Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 1995

Vol. 459 No. 7

Northern Ireland Peace Process — Joint Communiqué: Motion.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann welcomes the launch of the "twin track" process by the Irish and British Governments, calls on all relevant parties to co-operate fully in both tracks and approves the terms of the Joint Communiqué agreed by the Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, T.D., and the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, M.P., on 28 November, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 5 December 1995.

This motion, in requesting Dáil Éireann to approve the terms of the joint communiqué, will enable the requirement imposed by Article 29, sub-article 5.2, of Bunreacht na hÉireann to be met. That provision of the Constitution provides that the State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge on public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.

A charge on public funds will arise by virtue of the joint communiqué as a result of the establishment of the international body to provide an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue. The international body is to be funded jointly by the Irish and British Governments. It will have offices in both Dublin and Belfast and its Dublin office will be in Dublin Castle.

On 29 November last the Taoiseach and I had the opportunity of informing the House on the joint communiqué issued the previous evening.

The need to meet the provisions of the Constitution provides another welcome opportunity to address the House in some detail on the significance of the agreement reached by the two Governments two weeks ago.

The immediate reason for the motion before the House is the establishment of the international body which involves a charge on public funds. The membership of the body is now complete with the agreement of Mr. Harri Holkeri of Finland and General John de Chastelain of Canada to join the Chairman, Senator George Mitchell of the United States. On behalf of the Government and people of Ireland I reiterate our appreciation to these distinguished individuals, all of whom bear heavy burdens in their own countries, for agreeing to serve on the body. They bring an impressive array of political, diplomatic and peackeeping skills and experience to bear on an issue which has threatened to impede progress to the all-party negotiations which are essential to a resolution of the Northern Ireland problem. I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge facing them. They deserve the gratitude of us all for being willing to begin their work in the cause of peace at short notice and under pressure of an extremely tight deadline.

I also want to express my thanks to the Governments of the United States, Finland and Canada for their readiness to endorse the appointment of their nationals to the body and to provide additional personnel to assist the members in their task of independently assessing the decommissioning issue. The international body has already begun this work with an informal meeting of the three members in New York in the past few days. Practical arrangements for the establishment of its Dublin office have been put in place by the Department of Justice. The first formal meetings of the body will be held in Belfast and Dublin from 15 to 18 December. I understand that it will meet in Dublin on 17 and 18 December. The body has already been in contact with relevant parties and has issued an open invitation to the public to submit written submissions. The Government will make a submission to the body at the meeting in Dublin.

I need not remind the House that the present peace is an unprecedented opportunity for all of us on this island. Anyone who has visited Northern Ireland — and it is good to know that peace has brought such a welcome influx from this part of Ireland — will know that a great burden has been lifted from the shoulders of the people there. That mood was well caught by the jubilant crowds who turned out to welcome President Clinton and to celebrate the peace with him.

It is vital that this unprecedented opportunity is not squandered. The overriding need is to consolidate the present cessations of violence through a lasting and honourable political accommodation. To do that, we must foster the qualities of hope and trust. Hope is needed to reassure the people of Northern Ireland, of this island and more widely that the nightmare of violence will never return and that only the values of peaceful democratic process will determine our future. We must also reassure those who have been persuaded to abandon violence that a genuine and meaningful political process is open to them and that the interests and aspirations of their community will be given no less importance and attention within that process in conditions of peace than in conditions of conflict.

We must reassure all the people on these islands who want to see negotiations and a settlement in place that the two Governments are living up to the pledges they made in the Downing Street Declaration and to the vision of the Framework Document to promote a fair and honourable accommodation across all the relationships. Above all we need to enable people to work constructively for their mutual benefit without compromising the essential principles or the long-term aspirations or interests of either tradition or community.

The greatest obstacle to the realisation of these hopes is the deficit of trust, reflecting a long and bitter history of confrontation and violence. Trust is needed to enable all the parties to embark on the necessary process of negotiation and growth of trust will be necessary to bring those negotiations to a successful conclusion. That was why the Government felt such deep concern at the prospect of a stalemate which it feared might arise from the strongly opposed positions which emerged, subsequent to the cessations of violence, on the question of the decommissioning of weapons. We saw a grave danger that the momentum of the peace process would be dissipated in a sterile and circular argument as to whether decommissioning came through political progress or political progress through decommissioning. Instead of seeing these as somehow conflicting goals we felt they should be seen as complementary to each other. Instead of a negative standoff we sought to create a positive interaction between them. For that reason we developed the policy of the twin-track approach in the hope that progress could be made in both areas in parallel. After a period of intense and difficult negotiation, and with the very benign interest and support of the US Administration, both Governments reached agreement on the terms of the twin-track approach in Downing Street on 28 November.

Apart from paying tribute to its distinguished membership the key point I wish to make about the international body, is that it is invited to present an independent assessment of this issue and is expected to consult widely. The communiqué invites it to address certain specific or technical aspects of the decommissioning issue. We hope, however, that in pursuing its consultations and drawing on the representations made to it the body will form its own judgment on the overall context and conditions in which progress towards decommissioning can best be achieved. As we see it, the obstacles to decommissioning lie not so much in the technical or legal issues to be resolved as in the creation of a context which would make voluntary decommissioning achievable in practice. We hope that the report of the body will advance the agenda on this point and suggest ways in which the co-operation necessary for this goal can be achieved on all sides.

Lest there be any doubt, the Government is firmly committed to securing the decommissioning of all arms and material held by organisations who formerly resorted to violence in pursuit of political ends. This is consistent with our unwavering position that a resolution to the Northern Ireland problem must be sought and established exclusively by peaceful and democratic means. We wish to see new agreed political structures within Northern Ireland, between North and South and between the two islands so that both communities in Northern Ireland can share fully in the ownership of, and freely give their allegiance to, the structures by which they are governed. This requires a comprehensive application of the principle of consent as envisaged in the Downing Street Declaration and the Framework Documents and a political climate free from coercion and from the threat or use of force applied for political ends.

It is important also to make clear that the current debate on decommissioning has nothing to do with tolerating the possession of illegal weaponry. Our laws and the actions of our security forces are unambiguous on that point. Rather the issue is about our efforts, building on the ceasefires and the climate of peace, to persuade those possessing arms which have so far eluded detection in either jurisdiction to decommission them voluntarily in the interests of a better and safer future for all.

It is well known there is a difference of view between the Irish and the British Governments on this issue. This difference arises not from any disagreement in principle on the desirability of the earliest possible decommissioning but from a different practical analysis of the conditions in which the paramilitaries will be capable of delivering decommissioning given the historical, psychological and practical factors involved. If a precondition is genuinely not deliverable, without putting in jeopardy the essential goal of sustaining and consolidating the ceasefires, then insistence on it can only prove counter-productive to the objective being pursued, and we believe an alternative route towards that objective must be found.

Both Governments are committed to a careful and constructive consideration of any recommendations made by the body. However, if the body is to properly assess the circumstances in which decommissioning can become a reality and meet the challenge of its mandate generally it must have the fullest co-operation of all the relevant parties.

The determination of the Government and its predecessor to advance the peace process has been on the clear understanding that Sinn Féin has joined us in an exclusive commitment to peaceful and democratic methods and that it will use its influence to sustain that commitment and to consolidate the peace. We expect that Sinn Féin will speak authoritatively to the body on the position of IRA weapons and on the issue of how the gun can be taken out of Irish politics. It will, of course, also be enabled to put forward any wider or particular concerns, as it sees fit, for the consideration of the body.

I have repeatedly stressed, and have done so again in the House today, the importance which the Government attaches to the goal of decommissioning. However, it is important also to keep this issue in perspective. We know that even total decommissioning of all existing material, however desirable that might be, would not be a reliable guarantee against an upsurge of violence in the future. We know from our experience the horrors of death and destruction that can be engineered from readily available materials. We know that, regrettably, weaponry is available on the international black market as never before.

Decommissiong in isolation amounts only to a decision or guarantee in relation to a particular set of weapons. The broader guarantee that the peace process is irreversible must come from the political process and, ultimately, the underpinning of a negotiated settlement. The real task is to decommission mind-sets and attitudes. I hope the Republican movement will see in the international body an opportunity to address the genuine and widespread fears that the obstacles to decommissioning are not just about the difficulty of dismantling the past but portend some sinister intention for the future. The work of the body can be used constructively to give added reassurance to those who fear that the democratic process will be tainted by violence. Political parties must be reassured that the commitment to the democratic process by former paramilitaries is genuine and irreversible and that the process of negotiation and agreement will be conducted free of the threat or use of force.

I would recall also that within the communities in Northern Ireland there is a strong sense that the issue of weapons is not the only significant barrier to confidence. Allegations of continued recruitment and training by paramilitary organisations, the rumoured targeting of individuals, the failure to restore missing bodies to their families, the banishment of individuals from their communities and above all the increasing incidence of brutal so-called "punishment beatings" are all manifestly corrosive of the climate of trust which is so necessary for the launch and successful conclusion of the substantive negotiations which we all need to see in place. The humanitarian objections to these activities are overwhelming, but they are deeply negative in their impact on the political process also.

The agreement reached on the joint communiqué has generated a renewed momentum in the search for a permanent peace. The visit of President Clinton has given a further and heartening boost to that momentum. The reaction of the people on the streets of Belfast, Derry and Dublin and throughout this island to this visit sends the clearest signal of all that the work of the international body and the approach of the twin tracks must work. The people will accept nothing less.

