Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Feb 1997

Vol. 150 No. 4

Decommissioning Bill, 1996: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Justice (Mrs. Owen)

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the report of the international body which was presented to the Irish and British Governments in January 1996.

The international body was established to provide an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue. It was also asked to report on the arrangements necessary for the removal from the political equation of illegally held arms and, to that end, to identify and advise on a suitable and acceptable method for full and verifiable decommissioning and report whether there was a clear commitment on the part of those in possession of such arms to work constructively to achieve that. Its report, presented to both Governments on 22 January 1996, is a model of its kind and a reflection of the eminence and calibre of its three members — former US Senator George Mitchell, its chairman, former Finnish Prime Minister Harri Holkeri and General John de Chastelain. The Government had no hesitation on receiving the report in accepting it without reservation. It was equally welcomed by all the parties represented in this House.

The peace which prevailed in January 1996 has been broken without cause or justification by the actions of the Provisional IRA. That in itself does not invalidate the report. Nothing that has happened since the report was presented undermines the relevance of its central thesis or the coherence of its argument. That is why the Government remains committed to all aspects of the report and why the Government believes that it continues to offer the best possible framework for taking forward the issue of decommissioning as part of a twin track process in which progress can be made in parallel on that issue and political negotiations. That is also why the Government is committed to giving effect to the report's recommendations and to work with others to that end.

This Bill is an important first step in that direction. Its enactment will also be an important demonstration of our good faith in that regard. Central to the recommendations contained in the international body's report is the principle, which has guided the approach of successive Irish Governments, that a resolution of the Northern Ireland issue must be sought and established by exclusively democratic means. The international body accordingly recommended that the participants to all-party negotiations should affirm their total and absolute commitment to six fundamental principles of democracy and non-violence, including the principles that all paramilitary organisations be totally disarmed in a manner which will be verifiable to the satisfaction of an independent commission.

The international body equally recognised that decommissioning, in the sense in which that term is used in their report, can only be effected by those in actual possession of arms and in circumstances where they will be prepared to decommission. The body acknowledged that decommissioning could not be expected to happen in isolation and that, given the way in which the decommissioning debate had evolved, its resolution would require reassurance to be provided not only to those who previously sought prior decommissioning but also to those who had been persuaded to abandon violence. That is also reflected in the conclusion they reached that what was essential if the gun was to be taken out of Irish politics was an agreed political settlement and the total and verifiable disarmament of all paramilitary organisations.

The essentially voluntary nature of decommissioning is also reflected in the detailed recommendations which the international body made on the means of resolving the various practical problems associated with a process of total and verifiable decommissioning. It is also to be seen in their conclusion that many of the details of those recommendations should be left for future negotiation and agreement. This is a very important point because the Bill is not prescriptive in the way in which the terms of the legislation have been set down.

The essentially voluntary nature of any decommissioning was not only a key consideration for the international body but was also an important consideration in terms of drafting the Bill. It explains why certain important provisions of the Bill are enabling in character. The details of decommissioning, as recognised by the international body, will have to be determined by the parties themselves within the framework of all-party negotiations. In that connection the body specifically suggested that methods or modalities of decommissioning would need to be subject to negotiation and that the independent commission established to oversee the decommissioning process, whose precise role will crucially depend on the method of decommissioning eventually adopted, should be acceptable to all parties and appointed by the Governments on the basis of consultation with them. The enabling character of those provisions of the Bill concerned with the modalities of decommissioning and the commission reflect this aspect of the international body's report. I ask Senators to respect that the purpose of this Bill is to provide enabling legislation recognising the contents of the commission's report. There were some doubts in the Dáil about the purpose of this legislation, which by the time the legislation was debated were allayed.

Section 2 is one such enabling section and provides for the regulation power in regard to decommissioning by means of which I, as Minister for Justice, will have the power to make provision for the decommissioning of arms in this jurisdiction. In addition, it will permit the introduction by regulation of the four methods of decommissioning identified by the international body. These are:

the transfer of arms to a commission to be established by an agreement between the two Governments, or to the designated representatives of either Government, for destruction;

the provision of information to the commission, or to designated representatives of either Governments, leading to the discovery of arms for subsequent destruction;

the depositing of arms for collection and subsequent destruction by the commission or by designated representatives of either Government; and

the destruction of arms by those in possession of them.

The effect of the provision will be that I will be able to give effect to any combination of these methods of decommissioning or to other methods identified by the parties or any variation of them which may be agreed. The section will also permit the transfer of arms from one jurisdiction to the other for the purpose of decommissioning. The corresponding UK Bill — the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill — makes the same provision. Provision is also made in the section for regulations to deal with other matters relating to decommissioning, such as the locations at which decommissioning is to take place, the timing of that decommissioning and the procedures to be followed either generally or by reference to particular methods of decommissioning.

Another recommendation of the international body was that the decommissioning process should take place to the satisfaction of an independent commission to be appointed by the Irish and British Governments on the basis of consultation with the other parties to the negotiating process. It also recommended that the commission should be able to operate independently in both jurisdictions and enjoy appropriate legal status and immunity.

Section 3 makes provision for such a commission which it is intended will be established by agreement between the two Governments. As recommended by the international body, the section guarantees the independence of the commission by providing that it will be independent in the performance of its functions and provides that it will have the legal capacity of a body corporate. It also deals with the issue of immunity for the commission, which will be another important aspect guaranteeing its independence.

