommissioning of paramilitary arms, have been the subject of continuing dialogue with the British Government, at political and official level. The Government has been seeking to find solutions, bridge gaps and facilitate movement. The discussions between the Irish and British civil servants on the modalities of decommissioning have been continuing in that context. The Deputy will understand if, in accordance with the normal practice, I propose not to go into detail of this on-going work. It is not envisaged that the outcome of this work will be published. I can assure the Deputy and the House that it is the Tánaiste's intention and that of the Government to continue to devote to all of these issues the close and continuing attention that they must have.
We do not believe there is or was any justification for illegal weapons, whether in the context of talks or otherwise. That is why we have placed such importance on the voluntary decommissioning of the weaponry which has so far eluded detection by the security forces on both sides of the Border. However, we do not believe this objective, important as it is, should be used as a road-block in the way of negotiations. Rather, the process of political negotiations should be used to the full to build the conditions of trust and the prospect of agreement which will enable the more difficult features of the situation, of which this is one, to be successfully disposed of as part of an overall agreement. I am aware of the very proper concern that there should be no negotiation under the shadow of threat of violence. However, the sustained observance of the ceasefire is also a relevant factor in considering the test for participation in political dialogue, as defined in the Downing Street Joint Declaration.
Moreover, in a context of political negotiations based exclusively on political mandate, the weight of the combined democratic mandates around the table would make it unlikely that any group would seek to revert to the threat of violence in that context, and even more unlikely that they would succeed in their objectives, if they did.
I thank the Minister of State for that comprehensive reply with which I agree in relation to the fact that nobody can condone the possession of illegal weapons. However, they are there, and as we approach the anniversary of the ceasefire the question of decommissioning of arms has been added by the British Government as a new condition for talks. Will the Minister of State agree that it is vitally important that decommissioning take place and that it be the number one item on the agenda of all inclusive talks rather than a condition which prevents talks taking place? In the context of finding a formula to allow the talks process to proceed, why has the Government only now re-established the Dalton Chilcott talks? Why were they not taking place since the beginning of the year?
In reply to the Deputy's last point, there are ongoing discussions on the question of the peace process in which the people named have been participants for some time. In that sense this is a continuing process. In specifically addressing the question of decommissioning, they are simply addressing one of the items in a series of agenda items which have to be addressed in the overall framework of negotiations.
I indicated that the consideration of the means by which decommissioning can be achieved should continue to be examined in discussions between the British Government and Sinn Féin. Our primary concern is to see that all the paramilitary arms are removed as quickly as possible, and we will give careful consideration to any proposal which will assist in realising that objective. Naturally I support and welcome any diminution, to whatever degree, of existing arsenals. I would be wary of an approach which might, even unintentionally, give undue emphasis to partial or symbolic gestures, possibly at the expense of the fuller and more comprehensive approach we all want to see. Neither would I wish to see degrees of decommissioning being used as bargaining chips in a political process since that would damage the principal of negotiations based exclusively on the existence of democratic mandates. While I welcome any progress, I wish to keep the focus on the overall goal of general decommissioning rather than on partial or symbolic gestures which might prove insufficient to bring about real change.
The Minister of State has given a long answer but has skirted around some of the more delicate aspects of this. In particular, she has not expressed any view, as I asked her to, as to whether there is any justification for any party or its associates seeking to retain possession of arms and explosives when entering into talks with the other parties and with the Irish and British Governments, in view of the fact that the necessary elements for a political settlement in Northern Ireland are well known and easily identifiable. The views the Minister of State expresses on behalf of the Government here today are in marked contrast to the views expressed by the Tánaiste in this House last June, exactly a year ago. Do I understand her to say that a sustained ceasefire is one of the prerequisites for talks and that it is an adequate prerequisite? How does she regard the fact that the figures published yesterday suggest that there have been 125 punishment beatings since last September, some of them multiple incidents, in which many people have been seriously injured? I agree that this matter should not be a single item on the agenda but, for the most part, the agenda is what Sinn Féin suggests rather than what all parties would wish to discuss.
The Tánaiste stated, as reported at column 1019 of the Official Report of 1 June 1994:
The definitive abandonment of the use, or support, of violence for political ends would open the way to participation in political talks and to a role in the shaping of an agreed future for the Irish people. It is also a precondition for participation in the proposed Forum for Peace and Reconciliation.
The sustained silence of the guns, which we have had for ten months, is the crucial test. If, as we all hope, it continues indefinitely it will be a powerful reassurance that the conditions in the Joint Framework Document are being met. We want all parliamentary arms removed and are actively encouraging Sinn Féin and the British Government to enter discussions on this and other crucial issues central to the peace process. The Taoiseach and Tánaiste have made clear to Sinn Féin on several occasions their concern and that of the Government and people in regard to punishment beatings. They have called for an end to them and similar calls have been made across the political spectrum in the North. This matter is of enormous concern if we want peace and the cessation of violence. We must bear in mind the suffering of the victims and their unfortunate families. We reiterate our call to all paramilitaries to desist from such actions.
I join in condemnation of punishment beatings and call, as my party leader has, for them to cease as soon as possible. As regards the need to involve all parties in bilateral or preferably round table talks with the first item on the agenda being decommissioning of arms, what was the response to the Taoiseach's invitations? One meeting was held with Sinn Féin but what progress has been made with the other parties who were invited to talks with the Government?
That process is ongoing. A number of parties participated and we continue to hope that all parties to the process will respond to the Taoiseach's invitation.
The Minister of State mentioned the continuing Dalton-Chilcott talks. If the talks are ongoing, why was there such a blare of trumpets about them ten days ago as if it were a new initiative? What other groups responded to the Taoiseach's invitation and had talks with the Government?
As the Deputy is aware there are ongoing contacts at a range of political and official levels.
I am not talking about a range but about the Dalton-Chilcott group.
A series of issues continue to be discussed at a number of different levels. Decommissioning is one of them. The Deputy wondered why it was a matter of discussion recently. I assume it is one of the outstanding agenda items which has to be dealt with. The Government is concerned to keep up the momentum and keep the peace process moving forward. All options are being explored. The work that may be done by the Dalton-Chilcott group may assist in that advancement and movement. It is in that context that there is additional focus on the work they have been doing for some time now. I am not at liberty to make a detailed comment on the work of the group and cannot respond in any great detail.
As regards talks which the Taoiseach might have, the Deputy might more properly address that question to the Taoiseach on his return from Cannes.
The time for dealing with priority questions is exhausted. I can take replies to Questions Nos. 4 and 5 in ordinary time in accordance with a recent decision of the House.