In his address in this House, in his speeches to public gatherings North and South and in his remarks since his return to Washington, President Clinton has demonstrated that he is a true friend of Ireland and of the United Kingdom. His continuing interest in the success of the twin track process and that of his senior aides such as National Security Adviser, Tony Lake, and the US Ambassador to Ireland, Jean Kennedy Smith, is a crucial support to all those who will be engaged in the process. It is a reminder to those who would refuse to engage in the twin track approach that the international community too is behind this process.

I have welcomed the sense of urgency which the members of the body have already brought to their task. We must bring a similarly urgent approach to the work of the first track of preparatory talks. The joint communiqué makes clear that these talks will have an entirely open agenda, allowing any party to raise any issue it wishes. The Governments have also made clear that they are flexible about the format of the talks as they develop, subject to addressing comprehensively all the relationships across the three strands. They are determined, however, that they should be intensive and geared to the firm aim of launching all-party talks negotiations by the end of February 1996. That is an ambitious target, but attainable with goodwill on all sides.

I am glad that both Governments are investing great urgency in the preparatory talks. When I met Sir Patrick Mayhew in London on Friday last we reviewed the invitations which we had extended to the parties. We agreed to intensify our contacts with them and to prepare in various ways the ground for productive bilateral and multilateral meetings. I have had contact made since that meeting with all the Northern parties with this objective in mind. I have good reason to believe that these will bear fruit, even if the prospect of meetings is not always as immediate as I would wish.

Unfortunately, the leaders of the Unionist parties do not as yet appear to have appreciated the potential of the twin track process. In President Clinton's eloquent words, "engaging in honest dialogue is not an act of surrender, it is an act of strength and common sense." The Unionist community prides itself on these qualities. I hope and expect that strength and common sense will prevail over fear and suspicion. Indeed, the Unionist community, which has suffered much and has perhaps the keenest sense of threat, has in many ways the most to gain from agreement.

If we are to reach agreement, then we must negotiate and before we negotiate we must agree on how and on what basis we are to do so. That is the sole purpose of the preparatory talks. No party entering them will prejudice its position on any of the many substantive questions to be resolved.

The tone of some of the reactions to my invitation to enter into preliminary dialogue has been regrettable. It offered encouragement to those who doubt the level of commitment which exists to serious dialogue. There has also been some apparent misunderstanding of the purpose of the preparatory talks and of the basis on which I wrote. That purpose is entirely consistent, not only with the agreement reached by the two Governments in the communiqué but also with the precedent of the 1991-92 talks. These talks were convened by both Governments and all of the Unionist parties took part in them. I hope it will be possible, through direct contact, to clear up these misunderstandings. In an inter-locking three-stranded process, the Irish Government will inevitably be centrally involved in discussion of North-South and east-west relations, but equally we accept, as we always have, that we will not be directly engaged in discussion of future internal structures, which are primarily for the Northern parties to agree.

I look forward to discussing these questions, and the many issues relating to the management of the process of negotiations, with the leaders of the Unionist parties at the earliest possible date. It is vital that instead of polemics we get on with the business of crafting a fair and honourable accommodation.

At our London meeting the Secretary of State and I also agreed that our officials should examine a number of issues which are likely to be raised in these preparatory talks, on the lines set out in the communiqué. We shall be reviewing this work at further meetings before Christmas.

It is encouraging also that the parties themselves in Northern Ireland have intensified contacts among themselves. The joint communiqué emphasises that the two Governments will treat each party on an equal basis and encourage any format for meetings that advances the objective of the preparatory talks.

My visit to Belfast this morning was relatively brief and had a primarily economic focus. Among the vast majority of those I met I found a strong sense that the twin track process is the way forward. My discussions this morning convinced me too that the launch of the joint communiqué and President Clinton's hugely successful visit have struck a deep chord. People in their daily lives, business people and trade unionists expect this process to succeed. They demand from us that we make it succeed. Political leaders would do well to take account of this groundswell of public feeling.

The motion before the House offers all the parties in Dáil Éireann the opportunity to renew their commitment to the policy of Anglo-Irish co-operation in resolving the problem of Northern Ireland followed by successive Governments. The bipartisan approach adopted by the Opposition parties, while allowing for constructive criticism, has been of considerable assistance to the Government in the difficult and protracted negotiations which led to the joint communiqué. I want to fully acknowledge this. By adopting this motion the House will send a clear message that is united in calling on all parties to co-operate in the twin track process. This co-operation must be wholehearted, transparent and given in both tracks.

I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. B. Ahern

Fianna Fáil supports the launch of the twin track approach, as provided for in the joint communiqué of 28 November, and supports the establishment of the international commission and the setting of a date for all-party talks. It was vital to move forward and salvage the peace process from the rocks of intransigence. We acknowledge the remarks by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and will join with him in approving the communiqué. I join with him also in thanking Senator Mitchell and his colleagues on the international body. We all appreciate that these busy people, each of whom bears heavy burdens in his own country, have taken on the additional task in working to assist us on this island.

Political deadlock has been allowed develop particularly since the launch of the Framework Document. One would have thought that those in Government would have appreciated how important it was following 25 years of violence that the domestic process would be seen to produce viable results. Before the ceasefire the British Government was impatient to launch all-party talks but there has been a long delay.

Confidence in the peace process in sections of the Northern Nationalist community prior to the Clinton visit had sunk to a low ebb after months of political stagnation. Disturbing question marks were beginning to be raised about the solidity of the ceasefire. There was a feeling that the Government was not presenting the Irish case with sufficient vigour and that the British Government and the Unionist parties were laying down terms, with only a limp response coming from Dublin.

President Clinton by his visit has further internationalised the issue and underlined the United States support for those committed to making progress in the peace process. My main source of confidence in the future is the fact that public opinion, North and South, overwhelmingly wants to see progress in consolidating the peace. It is also encouraging that the United States is prepared to continue to act as a strong supporter of the peace process and as the ultimate guarantor of fair play. As an American columnist put it in the Sunday Times last weekend, President Clinton on his visit to London reinstated the “special relationship” because John Major agreed to move forward negotiations over Ireland just before the President arrived. No doubt the strength of the “special relationship” will assume among other things a British commitment in good faith to organise all-party talks.

While supporting the twin track process I have some serious reservations about aspects of the communiqué of 28 November. I hope it did not represent simply a hasty fudge under pressure of the imminent visit of the United States President, Mr. Bill Clinton, or simply a time-buying exercise designed to move the roadblock up the road.

I trust the cynical remarks of Simon Jenkins published in the London Times on Saturday, 2 December, do not represent the real British Government agenda. He said:

The danger for Mr. Major is that the so-called peace process might now move from stall to forward gear. Ever since the ceasefire, he has been able to pander to the Unionists' insistence on the IRA "decommissioning" its weapons, which he and they know to be a nonsense .... Mr. Major must struggle to re-establish a plausible inertia that will last at least another 18 months.

I continue to regard it as unfortunate that the Irish Government accepted two potential built-in stalling mechanisms in the communiqué of 28 November. I do not propose to repeat in great detail arguments I have already made but the last sentence of paragraph 3 of the communiqué we consider to be deeply unwise. It reads:

These preparatory talks may also extend to all steps required to establish the necessary circumstances to bring the partners together at the negotiating table in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Downing Street Declaration.

That gives the Northern parties a direct say in determining Sinn Féin's eligibility to participate in all-party talks when, under the Joint Downing Street Declaration, it is solely a matter for the two Governments. As far as the Irish Government is concerned, that issue was determined long ago. It should be extraordinarily careful about tampering with any part of the basis of the original ceasefires.

De facto the British Government now has no difficulty talking to Sinn Féin on the same basis as other parties, although the British Prime Minister will not meet Mr. Gerry Adams. The logical conclusion of all ministerial contact and dialogue between the British Government and Sinn Féin surely is that, after 15 months' ceasefire, Sinn Féin is entitled to participate in all-party talks on the same basis as any other party. It seems to me that this clause in paragraph 3 of the communiqué positively invites hostile parties to create new preconditions or extend existing ones. There is already some evidence that is happening.

The position of the Ulster Unionist leadership is little more consistent than that of the British Government. For example, Mr. David Trimble had no difficulty meeting a loyalist party a couple of weeks ago to urge them to move first on decommissioning. If he can speak with loyalists while they still hold all their weapons — I am not criticising him for doing so since I have been doing so since the beginning of this year — what is the difference in principle involved in his party speaking with Sinn Féin as the Belfast Telegraph has been consistently urging them to do almost daily?

There is another stalling mechanism waiting in the wings in the event that the international commission on decommissioning is able to achieve any breakthrough, that is the idea of an assembly which receives unnecessary endorsement in the joint communiqué. Fianna Fáil is not opposed to an assembly as part of a three-stranded agreement encompassing the totality of relationships. We merely object to the idea of bringing it forward in advance of any negotiations or even a commitment to them. If the assembly idea is accepted — in which all Unionists parties would participate along with Sinn Féin — one must ask what was the point of wasting all these months arguing about decommissioning if it will be irrelevant? I am amazed at the manner in which British political parties are climbing on the assembly bandwagon, assuming that the international commission will fail to resolve the problem before it has even begun its work. Already the idea of an assembly has been mooted as a back-up device, whether or not the decommissioning issue is diffused, for further stalling progress to all-party talks.

The idea of placing three-stranded talks within a Strand I context is unacceptable to Nationalists, particularly when, at the same time, they see the Ulster Unionist Party endeavouring to write Strand II — the North-South strand — out of the agenda. I would like to be assured that a deal or understanding has not been negotiated between the two Governments in relation to an assembly which, taken alone, would represent a considerable advance toward a purely internal solution.

I find it strange that, while the business community, North and South discuss the island as a natural economic zone for business, the Unionists challenge the whole concept. I regard it as a serious development that Baroness Denton, a junior Minister in the North, criticised the idea agreed by her Government in the Framework Document — that of North-South bodies with executive powers. I hope our Government will make forceful representations about this apparent retreat by a British Minister from the Framework Document, to which they are in honour bound, before negotiations even begin.