Section 4 will enable regulations to be made by the Minister regarding the commission. The precise nature of those regulations will depend on the role which the commission will be required to perform in the context of whatever modalities of decommissioning are agreed. Such a role under the section could include the making of arrangements for, and joining or assisting in, the decommissioning of arms; the taking possession of arms decommissioned; the observation, verification and supervision of the decommissioning of arms; the recording of information relating to the decommissioning of arms; the making of reports; and the facilitating and securing of the safe and secure movement, handling and storage of arms during and after decommissioning. The section also provides that the regulations may also provide for such matters as the membership of the commission, the terms and conditions under which members of the commission may hold office and staff may be employed, the provision of moneys, premises, etc., to the commission and other related matters.

Sections 5 and 6 are different from the earlier provisions of the Bill in that they contain substantive provisions directed to the position of those in possession of illegally held arms who participate in the decommissioning process. They provide protection for them in keeping with the recommendations contained in the international body's report. The body recommended that individuals involved in the decommissioning process should not be prosecuted for the possession of those arms; that amnesties should be established in law in both jurisdictions; that arms made available for decommissioning should be exempt under law from forensic examination; and that information obtained as a result of the decommissioning process should be inadmissible as evidence in courts of law in either jurisdiction.

Section 5 will introduce an amnesty linked to the decommissioning process by prohibiting the taking of legal proceedings by the State in respect of an offence in relation to any particular arms, provided that at the time of the commission of the offence the person concerned was engaged in the process of the decommissioning of those arms in accordance with regulations or arrangements; the regulations or arrangements were satisfied as respects both the person and the decommissioning; the decommissioning was taking or took place at a time or during a period specified in the regulations; and the act constituting the offence, or an act that is an ingredient of the offence, was a part of the process of decommissioning and was done in pursuance of regulations or arrangements under which decommissioning was taking place. These conditions are cumulative. All four conditions will have to be satisfied before the prohibition on proceedings can apply. This is to ensure that the section is not misused for unlawful purposes inconsistent with the purpose of decommissioning and to avoid doubt as to the circumstances in which the prohibition on the taking of proceedings will have application. The precise nature of the requirements which will have to be met before the prohibition will apply will, however, be a function of the regulations and arrangements made under the Act and therefore a matter for discussion with the parties.

The section also makes provision for regulations which may specify particular offences to which it applies should this be considered either necessary or desirable. It further provides that the prohibition on proceedings will not apply to an offence alleged to have been committed by the use of arms after they have been decommissioned. This latter provision is intended to meet the possibility of decommissioned arms being misappropriated and misused after their decommissioning.

Section 6 prohibits the forensic examination or the testing of arms or related material made available for decommissioning in accordance with regulations or arrangements. The prohibition will apply not only to arms themselves, but to anything resulting from the process of decommissioning; any substance or thing found on or in arms decommissioned; and anything on or in which arms were when they were decommissioned; or any substance or other thing found on or in such a thing. That prohibition is subject to certain specified and limited exceptions which are principally directed to ensuring that: (i) decommissioned arms or other substances can be handled safely, by allowing for testing for the presence, quantity and stability of ammunition, explosives or explosive substances and (ii) that the prohibition will not prevent the examination or testing of arms for the purpose of discovering information concerning an offence alleged to have been committed by the use of arms after they had been decommissioned.

The section will also prohibit the use by, or on behalf of, the State of arms or information, obtained in the course of, or as the result of, decommissioning, in criminal proceedings or in any appeal in relation to such proceedings. Also prohibited is the use by, or on behalf of, the State of evidence of anything done for the purposes of decommissioning in such proceedings or appeals. Again, the only exception to those prohibitions is where the arms, information, etc., would be relevant to proceedings in the case of an offence alleged to have been committed after the decommissioning concerned.

These are the core provisions of the Bill which are linked to the recommendations in the report of the international body. The other provisions of the Bill are in standard form. Section 1 contains the definitions and section 7 contains the general provisions in relation to the regulations which, in accordance with our standard practice, will require that regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and provides for a negative resolution procedure. Section 8 contains the standard form of expenses and section 9 contains the Short Title and commencement provisions.

These then are the provisions of the Bill which is the product of close consultation between my Department and the Northern Ireland Office, both of which have benefited from the valuable assistance of the Law Offices in each jurisdiction at all stages. That means the enactment of this Bill and the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill by the British Parliament will create a legislative framework capable of permitting a co-ordinated approach and admitted of mutually reinforcing provisions.

Its enactment, therefore, will represent an important step in creating conditions whereby the report of the international body can be translated into reality. Neither Bill will achieve that of itself and neither purports to do so. Much remains to be done not only to create the conditions where decommissioning will once again be possible, but also to translate the framework which both Bills create into practical schemes which will enable decommissioning to become a practical reality.

I pay tribute to the officials in my Department and the Northern Ireland Office for the detailed and dedicated work they have done over many months to bring these Bills to fruition. Sometimes it is harder to bring an enabling Bill to fruition than when policy is laid out to be put in legislative form. I assure the House that a great deal of detailed work was done and I pay tribute to the officials in this State and in Northern Ireland.

Much of that work should be taking place in the Northern Ireland talks, that is, doing the ground work so this Bill will be of practical use. The Government's approach to the decommissioning issue within the talks is based upon the international body's report and the approach it recommended. We have argued, and will continue to argue, that the issue must be informed by those key aspects of the report to which I adverted earlier.

It is a matter of great regret to me, as a Minister centrally involved in the process, along with the Tánaiste and Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Coveney, that agreement on the manner in which the decommissioning issue is to be addressed within the talks framework continues to elude us. More regrettable still is that this has held up the transition to substantive negotiations which are so important to the future of this island. The Government will not be deflected or deterred from pursuing such an agreement and I hope the enactment of this Bill will assist the process of seeking a resolution of that issue. This Bill was sought by those participating in the talks and who wanted to know why it was being delayed. It is now being passed through this House and will become law shortly. It is critically important that we find a means to make progress on both decommissioning and substantive negotiations simultaneously in accordance with the approach which the international body suggested and recognised as necessary.

Beyond what is happening within the talks, the most significant step that could be taken now which would open the way for progress to be made both in the political process and on decommissioning would, of course, be the reinstatement of the Provisional IRA's cessation of August 1994. The unequivocal restoration of the cessation would pave the way for Sinn Féin to enter the talks in accordance with the agreed basis for the participation of all parties set out by the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister of Great Britain in the joint communiqué of 28 February 1996 and reiterated in the ground rules for substantive all-party negotiations of 26 April last. This Bill will not create new preconditions for the involvement of Sinn Féin in the talks.

What it does do is create a framework, consistent with the recommendations of the international body, which will enable the gun to be removed from Irish politics forever. The Bill, therefore, can play its part in achieving progress towards a comprehensive political settlement of the Northern Ireland issue which will ensure that violence is never again used for political ends.

In the past few days excellent police work was done and serious bomb-making equipment was taken out of commission. I commend the Garda Síochána, which was involved in that. I would like to send a message to those who continue, despite the talks process, to prepare for and engage in violent activity by making bomb-making equipment and to prepare for a war which should have come to an end during the ceasefire. The time has come for such people to recognise that 27 years of violence did not achieve the ends they sought and will never do so. It is time for the cessation to be restored to allow Sinn Féin to enter the talks so that the work we are doing today in passing this legislation can be used to bring about substantive negotiations, the removal of guns, bombing-making equipment, Semtex and weapons from the equation and an end to punishment beatings and the threat of violence to many in Northern Ireland. If those with guns, bullets and bombs do not put them aside forever and involve themselves in the democratic process, the work we are doing in the talks and today will have little effect.

Mr. Mulcahy

Everybody in this House is committed to democratic politics and to using peaceful means to pursue whatever political objective in which they believe. We are discussing a Decommissioning Bill in circumstances where we are perhaps a million miles away from ever realising the decommissioning of arms in Northern Ireland. Why is that so?

The Minister will agree that this is a fairly thin and threadbare Bill which contains only nine sections and is little of substance. It only permits the introduction of regulations to set up a commission. By and large, this is the shell without crab or the outline without the substance. I am not surprised by that. Taking into account the period that has elapsed between the ceasefire in August 1994 and the amount of progress made since then, it would be virtually impossible for the Minister to introduce a realistic Bill on decommissioning. This begs the further question, what is the point of the Bill at this stage? The Mitchell report was published on 22 January 1996; why has it taken until now to produce the Decommissioning Bill? It was presented to the Dáil on 9 December but no one can say that 12 months' work went into this Bill — if it has, the Office of the Attorney General and the Minister's office must be on a go-slow. A Bill such as this could be drafted in a matter of weeks, if not days. Last year the Minister introduced and passed more complex legislation within weeks. This threadbare document represents the low water mark of this Government's contribution to the peace process.

Mrs. Owen

Senator Mulcahy is missing the point.

Mr. Mulcahy

It seems extraordinary that the Government is capable of such intellectual bankruptcy on this issue——

Mr. Neville

Rubbish.

Mr. Mulcahy

——that it could introduce such a Bill when we are a million miles from decommissioning. Why are we so far from the decommissioning of arms, which we would all welcome? Paragraph 4 of the Downing Street Declaration states:

The Prime Minister, on behalf of the British Government, reaffirms that they will uphold the democratic wish of the greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland. On this basis, he reiterates, on behalf of the British Government, that they have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland. Their primary interest is to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement among all the people who inhabit the island, and they will work together with the Irish Government to achieve such an agreement which will embrace the totality of relationships.

This solemn declaration by the two Governments, which took a long time to prepare through tortuous negotiations, formed the basis of and created the atmosphere for the IRA ceasefire of August 1994 and the loyalist ceasefire some months later. There can be no dispute about that. It is interesting to note that this document makes no reference to the decommissioning of arms.

I hope the Minister is prepared to accept that Mr. John Major significantly shifted the goalposts after the IRA ceasefire. The first obstacle he put in the way of the peace process was that the IRA must use the word "permanent"; the second was the decommissioning hurdle. These points are laudable in themselves. Everyone wants a permanent IRA ceasefire and the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons. We also want peace. The IRA exists because a certain atmosphere, a series of relationships and a cultural/historical mix exist in Northern Ireland which can fuel and enflame such an organisation. It does not exist in a vacuum. The genius of the Downing Street Declaration was that it was capable of smothering the flames of violence by offering everyone light at the end of the tunnel.

The question which must be put to Mr. Major is, if the decommissioning hurdle is jumped, what will be the next obstacle? I will be surprised if people who have been expected to jump these two hurdles will be happy to jump them and any others put in their way. We need a sense of realism about this Bill and decommissioning.

Concerning the resolution of other international conflicts, two examples in particular are not similar but worth quoting nevertheless — the conflicts in South Africa and in Israel and the Lebanon. I never heard Mr. De Klerk tell Mr. Mandela that he would only speak to him if he first decommissioned his arms nor did I hear any Israeli Prime Minister say something similar to Mr. Arafat. Those words were never spoken, perhaps because those people had a greater sense of realism than we do. It is naive in the extreme to think that people who have been enemies and who have been engaged in the cycle of violence for so long will lay down their arms in advance of what they see as a compromise.