I am puzzled by the Government's relaxed attitude to the attempt to substitute an assembly for all-party talks promised in paragraph 10 of the Joint Downing Street Declaration. We do not require a bad tempered debating Chamber; rather what we require is all-party negotiations. More firmness is required of our Government if it is to give the essential leadership that will underpin confidence in the peace process.

In addition, there are rumours about an electoral college or even an electoral index that would not involve an assembly. Is the electoral mandate of any of the main five parties in Northern Ireland seriously at issue? Elections could lead only to a further hardening of positions and the laying down of even more impossible preconditions. Would one of the purposes of holding early elections be an attempt by the Ulster Unionist Party to nip the small loyalist parties in the bud?

I hope the preparatory talks will concentrate on the main task of bringing about all-party talks by the end of February next on the same basis as the two previous rounds of talks held in 1991 and 1992. As was the case in preparing for the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in September and October 1994, I presume there are many practical questions to be decided about format, venue, agenda and numbers of each of the delegations participating. I am glad that in their communiqué the two Governments at least firmly endorsed the three-stranded approach, from which I trust there will be no departure.

I warmly welcome the establishment of the international decommissioning body under the chairmanship of Senator George Mitchell. My party intends to make a written submission to his body by Friday next. The purpose of our submission, will be to place the overall decommissioning issue within its political context. We will conclusively refute the notion that any precondition was built into the Joint Downing Street Declaration, or that it was a considered condition of either Government that they would insist on decommissioning in advance of talks prior to the ceasefire. Given the scale and sophistication of modern-day weapons, we have always seen decommissioning as essential but forming part of a wider demilitarisation of Northern society. Unfortunately, in the communiqué, the issue of paramilitary decommissioning was segregated from the response of the security forces to continued peace. We have not argued that paramilitary organisations should be treated on a par with security forces of the State operating within the rule of law, but we regard as a legitimate goal the creation of a normal, civil society in Northern Ireland without emergency provisions, with a background military presence for emergencies only and with a mainly unarmed police force.

The only way to approach disarmament is multilaterally. While the focus naturally is on the paramilitary weapons of the loyalists and IRA, the vast quantity of licensed firearms, approximately 140,000, also remain a threat to peace. No one will forget some years ago when Dr. Paisley and some of his colleagues climbed a hillside to exhibit their firearm certificates. Legally held weapons can be used for illegal purposes and to threaten the Nationalist population if they continue their legitimate democratic demands. In this respect, the recent outburst of Dr. Paisley on RTE was not reassuring.

In the past 25 years there have been a number of very controversial incidents, when members of the security forces acted beyond the rule of law and engaged in, or aided and abetted, terrorism, no doubt often on their own initiative or in collusion with others, with subsequent loss of life. In many such cases — especially where the British Army was involved — justice has not been done nor was it seen to be done. I should like to see established an institutional mechanism on the lines of the Truth Commission in South Africa, which would establish at least which organisation bore responsibility for killings in all instances where such responsibility has not been clearly acknowledged or established, or what really happened whenever real and independent findings have been suppressed. In this jurisdiction I regard it as particularly important to establish definitively the organisations and agencies responsible for the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974.

Those involved in or associated with paramilitary organisations have a crucial role to play in the current phase. Indeed, the quality of their contribution in the next phase may help to determine whether it is possible to move on. Both sets of paramilitaries are to be commended on the manner in which they have kept their ceasefires. It compares favourably with many other troubled regions worldwide. Their original decisions required considerable courage. Of course, we all deplore the inhuman punishment beatings, which highlight the urgency of an acceptable reform of policing and which undoubtedly detract from the political respect accorded both sets of organisations who have most to gain from their cessation.

Republicans and loyalists alike should seize the opportunity afforded by the establishment of the Mitchell-chaired international commission and make the best possible use of it. It is time for the initiative to move back from the British Government to the people. I deplore all those who, by insisting on hardline attitudes and preconditions, narrow the room for manoeuvre and endeavour to marginalise the commission's important functions. I regard that as a discourtesy to the President of the United States of America.

The work of the commission has two important aspects, first to extract a guarantee from both sides of their exclusive unconditional commitment to the democratic peace process in their own terminology. On that basis alone, it would be very difficult for anyone to continue to exclude them. There is no value in anybody pretending to keep options open when in reality there remains one sane option only, the path of peace and democracy. To foster lingering doubts on the durability of the ceasefires is politically counter-productive and provides further excuses for inaction, and alibis for others not to treat republicans and loyalists with respect. The second requirement that might reasonably be sought and complied with is some definite indication of how it is proposed to carry out decommissioning in a verifiable manner, when the time arrives, either as part of confidence-building measures agreed in the course of the talks process, or as part of a negotiated settlement. We will be putting forward some concrete suggestions in this area.

The peace process has hitherto been sustained by the prisoners, among others. Over the past 12 months the Irish Government has, as promised, approached the issue in a progressive, enlightened and humane manner, and has released many of the prisoners from Portlaoise. I hope that further steps will be taken by the Government in the next ten days to release most of the remaining politically notivated prisoners belonging to organisations that have upheld the ceasefires.

The handling of the prisoners issue by the British Government has in contrast been deplorable, and on this issue it is not Unionist opinion that can plausibly be cited as the main obstacle. I welcome the transfer of Paddy Kelly today, but it is far too late. A retired British judge recently described the regime being run by the Home Secretary as "despotic". Gareth Pierce gave a graphic account to the forum a few weeks ago of the unjust treatment being meted out to long-term paramilitary prisoners in Britain. I have also had firsthand accounts from Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, who has given good service to this House by his regular contact with and visits to the prisoners. All those who have served more than 20 years, in some cases for offences that fell short of murder, should be released this Christmas without further ado. The restoration of the 50 per cent remission represents a minimal first step, which must be improved upon. There is a pressing need for the British Government to adopt a completely different and more forward approach.

I am glad the British Prime Minister, John Major, is coming to Ireland next week. He has in the past given considerable service to the cause of peace, which we will always respect. I hope when he comes he will have an opportunity to listen to genuine concerns about the management of the peace process. We need more generosity and magnanimity and less confrontation. The commission should be allowed to get on with its work. There is a need for an improved relationship between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister. The breakthrough in the peace process that came with the Downing Street Declaration and the ceasefire came about because, despite considerable doubts and hesitations, the British Prime Minister was willing to listen to the Taoiseach's predecessor and take advice from him on many occasions. The stalling of the peace process since early February has come about because, for whatever reason, the advice of the Taoiseach has ceased to be listened to. I hope the Prime Minister's visit during the week, on the eve of Christmas, will contribute to altering that state of affairs. We will watch with interest.

Miss Harney

I am happy to support the motion proposed by the Government on the joint communiqué and the twin track approach. Two weeks ago when we discussed the communiqué I wholeheartedly welcomed it. I said at the time it was the best the Government could have done in the circumstances. I still believe, on reflection, that is a fact. I do not believe the two Governments could have advanced the process any more than they did in the joint communiqué and in the launch of the twin track approach. On that occasion I also commended the efforts of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and, indeed, the Minister for Social Welfare, who is deeply involved in this process. I would like to reiterate those words of congratulation today.

Since the launch of the communiqué and the debate here two weeks ago, there have been a number of significant developments. First, there was the extraordinary visit of President Clinton. That visit cast a spell of new hope and optimism not just across the Republic but throughout the island. The scenes outside Belfast City Hall and the Guildhall in Derry were moving and heartwarming. To see the yearning of ordinary people for a continuation of peace was something that genuinely touched everybody who saw it. That it was the American flag, not the Union Jack or the Tricolour, that was being waved confirmed for all of us the unifying effect the United States can have in relation to the conflict in Northern Ireland. They can be and are a force for bringing a people together. I was very struck during my meetings with President Clinton by his desire to have an even-handed approach; he did not intend to tell the parties in Ireland, either North or South, what to do. What he wanted to do was encourage and facilitate agreement in an even-handed and balanced way. I very much support that and I think it is a very positive factor.

It is quite clear from the scenes in Northern Ireland that ordinary people will show their outrage if any organisation or any faction wants to revisit violence and mayhem on the people of Northern Ireland. I hope the paramilitaries on both sides take that on board.

Since President Clinton's visit we have had the IRA statement, the response of the leader of the Official Unionist Party to the invitation from the Irish Government to have preliminary talks, and we have also had a much wider debate than heretofore about the idea of an assembly. I want to talk about a number of those issues in my contribution today rather than repeat what I said two weeks ago.

The IRA statement was chilling and depressing. I suppose at many levels it was really a restatement of their entrenched position, but coming as it did in the aftermath of the Clinton peace mission I found it very depressing indeed. It is clear that the IRA will not voluntarily — they may not even be open to persuasion — hand over the arsenals of guns and explosives in their possession. It is quite clear from their statement that they regard the suggestion of handing over anything as ludicrous, whether through the front door or the back door.

I was taken by an article today in The Irish Times written by Vincent Browne who saw some positive features. On reflection, there probably are some positive features in the IRA statement, depressing as I thought it was on first reading. Vincent Browne referred in particular to the second paragraph of the IRA statement where it is stated: “We noted that a solution to the conflict would only be found as a result of inclusive negotiations”. He focused in on the word “only”. That must mean, and hopefully does mean, that the IRA accept that murder, violence and the use of the weapons of war that they have used for 25 of the last 26 years is not the way to resolve the conflict in Northern Ireland. In so far as they acknowledge that I welcome it. They went on to say that the twin track approach was the way forward. I acknowledge the positive element that that represents as well, and I would like to think we are fair. However, their statement raises various questions about the capacity of Sinn Féin to speak with authority before the Mitchell commission in relation to IRA arms. That commission must have a very wide remit. It must deal not only with the issue of arms but also with the issue of punishment beatings and intimidation. Only last weekend members of Sinn Féin went to the Donegal Celtic football team and persuaded them not to play with the RUC. That kind of intimidation and thuggery must also be part of the agenda of the international commission.

My party will be making submissions to that commission tomorrow because we were invited to do so. It is important that all parties who have views about this issue should put forward their views. My views on decommissioning are quite simple. In the context of this island I want to see all arms, particularly all the illegal arms, either surrendered or destroyed. While that is the aim, I accept verification of that process is virtually impossible. I also accept that it is always possible to make new explosives or acquire new weapons. In the short-term what the paramilitaries have to do is make a gesture. What we are talking about is the creation of conditions whereby all-party talks can be successful, and all party talks cannot commence unless all parties come to those talks or unless we create the circumstances where it would be virtually impossible for parties to stay away. We have to create an environment where no party will have any just reason to stay away from the talks. Those circumstances do not exist at the moment. It is not unreasonable to ask the paramilitaries on both sides to make a gesture to show that they are willing to travel down the road of decommissioning. We have to ask ourselves if their political representatives are really committed to peace if they are not prepared to travel down the road of getting rid of some of the semtex and weapons of war that they have in their possession.

I also believe that Sinn Féin in particular may consider giving a solemn declaration. I have spoken with Unionist representatives in recent days on this matter, and it would be helpful if Sinn Féin were to make it clear that they will not support the use of violence to oppose what the majority in each community in Northern Ireland agree to in the context of all-party talks. In other words, if the majority of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland and the majority of the Unionist community are prepared to agree to a particular political settlement, Sinn Féin and the IRA will not use violence to oppose that.

It does not matter if that declaration is put in an all Ireland context for theoretical historical reasons. The people in the South of Ireland will agree to anything that is acceptable to the majority in both communities in Northern Ireland. A solemn declaration of that kind which the commission may consider may be helpful as far as moving the process forward is concerned and at least make it possible for Unionist politicians to begin to talk with those who targeted, killed and maimed many of their community over the past 25 years.

The response of the Official Unionist Party was unhelpful and insensitive. The Cold War language, describing the Government of the Republic as a foreign Government, was insensitive to the feelings and identity of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland. We can move the process forward and have a political settlement only when we have a partnership and consensus in Northern Ireland with which Nationalists and Unionists feel comfortable. That will only happen if there is compromise. We cannot have a partnership or consensus unless both sides are prepared to compromise and respect the identity and aspirations of the other community.

I found David Trimble's Cold War language insensitive. He is not prepared to enter into discussions with the Irish Government at this preliminary stage and that is unhelpful. If we look at the resolution of conflicts around the world, whether in the Balkans, South Africa or the Middle East, we will realise that people must talk to each other. I hope Unionist politicians will come out of their political bunker and get rid of the "no surrender" or "not an inch" approach of the past 25 years. If there is any lesson to be learned in the politics of Northern Ireland over the past 75 years it is that majoritarianism is not a solution. We must move away from that if we are to have a genuine political settlement.

Trust is a two way measure. We need to create trust on the paramilitary and Sinn Féin republican side by having a gesture in relation to arms. Equally on the Unionist side we need to hear more sensitive language and a more open and helpful response to invitations from the Government of the Republic which, as far as Nationalists are concerned, represents their point of view and negotiates and works on their behalf.

The Government was right to ensure that the process and mechanisms established at the launch of the twin track approach provide for everything to be left on the agenda. That is very important. We cannot approach the commencement of talks if before they happen we rule out somebody's desired objective. Just as the Trimble response was unhelpful so too would it be unhelpful if we were to rubbish the idea of an assembly. We must keep an open mind.

However, I worry that in the context of elections in Northern Ireland Sinn Féin would fight them as part of a republican movement that insisted on holding on to its weapons. We would have a bitter campaign, marked by extremism rather than moderation. One lesson we can learn is that even the moderates are constantly looking over their shoulder at people who are more extreme. During elections when people are seeking new mandates they are often forced to adopt a more extreme position than they might otherwise. If they fight the elections as part of a republican movement that has not handed over its weapons, it will make no difference to the arms issue and at best we would have an ambivalent Sinn Féin at the negotiating table. I am not convinced that is helpful.

I know Dr. Alderdice has been persuasive on this matter. Some people take the view that there will not be all-party talks before the next British election. The process cannot sustain a vacuum of that length. Something must happen. Elections to talks may be a political solution to the impasse and we should consider that.

As regards moving the process forward the mechanism provided in the twin track approach is for the commission to look at the arms issue. Although the Governments will not be bound by its findings I hope all parties will accept its recommendations. I say that not knowing what the recommendations will be but we would be foolish to ignore an arbitrator's findings. We should be prepared to accept the recommendations of the expert group. It is expert not just in terms of personnel. I join with others in thanking George Mitchell and his fellow members of the commission for agreeing to serve. We owe them a great deal of gratitude. Much of the expertise in resolving conflicts in other countries will be available to them.

There is no point in having talks unless we are certain everyone will attend. By that I mean in particular the Official Unionist Party. I urge that party to be more open to preliminary talks. If the Government decides to have all-party talks in February there is an onus on those who genuinely want a political settlement to come to the table and put forward their view.

From my experience of the last round of talks, though I was not present at the end, we need to involve a small representative group of people — 60 to 70 people will not negotiate a settlement for Northern Ireland. That is unrealistic. The smaller and more representative the group the better. If we are to move the talks process forward and have a realistic possibility of having them in February or March it is important that the Government continue to adopt an open approach to everything including an assembly. If people genuinely put forward their preferred option then it is not helpful to rule it out straight away.

The talks, if they begin, will create their own dynamic. If people participate in talks they will be committed to them and we see that at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. I do not know what would have happened if Sinn Féin was not a member of the forum for the past year or so. At the forum, I find that genuinely engaging with those with whom one disagrees can have a positive effect in breaking down mistrust and prejudice.

I appeal to both sides, the Sinn Féin representatives and the Official Unionist Party, to get out of their political bunkers and not maintain the integrity of their own position. They should give the talks process and the twin track initiative a real chance. If they do not, five years from now we will still have the political vacuum of the past 25 years. The Unionists must realise the enormous positive opportunities that will arise from engaging in dialogue with the Northern Nationalist community.

Minister for Social Welfare (Proinsias De Rossa)

The joint communiqué of 28 November marked a major advance in the peace process and resolved the impasse that had existed for some time. We now have a mechanism for moving forward on the path set out in the Downing Street Declaration. It allows us as politicians to give our full attention to the political issues arising from the peace process and makes it possible to concentrate on the preparation for all-party talks, which it is our firm aim to commence before the end of February.

The outlook remains positive — despite the IRA statement of 8 December. The IRA was being true to form in that statement, but it did not close any doors that were opened by the ceasefire announcement of August 1994. Neither, of course, did it open the door to the immediate all-party talks Sinn Féin has been demanding.

The Republican Movement should take serious note of the national consensus in relation to arms decommissioning. Public support for decommissioning has not wavered since the issue first arose, and last week a national opinion poll showed that three quarters of Irish people believe the IRA should decommission at least some weapons prior to all party talks. Over half of these — 45 per cent of the total — favour complete decommissioning. This is not to overlook the fact that anyone who knows anything about Irish history will have recognised from the very beginning that the arms question will be one of the most difficult obstacles to overcome on the path to a political settlement and it has proven to be.

The arms issue has probably been the single biggest problem the two Governments have faced and the pursuit of a solution has taken countless hours of work on the part of political leaders and officials in Britain and Ireland. The arms stalemate has provided an impediment to progress on a wide range of political issues. It is clear, on the other hand, that if some progress can be made on the arms issue there would be a real hope that rapid movement could be made on other political issues. Nobody underestimates the huge problem facing Senator Mitchell and his colleagues in the international body. If they are to succeed they will need the good will and co-operation of all sides. Most of all, they will need a great degree of flexibility on the part of the paramilitaries and the British Government.

I understand the reason the British Government set out the three Washington `tests' — the need to establish confidence in those communities that had suffered so terribly at the hands of paramilitaries, that the ceasefires were genuine and that there would be no return to violence. Surely it is now reasonable for the British Government to accept that rigid adherence to Washington 3 has proven to be an obstacle to progress on other fronts and to say that not only will it accept other alternative approaches offered by the international body that will achieve the same results, but that it will actively assist Senator Mitchell and his colleagues in pursuit of such an approach.

In the same way, it is unrealistic for Sinn Féin and the IRA to continue to refuse to address the arms problem and to suggest that it can in some way be deferred to put in cold storage until political talks on a settlement have concluded. They must heed the democratic demand of the overwhelming majority of people on this island, expressed through all the political parties North and South other than Sinn Féin, and confirmed in opinion poll after opinion poll, who want to see progress on the arms issue. They must realise that failure to face the problem will not hasten all-party talks and a political solution, but delay and possibly stagnate the process. The Mitchell body provides a unique combination of political and military experience from three countries which, I am sure, will provide a solution. Rejection by any side of any reasonable formula it comes up with would be an act of gross irresponsibility and make exceedingly difficult the pursuit of the principles outlined in the Downing Street Declaration.