I am sure the Minister's intentions are good and I cast no aspersions on them but even at face value this Bill does not represent an adequate response to the Mitchell principles. Once progress is made a proper decommissioning structure can be put in place and a proper Decommissioning Bill enacted, but is this not a case of putting the cart before the horse? What is the point of bringing to this House a skimpy, threadbare document with little detail when there is no progress to report on the substantive question?

In December 1994, Deputy Reynolds clearly stated on the record of the other House that if his Government was brought down the peace process would be endangered. He was correct. We all know that Mr. Major depends on Unionist votes in the House of Commons and is, therefore, unwilling, unable and incapable of displaying the courageous involvement in an all-inclusive peace process which will actively engage the men of violence. That is what it is all about. Once they have been engaged and once there is a process, that is the time for a comprehensive Decommissioning Bill. I regret the delay in bringing this Bill before the Oireachtas in the first place. I regret the fact that this is a threadbare and skimpy Bill. I think the fact that this Bill is so ill thought out and inadequate does no honour to this Government's involvement in the peace process.

Mrs. Owen

The Senator's Leader said something very different.

Mr. Neville

I welcome the Minister and I congratulate here on bringing the Bill before the House and on her work on the peace process.

I would like to deal with the thrust of Senator Mulcahy's statement. The Senator referred to this Bill as a flimsy one without a lot of content and said that the Bill is too simplistic in its approach. Deputy O'Donoghue made the same points in Dáil Éireann in his initial speech. Perhaps if Senator Mulcahy had read the debate in the Dáil in its entirety, he would see that his own party leader, Deputy Ahern, had quite the opposite point of view. Deputy Ahern recognised the absolute need for a non-prescriptive Bill, a Bill without any preconditions whatsoever, a simple Bill that would facilitate the commencement of decommissioning and which would place the report of the international body on a statutory basis. Thankfully, Deputy O'Donoghue, at the end of the Dáil debate, agreed that it was a good and useful Bill and that the correct approach was being taken on it. Perhaps Senator Mulcahy should consult with his party leader rather than reading the earlier stages of the debate in Dáil Éireann. I compliment Deputy O'Donoghue for listening to and considering the views of his leader and the other contributions made in the Dáil and for agreeing that the Bill is a useful and progressive one in the circumstances. As the situation stands at present, it would be unhelpful and negative to lay down detailed regulations with regard to decommissioning. Hopefully, by the time this debate is completed, Senator Mulcahy will also see the light and recognise the objectives of the Bill and the need for the type of Bill we have before the House at this juncture.

I welcome the Bill which gives effect to the report of the international body which was presented to the Irish Government on 22 January 1996. I would like to pay tribute to the work of the members of the international body — former US Senator George Mitchell, General John de Chastelain and former Finnish Prime Minister Harri Holkari — who provided an independent assessment on the decommissioning issue. The international body also dealt with the vital and delicate areas around decommissioning. The report of the international body gave decommissioning a basis from which to move forward on the political track. It is disappointing, frustrating and very sad that the basis of the report and the hope of a political development towards lasting peace has not occurred; but I think we must continue to strive for peace and ensure that the decommissioning of illegally held arms in the Republic, the six counties and Britain is secured. Such decommissioning would underpin the peace process, but it is only one aspect of the securing and maintenance of permanent peace.

I would like to quote from section 23 of the international body's report because it puts in context the whole need for decommissioning and the role and political impact that decommissioning would have, were it to take place:

These commitments when made in honour will remove the threat of force before, during and after all-party negotiations. They would focus all concerns on what is ultimately essential if the gun is to be taken out of Irish politics; an agreed political settlement and the total and verifiable disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. That should encourage the belief that the peace process will truly be an exercise in democracy not one influenced by the threats of violence.

I think that is the way forward. It might seem at this juncture to be impossible; much has happened since the Mitchell report but we must continue to work for peace as a prerequisite to a solution to the problems of this island. We must continue to endeavour to persuade the IRA and Sinn Féin that the only way forward is to give peace a chance. Peace must be based on trust and on an understanding of the positions of all sides. Peace must not necessarily be based on agreement, but there must be genuine dialogue and understanding of the deeply felt aspirations on all sides.

Trust must be the foundation on which decommissioning will take place. The killing and maiming must stop and discussions must take place. Much discussion will have to take place before trust between the sides is reached. It is only then that there will be an intent to resolve the political differences by peaceful and democratic means. It may seem vague and, as Senator Mulcahy said, a little irrelevant; but we must strive for a peaceful solution because that is the only kind of solution there can be. Each side must look at the other's positions and try to accommodate and understand those positions. Trust will only come with mutual understanding, even if the differences prevail.

A week after the killing of a 23 year old man in Northern Ireland, we may seem very far away from that; but we must continue to appeal to, persuade and challenge the IRA and Sinn Féin. Their present means is not the way forward; it leads to destruction, suffering and loss of human life. We must condemn their present actions in the hope that the realisation will eventually come within the IRA and Sinn Féin that peace is the way forward. I believe there is a considerable number of people within Sinn Féin and the IRA who believe that this is the case. We must strive to ensure that their aspirations and their approach to the future prevails. One of the ways of doing this is to introduce legislation like the Decommissioning Bill in order to put on record the approach the Government will take to all aspects of a situation following a declaration of peace and an agreement to enter into talks. There is no ambiguity about decommissioning and no ambiguity about this Government's approach. This Bill is making a clear statement as to what will take place when a ceasefire occurs and when decommissioning is agreed.