The cynicism evident among all paramilitaries in relation to so-called punishment beatings does nothing to create the confidence and trust that are essential to political dialogue. The level of cynicism is reflected in the description of these beatings by a republican spokesperson as "a social problem", and by the apologia offered by a loyalist spokesperson for what he sought to portray as acts of justice sought by the community. Let us be clear what we are talking about. The punishment beatings and shootings are criminal acts of violence. They are carried out simply and solely as an exercise in paramilitary control and power. The paramilitaries could make a significant contribution to the peace process if they were to desist from future beatings and put their faith in politics. This would enhance the prospects for inclusive political dialogue which can be productive only if conducted against a background free of violence and intimidation.

All parties and politicians have an obligation to ensure that all-party talks take place in the best possible climate. This requires an end to recriminations, threats and ultimatums. Furthermore, it requires various political leaders to seek to moderate unrealistic expectations, on the one hand, and to stop doom-laden predictions, on the other.

The tone for productive all-party talks was set by President Clinton when he said in Belfast: "Violence has no place at the table of democracy." This was further underlined when he said that "engaging in honest dialogue is not an act of surrender: it is an act of strength and common sense." Mr. Clinton's statements during his visit were remarkable for the understanding of the issues they reflected, and laudable for their even-handed approach. Not alone did he strike the right note, but he got the balance right as well. The public response to his visit, both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the majority of people on this island support peace and are opposed to any resumption of the armed conflict that cast a shadow over this island for a quarter of a century.

The vast majority of people want peace, and they want a settlement that grants equal rights to all and superior rights to none. It is for us as politicians, in dialogue with others, to facilitate such a settlement. Flexibility is required if we are to arrive at our common destination. Realistically, no party will get everything it wants, and the sooner all parties reconcile themselves to this reality the better. The sooner we get the all-party posturing over and done with, the sooner we can get down to the business in hand. Of course, some parties are more comfortable with posturing than with politics. The prospect of a fight to the finish is more attractive to some than the challenge of a political strategy. The politics of grievance and the politics of siege are less demanding than the politics of accommodation. Less demanding, certainly, and most definitely, less rewarding for society, in particular, the people of Northern Ireland.

This is the nature of the challenge that faces some parties at this stage of the peace process. Real courage is called for to meet the challenge — not the courage to issue defiant statements in the dead of night, but the courage to leave the past behind and take a new approach to the future. A new approach is necessary when we realise that Northern Ireland has been living through the most protracted conflict in modern Irish history. This has left a mark on society that ceasefires alone cannot erase. Trust has to be established and the hurt and anger acknowledged. The depth of the hurt and anger was evident during the confontations in the summer, while the church and hall burnings show that sectarianism remains an unpleasant fact of life in Northern Ireland. Time is needed to build trust. Time will also provide the opportunity to develop and devise a new political culture in Northern Ireland, a political culture that is accommodating and inclusive, not just of different national allegiances and moral viewpoints, but which also advances the equality of men and women, which is committed to sustainable economic development, and which is committed to a participative democracy in place of the rigid and sectarian thinking that has held sway for so long.

The joint communiqué has, in President Clinton's words, "opened a promising new gateway to a just and lasting peace." The Government is determined that this promise will not be lost to intransigence or obduracy, but that it will be realised to the full. Common sense tells us that we are embarked on a long and difficult journey. The last thing we need is back-seat drivers telling us to take this short cut or that short cut, or we will not arrive on time. We want everyone to play their part in removing road blocks, and in building bridges. We want all parties to accommodate each other so that all can arrive safely at a settlement with which we can live comfortably.

Mr. D. Ahern

Contrary to what the Taoiseach said this morning on the Order of Business, at each Whips' meeting for the last four weeks I, as Whip of my party, have requested an opportunity to discuss matters related to the peace process in a full debate and have been refused. The original proposal in relation to this motion on the joint communiqué was that it would be taken without debate. At our insistence the Government begrudgingly gave us a two hours debate.

I listened intently to what the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, said and was surprised, not necessarily by what he had to say — much of which I agreed with — but by what he did not say. He did not take what was his first opportunity in this House to comment on the letter in The Irish Times last Saturday from the former Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, who wrote in trenchant terms about what happened in the discussions on decommissioning, putting on the record his recollection of what had occurred. The content of the letter suggested that the former Taoiseach knew that if the issue of decommissioning had been made a pre-condition prior to the ceasefires, we would not have had peace on this island for the last 17 months. He was quite blunt on this point and referred to the much quoted transcript of the Tánaiste's contribution in the Dáil of 15 December 1993, the afternoon of the Joint Declaration, to the effect that the establishment of a permanent cessation of violence meant the handing up of arms. Deputy Reynolds stated that wording had not come up in prior discussion in the Government and felt the Tánaiste had changed his opinion since then. He writes: “In fact, he has ever since consistently and even trenchantly expressed the opposite point of view.”

At another point in the letter, Deputy Reynolds wrote:

In return for not insisting on such a gesture [of decommissioning, prior to the ceasefire and talks, I was assured that it was accepted by those concerned that the decommissioning of weapons... would be dealt with during the process of reaching a negotiated settlement.

This goes to the core of the issue we are addressing, the twin-track approach. This side of the House welcomes the fact that the Clinton visit gave the process a new impetus which, unfortunately, had been lacking over previous months. The visit put in place the dynamic of the twin-track approach, from which one hopes there will be no going back. However, even since the approach was adopted, there has been some reversing of attitudes.

In a way, the Clinton visit drew Sinn Féin further into the peace process, as Deputy Reynolds had done previously. When the former Taoiseach shook hands with Mr. Gerry Adams, some people suggested he had done so too soon but it had the effect of bringing Sinn Féin much further into the political process.

As he rightly pointed out, it was always the view of both the previous and present Irish Governments that a unilateral gesture on decommissioning prior to talks is neither politically nor practically realistic. That is not to say that we on this side of the House are in any way weak on the issue of decommissioning; we have always said it is one of the major points — perhaps the most important — that must be addressed in relation to talks. The Taoiseach was quite blunt about this at the launch of the joint communiqué two weeks ago. He said that in the opinion of him and his Government — the same opinion expressed in Deputy Reynolds's letter — it was unrealistic to expect decommissioning would take place in advance. That is the way we should proceed and the reason the twin-track approach was put in place was to examine how Sinn Féin, the Unionists and the British Government could be released from the hook on which they have unfortunately caught themselves.

I have no doubt that if Sinn Féin participates it will, in effect, be speaking for the IRA. I accept there may be a public divergence of views but given what happened in the run-up to the ceasefire, Sinn Féin will have the right to speak on behalf of the IRA and will be able to bring it along. When the commission meets, one of the first things it must receive from Sinn Féin and all the parties participating on the loyalist side is an unequivocal affirmation that there will be no return to violence. It is also necessary that a huge amount of detail on the whereabouts of all the arms caches on the island should be given. Further, as our party leader said, there are 150,000 legally held weapons in the Unionist community, not to mention the weaponry and explosives in the possession of loyalists. There is an imbalance of emphasis on Provisional IRA armaments, when less than a year ago, my home town was subjected to letter bombs and other bombs from loyalists. Just as the prisoners' issue must be dealt with in an even-handed way, so must the question of disarming.

Our party leader also referred to the outburst by Dr. Paisley. While I do not wish to over-emphasise what might have been said in the heat of the moment, when arms certificates were displayed on the side of a mountain some years ago, he undoubtedly told his interviewer that the Unionist and loyalist people would use every means at their disposal and fight to the death against what they saw as the road to a united Ireland. It is important the issue be tackled on an even-handed basis, which is why this House should encourage all parties to participate in the decommissioning process.

When I questioned the Taoiseach earlier today, he seemed to think we should not ask him how other parties feel. This side of the House has pinpointed the change of emphasis which has, unfortunately, occurred in the Ulster Unionist Party, which seems to be concentrating on the internal settlement of the detriment of the North-South link. It suggests this may not be required any more and that the link should rather be east-west. We support the three stranded process, as we have always done, and welcome the fact that the Government and the Tánaiste continually refer to that process.

The UUP is going back on what it originally agreed — its proposal on the assembly is one aspect of that — and the Taoiseach and the Government have not been strong enough in rejecting it. They may say they cannot reject it because it would be seen to to be making pre-conditions. I fully accept that but if greater credence is given to the view that an assembly would be possible without giving equal emphasis to the other strands, it will be detrimental to the process. I exhort the Government to clarify its position.

I agree with our party leader on paragraph 10 of the Downing Street declaration, which has been quoted verbatim by the Northern Ireland junior Minister, Mr. Ancram, and by the UUP as the condition for participation in talks. The view taken by the previous Irish Government — and by the current Government until recently — was that Sinn Féin had fulfilled its requirement in that it had participated in the Forum. As said during Question Time, circumstances have changed even since the start of the Forum, whereby the British Government finally sent its representatives in the shape of its Ambassador and members of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body. It is important to emphasise that the conditions were created and that those people participated and are, participating.

I exhort the Ulster Unionist Party, in particular, to participate in the twin-track approach and to give it its full support. The Belfast Telegraph— which would, to a certain extent, side with it — asked that it participate in direct talks, whether in private or public, with a party such as Sinn Féin.

Mr. Dukes

I propose to share my time with Deputy Jim O'Keeffe.

Acting Chairman (Mr. T. Foxe)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Dukes

I have a number of discrete points — in the sense that they are not linked together to make any particular case — to make about this communiqué. They may be indiscreet in a political sense but this is the place where we should be indiscreet if we are ever to get to the bottom of the discussion we are having at the moment.

The abbreviation of debating time on this and other issues and the restriction of Members to very short times is a downside of the Dáil reform undertaken by the last Government and continued by this one, which has done a great deal of damage to political debate in this House on issues such as the one before us.

Mr. D. Ahern

They did not want any debate.

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy should make his political point when he is speaking and not interrupt me.

Mr. D. Ahern

I did.

Mr. Dukes

A recent opinion poll indicated that a majority of the public reject the Sinn Féin stance on the decommissioning of IRA arms. I fully endorse that rejection. The two Governments, London and Dublin, have made it clear that if an agreement can be concluded they are prepared to take whatever constitutional steps are necessary to accommodate and underpin that agreement. The IRA, however, is not prepared to take an analogus step. We have been told for over a year that the cessation of murder cannot be described as permanent because the republican movement is, according to its constitution, obliged to retain the right at all times to resort to arms. In other words, every other party to these discussions must be prepared to alter its constitution but the republican movement is not prepared to so do. That fact should be on the record.

I call on Sinn Féin to stop shifting its ground. Deputy Ahern seems to have more insight into this than I do. I would have liked the opportunity to find out more about why. Sinn Féin told us some time ago that it could not speak for the IRA. More recently, when the decommissioning argument seemed to be going Sinn Féin's way, it gave us to understand that it could speak on the decommissioning issue for the IRA. In the last week, however, now that the argument seems to be going against it, Sinn Féin has reverted to saying it can speak authoritatively only for itself. Which is it to be or are we to conclude that on this, as on other issues. Sinn Féin can only be authoritatively ambiguous?

Neither Sinn Féin nor the IRA has the right to require a Government to negotiate on troop levels or on the extent to which its police force is armed. No democratic government could possibly enter into an agreement to even conduct such a negotiation and no other democratic government should give even the most indirect demand that this be done. That, I hasten to add, is entirely a different matter to a discussion on the brief and organisation of a police force.

The spectre of a return to violence has been raised in recent weeks. It should be made clear that some of us see through the rhetoric. The IRA ceased its campaign of violence for one simple and obvious reason: murder was losing the political battle. A return to murder would incur immediate and massive political losses for the IRA and their sympathisers, fellow travellers, apologists and mouth pieces, and they know that. The question has already been raised as to whether punishment beatings are some kind of sick safety valve.

The peace process would be advanced if politicians and commentators, who should know better, were to stop immediately making utterly irrelevant and spurious comparisons between the process here and recent events in Israel and South Africa. I am sorry that I do not have the opportunity to make a more connected series of comments but I would like to feel that the views I expressed will be taken into account in the ongoing discussions.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The main function of the international body chaired by Senator Mitchell is to advise on a method for a verifiable decommissioning and to report whether there is a clear commitment by those holding arms to work constructively to achieve that. I can understand the view of paramilitary organisations reluctant to hand up their arms. They can point to history, tradition and examples of conflict in other countries and attempt to justify their reluctance to decommission pending a political settlement. What they cannot in any circumstances justify is the epidemic of violence giving rise to the enormous number of barbaric beatings now so much part of the scene in portions of Northern Ireland. This violence is underpinned by intimidation which is reinforced by continued access to arms. I say to the IRA, in particular, who have been involved in 159 such atrocities since the creasefire, and also to the loyalists who have been involved in a lesser number, that an end to such barbarity would be clear evidence to the international body of a commitment to decommission. Acceptance of the rule of the law and respect for human rights will be two main pillars of any political settlement. Those involved in punishment beatings show continued contempt for both. Furthermore, they destroy their own credibility in that such heinous activity does not indicate a convincing commitment to exclusively democratic means in the future.

The twin track proposal envisages talks with a view to bringing all parties together for substantive discussions by the end of February. Such negotiations have no hope of success unless all parties are prepared to compromise. I would not expect any indication of compromise at this stage. On the other hand, it is not helpful of parties in Northern Ireland to retreat further into their traditional "no surrender" positions in advance of such talks.

Recently, David Trimble, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, rejected an invitation to talks in Dublin, reiterating the traditional Unionist contention that the Irish Government has no right to be involved in Northern Ireland affairs. As mentioned in The Economist this week, that argument ignores the reality of Anglo-Irish relations for the past ten years which have been solidly founded on a joint approach to the shared Northern Ireland problem. I say to David Trimble and the Ulster Unionist Party that they are in a unique position of strength at the moment in relation to the slim majority of John Major's Government in the UK, which is unlikely to continue after the next general election. Accordingly, they are now in a position to use that strength effectively to achieve much in negotiations. However, they should remember that the hallmark of negotiating strength is the willingness and ability to compromise to achieve an acceptable settlement at the right time. I suggest that now is the right time.

I mentioned that I did not expect any party to compromise on its basic position in advance of substantive talks. There is another aspect of such negotiations which is of concern to me. Any negotiations in which I have ever been involved, whether of a legal or political nature, have had their chances of success enhanced by being out of the glare of publicity. One of the difficulties at the moment is that every meeting of consequence in relation to Northern Ireland — and not just between prime ministers — is regarded as a summit requiring statements in advance and press releases thereafter. Such documents are parsed and analysed in a fashion which is not conducive to the achievement of effective results.

A political settlement in Northern Ireland will be as a result of a long, patient pilgrimage of negotiation and not as a consequence of instant comments or sound bites for television news. I recommend an approach to the negotiations which would permit the parties involved the space and confidentiality to reach towards one another, directly or indirectly, without prejudice to their basic position.

In relation to the United Kingdom, I understand that its Government has a slim majority. This may have certain consequences for its freedom of action. On the other hand, fortune favours the brave and, in relation to the next general election, a successful political negotiation for Northern Ireland is a worthy objective.

Moves which inflame the passions of even the most moderate Irish person, whether nationalist or unionist, are not helpful. I refer in particular to what seems to be a deliberate policy by the UK Home Secretary to effectively mistreat prisoners by denying them their rights in relation to release, transfers, medical treatment and visits. It would be conducive to a political settlement to have a less reactionary approach by the UK authorities.

My final message is for the Opposition, particularly Fianna Fáil, and that is that the best prospect for achieving success would be to adopt a bipartisan approach between Government and Opposition. The Opposition, in particular Fianna Fáil, should resist the temptation to make political capital out of difficulties with the peace process.

Dr. McDaid

I wish to share my time with Dr. O'Hanlon.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dr. McDaid

It is widely acknowledged that the visit of President Clinton gave a kick start to a peace process which had all the signs of coming to a standstill. No other American statesman has been so well briefed on the problems that have bedevilled Anglo-Irish relations for generations. He came, not as a partisan, but as a genuine honest broker who had already done a great deal to resolve much more complex problems in the Middle East and the former Yugoslavia. An honest broker is generally accepted as such by both sides and is allowed to proceed with the task of trying to achieve compromise unless, of course, one of the sides happens to be the British Government who insist that the rules are altered to suit its point of view. That is essentially what happened in this case. In recent years Britain frequently stressed that if only agreement could be reached in Ireland it would immediately leap to add flesh to its bones.

For the first time in a quarter of a century I have seen the smiling faces of happy pre-Christmas shoppers in the streets of Derry and Belfast. This has been brought about, not by any act of the British Government, but by the patient work of many people in Ireland, loyalist and Nationalist, in the past few years. Most of the work was done quietly and without publicity and it eventually achieved a ceasefire by the Provisional IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries in the autumn of 1994. Both groups made it clear that they meant what they said and 16 months later the guns are still silent.

In the post Downing Street Declaration period I had occasion to dine with Sir Patrick Mayhew and was impressed by his interest in exploring every possible angle in seeking a resolution to the then raging conflict. However, the inner workings of sections of the British establishment have always defied logic where Anglo-Irish relations are concerned. I do not doubt Sir Patrick's sincerity. I would give him the benefit of any niggling doubt I have and conclude that he has had to bow to the dictates of whatever mysterious office in London is in charge of throwing spanners in Anglo-Irish affairs.

I have a strong feeling that Her Majesty's Government would have been much happier if President Clinton had been detained by urgent business in Washington because what he had to say in Northern Ireland did not fit with their scheme of things at this time. The President's most notable speech was at Mackies in Belfast when he stressed that the risk-takers who had the courage to break with the past were entitled to their stake in the future. The fact that there was only one dissenting voice to this remark among a very mixed Belfast audience speaks volumes. However, Sir Patrick, with his colleagues in London, appears hellbent on shutting out the risk-takers for as long as possible by continuing to insist on preconditions that make no practical sense. This was the first snub to the President.

The second snub was delivered yesterday by Sir Patrick when he sought to put Senator Mitchell and his two eminent colleagues in what he regards as their proper place. He told us he would be one of the first people to meet members of the commission when they arrived in Belfast in a few days' time. He also let us know exactly what he would tell them — he would remind them that they are there only in the role of advisers and that the British Government would have the final word on decommissioning. This can only be regarded as a kick in the teeth to the Taoiseach who made it very clear that he had not agreed to the Washington 3 concept when he spoke at the recent Downing Street press conference. Mr. Major insisted that Washington 3 was carved in stone as far as he was concerned.

Last week I asked the Taoiseach if he agreed that many politicians in Northern Ireland had lost touch with their constituents in view of the extraordinary sight of 100,000 people from both traditions joined in a demand for peace. He agreed, but added that all politicians probably fall into a similar category from time to time. In any event, it is time to heed the words of the British Telecom advertisement, "It's good to talk".

The Northern problem is about people who have a sense of belonging to one tradition or another. It is surely possible to accommodate both by simply agreeing to the principle of honourable compromise. Nobody has ever been killed by talking. In the present circumstances those who refuse to talk are clearly saying that they are incapable of even considering compromise, even if it means risking the lives or well-being of children yet unborn.