I believe the report of the international body must continue to command a central role in the search for peace in Northern Ireland. It may seem irrelevant under the present conditions but we must not despair of peace. That is why the international report must remain central to our thinking and discussions in our work for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. It must continue to be given a high priority in all party negotiations. The Bill before the House provides a legislative framework to facilitate decommissioning, while recognising the basic and inescapable reality that decommissioning can only be effected by parties who have possession of the arms and in circumstances where they are prepared to decommission them. These require that the process suggests neither victory nor defeat; that it takes place to the satisfaction of an independent commission; that it results in the complete destruction of armaments in a manner that contributes to public safety and is fully verifiable, and does not expose individuals to prosecution; and that it is mutual.

Section 2 outlines regulations on decommissioning. It makes provision for the location, times and methods of decommissioning, the transfer of arms to the commission, or to a person designated by the Minister or the Secretary of State for the destruction of arms. In other words, it clearly outlines what will take place in the event of an agreement and a decision to decommission. From that point of view it is important that this be enshrined in legislation. We must have a belief, hope and aspiration that by working towards peace it will eventually come. To say that such legislation is irrelevant and is not contributing to the peace process is giving in to despair, and we must not do that.

As the Minister said, the Government must not be deflected or deterred from pursuing an agreement on peace. It is hoped that this Bill will assist the process of seeking a resolution to the issue. At this juncture it will contribute in a small way towards doing so. At a later juncture, however, it may contribute in a significant way when progress is made.

We must place on the record of the House our call for the reinstatement of the Provisional IRA's cessation of August 1994. The unequivocal restoration of the cessation would pave the way for Sinn Féin to enter talks in accordance with the agreed basis for the participation of all parties as set out by the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister in February 1996. We appeal to the IRA and Sinn Féin to enter into talks and facilitate a situation by reinstating the ceasefire. They should move the situation forward by talking to each other, building up trust, removing arms and progressing towards a lasting political solution to the difficulties which have impacted upon this country since the foundation of the State, and especially over the last 26 years.

I wish to refer briefly to section 53 of the report of the international body, which states:

Continued action by the Government on prisoners would bolster trust. So would early implementation of the proposed review of emergency legislation consistent with an evolving security situation.

I congratulate the Minister on the work her Department is doing on the repatriation of prisoners. This important aspect of the peace process must continue to receive attention. I urge the British Home Office to accept that repatriating prisoners to the Republic from Britain can assist in building trust and in moving the situation forward.

While this is a minor aspect of the whole process in present circumstances, it was very important during the ceasefire. Unfortunately, however, we did not get the same assistance or understanding from the British Government that we should have at the time. While it is of less importance now that the ceasefire is over, it is still important in the context of building trust. It is also important from a humanitarian point of view in facilitating families' access to prisoners.

It is extremely expensive and difficult for some prisoners' families to visit them. It is impossible for others, because of their medical condition or age, to visit prisoners in Britain. This is an important issue in the context of the peace process and it is crucial from a humanitarian point of view.

Prisoners who have been sentenced for subversive activities in Britain should be allowed to return to Ireland so their families can visit them more easily. In that way they will continue to have some relationship with their partners or wives, and children.

I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on bringing it before the House.

Mr. O'Toole

The Bill is a progressive one and the Minister is to be congratulated on taking this difficult legislation through the House. I hope it will stand any constitutional or other tests that may be brought against it. It is a tricky operation to try to get a commission in place which will be compatible with the laws of both jurisdictions.

I welcome and support the Bill. Over the last couple of years we have seen a variety of examples around the world which justify this kind of legislation. In one form or another, we have seen arms decommissioning in many trouble spots around the world, including South Africa and the Middle East. More recently we saw it happen in England, where the State approached the problem by offering to take in any privately held arms over a period without asking any questions. People were simply asked to hand in the weapons. The weapons amnesty came about after the horrific incident in Dunblane, Scotland, last year when a man went riot and killed children and a teacher in a primary school.

The debate on arms began at that time, yet the importance people attach to carrying weapons is extraordinary. Although it may appear to be a sexist remark, the issue seems to have more to do with men than with women. I always hear men defending the right to carry arms in different parts of the world, although not particularly in this country. Perhaps we men should look into our hearts and souls to find what is it about the power and destructive potential of arms that makes them boys' toys.

Whereas arms are often presented in some parts of the world as being a justifiable method of defending oneself, in other areas they are seen as a past-time, leisure or sports activity. The fact is, however, that their potential is lethal. The recent killings in New Zealand are yet another instance of what happens when people have easy access to arms.

A major debate on the right to own and use weapons has taken place over the past three or four years in the United States where the National Rifle Association have put up all sorts of arguments in favour of bearing arms. In Britain recently even the Duke of Edinburgh managed to offer some words on the subject at a time when he would have been better off saying nothing. As has been said about many of us on occasions, he missed another great opportunity of keeping his mouth shut.

In this country there has never been easy access to arms, which have always been well controlled. The decision to establish an unarmed Garda force was a significant and fundamental reflection of the views of the founding fathers of the State. The fact that we have managed to survive more or less intact with an unarmed police force is an argument in itself that much peace-keeping and law enforcement activities can be undertaken without carrying arms. I am not suggesting for a moment that all such work can be done in this way. There is a place for arms. The State has a duty to defend itself and its citizens and, on occasion, that will require the use of arms, so I am not approaching this matter from a pacifist point of view.

I welcome section 5 of the Bill but wonder how it will work. The section offers an amnesty to people who put themselves in a position where they could, perhaps, be charged with an offence. Could the Minister outline how that would work? The provisions of the section are clear but how will it operate? Does the Minister have particular offences in mind? Obviously it is a crime to have arms in one's possession or to carry arms in a public place and, if somebody is bringing a gun to be decommissioned, it would be nonsensical if that person were to be charged with illegal possession of arms ten yards from the Garda station or office where the weapon is to be handed in for decommissioning. That is understandable. However, let us suppose a person conducted an armed robbery while on his way to hand in a weapon for decommissioning. It is probably a ridiculous example but can the Minister reassure me that such an event will not be covered by the amnesty? What will be the basis for including some offences and excluding others?

I disagree with section 6 of the Bill. It provides that there will be no forensic examination of weapons handed in for decommissioning. There is a group of people in Northern Ireland who still do not know what happened to missing relatives. They suspect they are dead. Other people have recovered the bodies of their loved ones but they cannot be sure of who or what killed them or why they were killed. The problem for these groups is that not knowing what happened creates a continuing sense of grievance. The process of grieving is inhibited and cannot be terminated while people are unsure of the circumstance of the death. This problem is encountered many times. "If only we knew what happened", is the common refrain. If they knew what happened they could get on with the rest of their lives.

I am worried about section 6 in that regard. If, for example, a splinter group of the IRA decides to participate in this scheme and decommission its arms, I can live with the amnesty it will receive. I can even accept the extension of the amnesty to the extent that forensic evidence will not be used against the group. However, I dislike something which denies citizens information which is crucial and fundamental to their understanding of what happened to dead relatives. Forensic evidence could answer many such questions. There is no need to provide that forensic examination will not be conducted on arms deposited for decommissioning. Where is the danger if an amnesty is part of the process and if the evidence will not be used to open cases?

Perhaps there is an obverse reason for what the Minister is doing in this section in that it does not prevent the State from pursuing cases with available evidence. It would be wrong if somebody, having committed a crime two years ago and believing the forces of law to be closing in on him or her, thought the smart way to get out of his or her predicament would be to hand in the weapon that committed the act of destruction or the lethal killing and in that way secure protection. That could still happen. Somebody might be under suspicion for having carried out a terrorist act with a rifle and, following a long investigation, this person might believe the forces of law are closing in on him. He will be aware that an important part of the evidence against him will be the forensic examination of the weapon. That person could decide to have the weapon handed in for decommissioning, which would effectively deprive the State of the evidence. I am confused by section 6. I cannot claim to be an expert on this matter and I will be guided by the views of the parliamentary draftsman and the advisers who drafted the Bill. However, I am anxious to hear the reasons for including this provision.

It is a good idea to control arms and different parts of the world have learned the importance of doing so. It is also important that people are invited to hand up their weapons of death to the State or to destroy them. In offering such an invitation we must be prepared to give an amnesty for certain offences. However, the Minister should describe the offences that will be eligible for amnesty. I hope the number will be restrictive. I also wish to hear further explanation of the provisions in section 6 and why it is a good thing that the legislation contains a commitment that no forensic examination will be carried out on weapons handed in for decommissioning.

Finally, although the parliamentary draftsman always does it to Ministers, the fact that regulations can only be annulled by negative resolution is a deterioration of the democratic process. Statutory instruments of this type should always be brought to the House for positive resolution. Nobody will take any notice of my sentiments but they are important to some Members. I ask the Minister to keep that in mind. I welcome and support the Bill.

Ms Gallagher

It is ironic that the Government and the Oireachtas press on with what we can do to assist the peace process through this legislation when so much else detracts from the process.

Two incidents in the past week show the appalling hatred that exists on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland. The first was the BBC television programme on the ongoing saga at Harryville. It was a horrific reminder, if one were needed, of the dark age mindset of some loyalists and Unionists. The abuse being hurled at people attending mass was disgraceful. Most depressing was the sight of young people and children shouting slogans that would put Adolf Hitler to shame. Is it under the guise of freedom of speech that exhibitions worthy of the Third Reich are permitted by the authorities in Northern Ireland? It is blatant racism and sectarianism and UK laws must be enforced to end this animalism before the marching season leads this type of action into disaster.

In the same week I watched the news reports on the death of the young soldier, Stephen Restorick, in Bessbrook. I have a brother of the same age. This was a young man doing his job, probably knowing little of the history of Northern Ireland but earning a crust in the best way he could. He was also looking forward to returning home soon. His killer is probably strutting around, proud of the status this murder gives him in the sick minds of the IRA and those who support it. How cowardly. What is brave about not being able to handle something when one does not get one's way? What is brave about not being able to discuss differences and debate what could be done to accommodate each view? What is brave about standing behind a hedge and shooting a bullet into the back of a young person's head?

Those who carry out such deeds are sick and sorry cowards and cannot claim to act on behalf of right minded Irish citizens. They are mé féiners acting by their own by-laws and going on ego trips, grasping an ill-founded status which Sinn Féin and the IRA attempt to give these despicable criminals. Then anti-democratic Sinn Féin has the cheek to continue to talk about a peace process and to seek inclusion in talks. Either it is part and parcel of murders, racketeering and victimisation of people or it is not. It is time for it to get off the fence and, for that reason, I welcome what John Hume said on this.