My party has often been accused of thinking only in terms of reclaiming the fourth green field, irrespective of the wishes of Unionists. I dispute this by stating a few recorded facts. During World War II, when Belfast was in flames from a massive air raid, de Valera responded without a moment's hesitation to a call for help by sending every available fire brigade over the Border. He did not ask whether Unionists or Nationalists were in danger, nor was he concerned about the implications of breaching neutrality. In the 1960s we had the dramatic visit by Sean Lemass to Stormont in a spontaneous gesture of friendship. He was not concerned about possible accusations of betrayal by recognising the existence of a Northern Government. At the beginning of the 1980s Charles Haughey, in negotiation with Margaret Thatcher, laid down firm guidelines which indicated that no settlement of Ireland's problems would be attempted without the consent of Unionists. On his return to Government in 1987 he played a pivotal role in the behind-the-scenes process I have already mentioned, which was designed from the first day to remove violence as either a means or a threat from the politics of this island. His successor, Deputy Reynolds, immediately took up the torch and brought it to the stage we are at today.

Those were the actions of leaders of my party and one has only to study his every word to realise that our present Leader, Deputy Ahern, is in the same mould as his distinguished predecessors.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I thank my colleague for sharing time with me. Like other Deputies, I am also concerned at the lack of movement in the peace process in the past 15 months. The joint communiqué created an opportunity for political movement and President Clinton's visit created the environment for rapid political movement, which I hope will be the case.

I am concerned at the lack of urgency on the part of the British Government in the peace process. I am also concerned that Strand II of the three stranded approach has been put on the back burner. I am sure all Members would acknowledge that there cannot be a settlement of the Northern problems within the Six Counties, settlement must embrace the three strands agreed in 1981 between Margaret Thatcher and Charles Haughey.

I welcome the establishment of the international body under the chairmanship of George Mitchell and hope it is successful. However, the approach must be even handed. We are all concerned about the amount of weapons in circulation, particularly those used to further political aims. It is important that not only IRA weapons but those of loyalist paramilitaries are handed up. I hope the international body also deals with the question of legally held weapons. A garda station and an RUC station are located within a seven or eight mile radius of each other in my locality. While there is no uniformed armed garda in the garda station, seven or eight miles down the road in the RUC station the police are heavily armed. In times of peace, it should not be necessary for police to be heavily armed. Their role should be community policing.

Apart from President Clinton, another important visitor came here earlier this year, Vice-President de Klerk, and I attended the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation to hear him. We are all aware of the problems experienced over generations in South Africa where two communities were at war. This resulted in anarchy. We have watched developments during the past five years with interest, for which President Mandela and Vice-President De Klerk should be applauded.

In an Irish context, Vice-President de Klerk made two significant points, the first of which was that we should not allow the momentum to slow down. In South Africa the National Party and the ANC ensured that no obstacle was placed in the way of progress. Unfortunately, the momentum of the peace process in Northern Ireland has been allowed to slow down during the past 15 months but follwing the visit of President Clinton, I hope it will begin to gather pace.

On the question of decommissioning, Vice-President de Klerk said that while he would have liked to have done more, if he had South Africa would not have progressed to the point where it is today. That is a significant message for everyone concerned, particularly for the British Government. While we would all like to see the international body succeed, it is essential that all-party talks commence, in keeping with the three stranded approach, to negotiate a settlement to ensure that all the people living on this island can live without fear of violence.

Ms F. Fitzgerald

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion on the joint communiqué agreed between the British and Irish Governments and congratulate the Taoiseach on this new initiative in the peace process which has restored hope, despite the many setbacks and difficulties. I congratulate the Tánaiste and his team of officials whose unstinting work is of critical importance in moving the process forward. The British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, also deserves to be congratulated given the delicate political situation in which he finds himself. He has shown motivation in getting the process back on track.

I agree with some of the comments about the British Government and the slowness of its response to certain issues, particularly the release of prisoners. Although progress has been made during the past year in which there has been an absence of violence, it is disappointing that it has been slow.

Apart from the political talks process, changes are taking place in other areas also. For that reason I wish to comment on the work of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, raise the question of the emergency legislation in place here and refer to the strong presentations focusing on the need for reconciliation made to the forum by a range of groups which believe that the needs of victims on all sides must be met appropriately and carefully if there is to be true reconciliation.

President Clinton's visit captured the celebration of and wish for peace, North and South. If there was ever an example of people power, we witnessed it on the streets of Derry and Belfast two weeks ago. The presentation by Vice-President de Klerk to the forum two weeks ago to which Deputy O'Hanlon referred has reinforced the importance of the international dimension, United States or South African involvement, or the involvement of key international figures. This makes a difference. As change occurs slowly, there is a need for such figures to make an input to give us the benefit of their thinking and experience.

It was extremely interesting to listen to Vice-President de Klerk speak about conflict resolution and the different processes used when the peace process in South Africa ran into difficulty. We can learn from this. While the same lessons cannot be learned as the problems are not the same, examining what has happened in other areas of conflict throughout the world can only prove useful. As we are all aware, it is all too easy for the same old voices and ways to predominate and for the same stereotyped comments to be made.

It was encouraging following President Clinton's visit to hear a different tone, but we then move backwards with the usual statements from the IRA and Unionist leaders. In coming months there will be ambivalence while people will engage in the process in different ways and at a different pace. This is inevitable, but we hope there will be movement.

It is important that the reaction of a broad range of people involved in the peace process is sought. We should hear more from women also, both within the political process and in communities. Hilary Clinton's meeting with women activists over a cup of tea in a small cafe is a powerful symbol of the contribution made by women in recent decades in the North. The work of these women is coming to the fore, which is healthy and useful.

I am privileged to have the opportunity to be involved in the forum. Sometimes the depth and breadth of its work can be lost. The contact and constructive discussion between the different delegations, in which there is give and take, are an important marker on the road to reconciliation. At the end of one year the benefits of this contact and confidence building can be seen. I hope agreement is beginning to emerge on broad principles which will prove useful when talks get under way.

More than 80 groups and 1,500 individuals have made an input to the work of the forum which is encouraging a broad spectrum of people to contribute. Compared to the work of the previous forum, the range of groups involved is much broader and there is a greater injection of contributions from the broad Unionist family. Contributions have also been made from a more developed voluntary sector. This shows that there is a wish for peace among a broad range of people on the island and an intolerance of those who will not get involved.

The work of the forum will act as a useful reference point on the issues when talks begin. The protection of human rights will be a core issue and the report of the forum will be a useful starting point, as will Professor Bradley's work on the potential of the island economy and the reports on the social history of the Protestant and Jewish communities and the changing demography of the country.

The report of the committee of which I am a member which identifies the obstacles on the path to reconciliation in the South will challenge the Government and the public to take action on a range of issues to reinforce progress in the health and education areas where we are trying to ensure that more pluralist provision is made, to provide for constitutional change, an examination of the way our own symbols are used and acceptance of the symbols of different cultures.

I welcome the decision of the BBC and UTV to televise the presentation made by Vice-President de Klerk to the forum. The response of the DUP to this decision was regrettable. It is hard to understand how a discussion on international conflict resolution could provoke such a response. I call on the BBC and UTV to consider televising the work of the forum in Northern Ireland.

The time is right to consider the emergency legislation here. I have been thinking about this matter for some time in the context of the discussions on human rights at the forum. I note that the Irish Council for Civil Liberties recently published a new document on this subject. The way this emergency legislation is being applied should be assessed.

The establishment of a truth commission should also be considered. I have met relatives who have lost loved ones as a result of paramilitary violence and they are anxious that such a commission be established. I would like the forum to consider inviting experts with experience in this area. While there are problems with such commissions in that they are not a straightforward mechanism this proposal merits consideration.

It became clear from presentations at the forum that the maintenance of peace and its extensions into permanence cannot be left to political talks alone. It is about reconciliation at many different levels and involves all sectors of the communities. The feelings of those who have lost families and their sense of whether justice has been done will form a critical part of real reconciliation. In that context a truth commission is something that should be considered.

I regret that there is not more time for Members to contribute to this debate. I am continually struck by the fact that there seems to be very little opportunity for many Members to contribute to debates on this issue. It tends to be confined to party leaders and senior Front Bench spokespersons. More opportunities should be available to discuss this issue and to highlight the work we are doing in the forum and elsewhere and the experience of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. Devoting more time to debating this issue would contribute to the process and it is something we should seek to achieve.

I hope the IRA will take note of the findings of a survey announced last week that 75 per cent of people surveyed in the South said that the IRA should surrender arms as a precondition for talks. That is a clear indicator of the views of people in this country. The challenge to the IRA is to enter the democratic process, to acknowledge that it can accomplish much more on behalf of Nationalists by providing a radical new dimension to politics in Northern Ireland. That is a hard road for its members. The future will show whether the IRA has the genuine interests of Nationalists at heart or whether by resuming intimidation or violence it will further destroy and polarise society in the North. If it does that, it will confirm that it serves no interests other than its own.

Mr. R. Burke

I share Deputy Fitzgerald's concern about the lack of adequate time to discuss this issue and the need for more Members to participate in debates such as this. We have asked consistently for a debate on Northern Ireland for the past number of weeks. I have no doubt that when we resume after the Christmas recess, Deputy Fitzgerald will join with us in a vote on the Order of Business to have a debate on Northern Ireland.

I welcome the launch of the twin track process coming as it does when the peace process has been stalled without talks for 15 months. In particular, I support President Clinton's involvement in bringing about the breaking of the logjam. It is a matter of regret that it took that great friend of Ireland, President Clinton, to make a European visit to London, the North and Dublin to bring about a change in attitude. His planned visit led to a midnight press conference announcing the joint communiqué on the night prior to his arrival. I will deal with the various faults of the joint communiqué later. Credit must be attached to it for breaking the logjam and the fact that the twin track approach is up and running. I publicly thank President Clinton for his involvement in that.