In the meantime, we continue talking about decommissioning and introduce this legislation to honour the recommendations of the report of the international body. The Bill addresses Unionists' concern that the issue would be addressed at an early stage in the peace process. It is part of the twin track process agreed by the British and Irish Governments and provides the framework by which decommissioning might take place. The Bill is enabling in character and must be so, as the Minister explained. It, therefore, does not prescribe in detail how and when weapons may be handed in or destroyed. It allows for four different forms of decommissioning and gives the Minister power to introduce regulations to enforce the necessary provisions when and where agreed. It provides an amnesty for those involved, prohibits certain forms of testing of decommissioned weapons and prohibits the use by the State of information gained from the decommissioning of such weapons as evidence thereafter. Like Senator O'Toole, I too would welcome clarification of the section covering the inadmissibility at a later stage of forensic evidence.

The Bill is sensible and practical in those aspects and I welcome it. However, there are two points I wish to make about the general issue of decommissioning. The first relates to the South African peace process. I listened to Mr. de Klerk address the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin Castle where he pointed out that decommissioning was not seen as the be all and end all or as an important part of their peace process; it was introduced at a much later stage. However, it has been used here as an excuse to stall real talks. It is, therefore, all the more important that we remove that obstacle, perceived or real, and allow those who are interested in proceeding with real negotiations to do so.

On the other hand, we are fooling ourselves to some extent. The recent brilliant work of the Garda in finding arms is very helpful, but I believe weapons are being made close to where I live. Who will stop that? Decommissioning can only ever be a theoretical supposition. We are not to know that every weapon will be handed in or that others are not being made as those weapons are handed in. The issue of decommissioning is very far from the minds of the IRA. We must remember that real peace comes from the minds and hearts of men and not from legislation. However, contributions such as Senator Mulcahy's self-contradicting one, do not help.

I have said that I am depressed about what is happening with the peace process, especially the ending of the ceasefire. I have also expressed my opinion that decommissioning should not be the be all and end all. However, contrary to other references, this legislation is vitally important because the issue of decommissioning has stalled talks in Northern Ireland. Those entrenched on both sides should have no excuses to prevent the peace process proceeding. For that reason it is important that this Government does what it can to remove real or fabricated obstacles to talks. We have today removed the excuse of the decommissioning issue from the Unionists and others who have raised it as a concern. It is a real concern for many people, but it is one more problem which has been removed in that we have dealt with it so far as we can. It is now more important than ever that the IRA reinstates its ceasefire and that all communities in the North sit down to real talks.

Mr. McAughtry

I rise to take part in this debate having heard Senator Mulcahy's contribution. I have enormous reservations about the form of wording he used in putting together his discussion on decommissioning.

I have never agreed that decommissioning should be top of the agenda. As an ex-serviceman and someone who fought in a war for six years, it has been my experience that such matters tend to end in an untidy but satisfactory manner and not in the neat and orderly manner set out in this legislation. I am sure experienced politicians will agree that these matters do not end in this way. There will be pockets of trouble here and there and we will have to think on our feet, particularly the Minister for Justice for whom I have the highest regard. However, that is only if we are lucky enough to reach that position. That is my position on decommissioning.

I would like now to talk about the way this State discusses the subject of decommissioning. This is happening where I live, not here. Maybe that is why so many mistakes are made addressing it. The last time Senator Mulcahy talked about Northern Ireland he said he was a member of a republican party which does not accept the British have any right to be in Northern Ireland but which made that protest by constitutional and peaceful means. I would like to tell him that I am British, intend to stay British and intend to work as hard as I possibly can to keep Northern Ireland British. At a rough guess, I am joined in this by 900,000 Protestants and an approximate 200,000 Northern Catholics who, like me, want to be Irish but want to remain under the United Kingdom system of government. That is written into the Downing Street Declaration. There is no jiggery-pokery about that because I would not support it if there were.

It is no good Senators standing up here pretending that, on the one hand, they are opposed to the IRA's violence while, on the other, repeatedly laying blame at the door of the British Prime Minister. They neglect to condemn the IRA for doing nothing for more than 12 months during the ceasefire except increase its intelligence and take part in vicious punishment beatings. Even worse — I stand to be corrected on this by the IRA or anyone else — it blooded its new members by showing them how to kill petty criminals who deserved at most six months in jail. It taught them how to put a gun in a person's mouth and pull the trigger because they might need them for bigger killings later on. This is the way the IRA operates. Not a word about this has been heard from the other side of the Seanad. Either they believe in the consent principle or they do not.

There were further examples from Senator Mulcahy today. He said the IRA exists because of a certain atmosphere and social-historical mix which influences its actions. I thought it existed to coerce me and people like me into a united Ireland by force of arms.

The situation in Northern Ireland has been compared to South Africa and Israel, a ludicrous comparison. The scale of deaths and killings in Northern Ireland is minuscule compared to those areas and the issues are totally different and much more complex. The reason international attention is focused on Northern Ireland is domestic; it happens to suit certain Irish-Americans to be interested in it. Another reason the situation interests people is that it is a sort of intellectual Rubik's cube. It has an intellectual attraction for people and has therefore attracted academics, politicians, onlookers, etc.

The issues which brought the civil rights people onto the streets have been and are being addressed. The voting and housing issues have been addressed and the employment issue is slowly but surely being corrected. It is now a criminal offence not to observe the measures introduced in these three areas. That ought to be remembered here. The people of Northern Ireland who have lost loved ones know all about living with the killing and I am not trying to dismiss that in the least. However, if all the countries considered by Amnesty International to be oppressed were set out in its annual report in league tables, Northern Ireland would be in a long queue to get into the bottom of the third division. That is the scale of the problem there. By saying that, I hope to persuade the IRA that it is not worth using armed force and the Unionists that it is not worth using neo-fascist tactics to get their way. I emphasise that for no other reason. I am no apologist for either side.