I also want to thank Senator Mitchell and his two colleagues who have taken on the task of dealing with the decommissioning issue. In the short timeframe available to them, it is welcome that they have got down to work and I ask all sides to co-operate fully with Senator Mitchell, a good and knowledgeable friend of Ireland who has no axe to grind and will adopt an even-handed approach. The statement issued by the IRA last weekend is regrettable, but I hope it will reconsider its position.

It is important to remember that as far back as January 1994 it was accepted that decommissioning was necessary, but the peace process and peace secured at the end of August 1994 was brought about without decommissioning being a precondition for talks. All right-thinking people in this country, and this was reflected in a recent opinion poll, would if the choice was theirs support decommissioning in advance of talks, but the reality is that the goalposts cannot be changed when the game is under way. The IRA and the Loyalists declared a peace and they have maintained it without the guns and bullets since the end of August and beginning of September 1994. After that peace process commenced the British Government requested decommissioning as a precondition for talks. It is a matter of regret that this rushed fudge of a communiqué announced on the night prior to President Clinton's arrival has complicated the matter further. The last sentence of Article 3 of the communiqué indicates a new veto for Unionist parties in relation to who will participate at what stage in talks compared to paragraph 10 of the Downing Street Declaration which made it clear that participation in talks was a matter for decision by the two Governments alone.

Decommissioning must go much further than decommissioning paramilitary weapons, desirable as it would be to achieve that immediately. It must also deal with the demilitarisation and decommissioning question of Unionist arms as well as the terrorist arms of the loyalists and the IRA. In the Unionists hands there are many hundreds of thousands of so-called legally held weapons and they must be the subject of decommissioning also. They must be taken out of the equation if peace is to prevail on this island.

We must strive to achieve a position similar to that in a normal civil society in which there is a small standing army to support civilian authorities. That can be achieved by the army in Northern Ireland. It could have a small standing army rather than the position that prevails. Such an army could back up a mainly unarmed police force, such as the one in the Republic. That is what we should aim to achieve and it is the approach we should adopt in dealing with the decommissioning issue. The approach should not be single-mindedly focused on terrorist weapons, important as that issue is.

On the overall question of political progress, it is a matter of regret that the reaction of the people of Belfast and Derry to President Clinton's visit, the reaction to his speech in Mackies, his visit to College Green, the Dáil and elsewhere, particularly the reaction of the hundred thousand people and more who went out on the streets of Belfast to greet him, was not reflected in the response by the leader of the Unionist Party, Mr. Trimble, to the invitation to participate in preparatory talks issued to him by the Tánaiste. It is a matter of regret that the Unionists would appear to be reverting to Strand I, an internal solution in the North and a relationship between the North and London without recognising that achieving long-term peace on this island requires an all Ireland dimension. That was recognised by both Governments in February of this year when they signed the Framework Document. It set out the considered view of both Governments as to how the administration of the North would be advanced in terms of its relationship with the South and its executive functions and the relationship between the two islands, but Mr. Trimble rejected that in his insulting response to the Tánaiste. Mr. Trimble's view is rejected not only by Government politicians but all politicians in this House.

In responding to a question on the Framework Document in the presence of the Taoiseach today, Baroness Denton said that she saw no need for executive powers in relation to functions between the North and the South. This goes against the contents of the Framework Document. It seems to this side of the House that the British Government and the Unionist party are happy with the peace but are not prepared to involve themselves in the type of meaningful talks that are necessary.

I acknowledge, as the Tánaiste did in his contribution, that we have approached this in a bipartisan way here, allowing for constructive criticism from our side, but it has helped, as he said, in solving the problem of the North. Bipartisanship does not mean there cannot be careful criticism. It is absolutely essential that the Government be firm in its negotiations with all parties, but in particular with the Unionist parties, to ensure that the Irish dimension of the solution to the problems we have had on this island since partition is upheld and fought for tooth and nail.

Minister for Justice (Mrs. Owen)

I welcome the opportunity to conclude this debate. It is widely acknowledged that the launch of the twin track process by the Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, and the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, in Downing Street on 28 November has given a new impetus to the peace process. However, it is not correct to say the peace process was stalled for the past 15 months. Very valuable and important work was done. It may not always have had the high profile of last week's launch of the twin track process but there has been significant discussion and networking and a number of important issues have been handled, not only by this Government but by the British Government and, indeed, Northern Ireland — issues relating to the release of prisoners here, and to the rate of remission. Contacts were made and dialogue resumed between people who, perhaps, had not spoken to each other prior to the ceasefire.

The Joint Communiqué has been broadly welcomed. It is seen as a means of breaking out of the recent impasse and creating a basis for real progress. We now need to build on that to secure what the Joint Communiqué seeks to achieve — the commencement, by the end of February next, of all-party negotiations directed towards a political settlement based on consent. Both Governments are committed to achieving that objective. The Joint Communiqué has not removed the obstacles to all-party negotiations but represents a means of transcending them. It will require all parties to engage in all aspects of the process in a real and meaningful way. The twin track process involves two complementary aspects, intended to establish the trust and the confidence that will be necessary to successfully launch all-party talks. The first track involves the commencement of intensive preparatory talks to secure the launch of all-party negotiations. They will be aimed at securing agreement on the basis, participation, structure, format and agenda for all-party negotiations for a political settlement based on consent. Agreement will be a prerequisite to all-party negotiations and the experience of the 1991-92 talks shows the necessity for a clearly understood basis for such talks which will allow all issues to be addressed.

The other element of the twin track process is the creation of an international body to provide an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue. That is a matter on which I, as Minister for Justice, have a special interest and in which my Department has been and will be involved in facilitating the work of the international body.

The mandate of the international body is set out in the Joint Communiqué. All members recognise that its task is a very difficult one and that it arises from a seemingly intractable problem caused by differing views in various parties as to when arms decommissioning should commence.

Both Governments want to see an end to the holding of illegal arms by paramilitary organisations in Ireland and would like to see this occur in the morning, if only that were possible. Indeed, Deputy Dukes and others referred to huge public support for the removal of arms from politics. Republican and loyalist paramilitaries who hold weapons must take cognisance of public opinion and recognise that they can assist the process of dialogue on the political front by showing a willingness to address decommissioning in a real way. This will require a deal of trust and foresightedness on their part as well.

The remit of the international body, requires it to provide an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue. Both Government are committed to considering, on its merits, any recommendation the international body makes. Because of its distinguished composition, independence and international stature, any recommendation it makes will rightly be seen by most people as carrying considerable weight and moral authority.

The international dimension now being introduced into the equation will, I hope point to new solutions and possibilities for building the climate of confidence and trust required to take the political momentum into all-party talks and transcend all preconditions. I do not under-estimate the task of the international body. The short time within which it has been asked to report will undoubtedly add to the pressures and impose a very heavy schedule of intensive consultations on it.

The international body will have offices in Dublin and Belfast. In making arrangements for its work in Dublin, great care has been taken to ensure its independent operation. All the staff and aides employed will come from outside the public service. The executive staff of the body will control access to the offices. Naturally, liaison officers have been nominated in the relevant Government Departments to facilitate the work of the body in this jurisdiction and provide any assistance required.

It has been agreed that operational costs, other than the cost of refurbishing and fitting-out office accommodation, will be borne equally by both Governments. These costs will accordingly, involve a charge on public funds. The main costs likely to be incurred are those related to remuneration for members of the body and its staff, travel costs and expenses on hotel accommodation and subsistence.

Given its operational independence and the nature of its work, it is not possible at this stage to arrive at precise estimates of the body's costs. It appears however, that the costs which will fall to be met in 1995 are likely to be relatively small and that the bulk of the expenditure will be incurred in 1996. Based on the information currently available on the body's work programme, a provision of £200,000 has been included in the 1996 Estimates for my Department to meet its cost.

The task being undertaken by the international body is a matter of the utmost importance, not only for the two Governments and the various parties but for all who are interested in consolidating progress towards lasting peace. We saw that interest in consolidating the progress today in this debate. The fundamental aim of the twin track process is to consolidate and advance progress towards inclusive dialogue and, with it, lasting peace in Ireland.

On this note, consolidation of the peace which we all so dearly value, it is appropriate that I should address some remarks directly to the organisations who hold arms illegally and whose co-operation is essential if arms are to be removed from the political equation in Ireland. They are not being asked to surrender. We ask them to recognise, that their fellow citizens deeply value peace but that they are concerned for its fragility and will continue to be so concerned until they know, for certain, that those who now hold arms will not resort to their use again as a means of advancing political objectives.

Some Deputies referred to punishment beatings and threats of intimidation. These actions are not acceptable to people seeking peace and they must be brought to an end. Apart from the pain and suffering caused, they add to the concerns to fellow citizens about the fragility of the peace process. We must ensure that these actions are brought to an end so as to create the climate of trust which will enable progress to be made.

One of the greatest gifts the paramilitary organisations could bestow on their fellow citizens is to co-operate directly or indirectly with the work of the international body. Deputies Ahern and Harney and others have urged the republicans and loyalists to take hold of this opportunity, to co-operate with the body and to make submissions. I welcome the announcement by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats that they will make submissions to the body tomorrow. It is important that those organisations avail of the opportunity to discuss their views with the international body in tandem with the intensive and proactive approach in the political track. I hope the aim of inclusive, round table negotiations on Northern Ireland will eventually be realised.

I thank all the Deputies who participated in the debate. Some of them referred to the time made available for it. I would remind them that this issue can be raised during questions to the Taoiseach every Tuesday and Wednesday. I am glad time has been made available today for a debate on this very important international body.

Question put and agreed to.