I wish the Minister every success in this testing and onerous task. I admire her for the fortitude and composure she has shown and I believe that this Government is the most suited to combating the difficulties in Northern Ireland.

Minister for Justice (Mrs. Owen)

I thank Senators for their comments. I am glad that Senator McAughtry contributed to the debate because I too was concerned at the tone taken by Senator Mulcahy. This House must not suggest that the slowness of the political process is justification for the use of violence. Prime Minister John Major, Taoiseach John Bruton or any of the democratic politicians did not end the ceasefire; it was ended by the IRA who exploded a bomb at Canary Wharf, killing two people and leaving an entire area of London devastated.

The political process is slow because democracy can be frustrating. There are spurious advantages to dictatorship, but democracy involves trying to bring people together. Everything the Government is doing, and everything done by Deputy Reynolds, is predicated on the basis of consent without coercion. Throughout the ceasefire the IRA continued to teach people how to make bombs, to train and to practice for violence. The Taoiseach has been at his strongest in expressing his disappointment that during the ceasefire there was no effort the change the mindsets of those involved in violence.

The former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, gained great kudos from all parties for his role in securing the peace process. However, Senator Mulcahy seemed to suggest that we did not have a ceasefire because Deputy Reynolds was no longer Taoiseach. That is a dangerous message. The peace process continued for many months after the change of Government in December 1994. The ceasefire did not end because John Major was Prime Minister or John Bruton was Taoiseach; it ended because the IRA set off a bomb, and no amount of political delay can be offered as justification for that.

The British Government has moved from the Washington Three pre-condition. Much progress has been made in the peace process since the Canary Wharf bomb. The joint communiqué of 28 February 1996 agreed that all parties, including Sinn Féin, could enter talks as soon as they expressed a commitment to exclusively peaceful means and the democratic process. A credible IRA ceasefire will allow Sinn Féin into talks for the first time. The ground rules for substantive all-party negotiations were agreed by the two Governments on 16 April 1996. Those rules reaffirmed the conditions under which Sinn Féin could enter the talks.

The talks process opened on 10 June 1996 and I was honoured to be part of the Government delegation. All parties are eligible to participate in those talks under the same conditions — there is no discrimination against Sinn Féin. As long as it declares itself to be part of a democratic and peaceful process it can sit at the table. The loyalist paramilitaries have done so. They ended their violent campaign and they are still at the talks. I commend them for their fortitude and courage in sustaining the peace process and I hope they will continue to do so despite provocation.

Rules of procedure for the talks, agreed by the participants, protect the rights of all the parties, particularly the minority parties. No frustration with the pace of the talks can justify the IRA's actions. Inclusive negotiations, which Sinn Féin demands, are taking place and it can enter them as soon as it secures a credible, unequivocal ceasefire. We should not offer succour to those who feel that the actions of Prime Minister John Major, Taoiseach John Bruton, Tánaiste Dick Spring or any other politician justifies a return to violence.

Mr. Mulcahy

On a point of order, if that is an accusation I would like it substantiated.

Mrs. Owen

The Senator suggested that Deputy Albert Reynolds warned that the peace process would end if the Government fell.

Mr. Mulcahy

He did.

Mrs. Owen

He may have done, but it is not the case that the process depends on a specific individual being in power.

Mr. Mulcahy

Deputy Dick Spring was not interested in that warning.

Ms Gallagher

That is a lie.

Mr. Mulcahy

Deputy Albert Reynolds said so in the House.

Mrs. Owen

What Deputy Albert Reynolds said in the House at the time of the break up of the Government is immaterial to the fact that the peace process would exist if those with the weapons stopped using them. It has nothing to do with the fact that Deputy Albert Reynolds or John Major is in power. They are peaceful, democratic politicians——

Mr. Mulcahy

Would the Minister read the record of the Dáil?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister without interruption.

Mrs. Owen

Deputy Reynolds may have said that.

Mr. Mulcahy

He did say it.

Mrs. Owen

An inference can be drawn from the Senator's comments that the justification for violence is the absence of one man.

Mr. Mulcahy

Explanations not justifications.

Mrs. Owen

When the Government took over in December 1994 all that existed was the ceasefire. That was important, but there was no talks process or any mechanism to advance the situation. By February 1996 the talks process was agreed and it began in June of that year. That is what is needed to make substantive progress, not a particular figure in one place or another. That is not to take away from the good work done by Deputy Albert Reynolds, but we should not offer any justification for violence.

Senator Mulcahy referred to the Bill as a "shell" and used this as a stick to beat me. I am used to it. I have broad shoulders and have been beaten by enough sticks in the last two years to sustain Senator's Mulcahy's attack.

Mr. Mulcahy

I wonder why.

Mrs. Owen

The Senator has missed the point, as did Deputy O'Donoghue at the beginning of the decommissioning debate. By the end of the debate, Deputy O'Donoghue magnanimously said he was glad the Bill was now in place. I make no apology for this Bill being an enabling measure. It will allow further substantive talks to take place. There are people sitting at the talks table who have never taken up arms — the Unionist Party and the SDLP. It was a good decision by the British and Irish Governments to consider this enabling legislation as another vehicle by which we can make progress without creating conditions to stop Sinn Féin from entering talks. I make no apologies for the fact that it is enabling because it gives power to the Minister for Justice to make the regulations which will flow from the agreement to bring about decommissioning. That has to be the case if we are to follow the international body's report. They, after taking submissions, came to the conclusion that if prescriptive methods of decommissioning are set down, either in their report or in legislation, prior to Sinn Féin being part of the talks, one would not even get off first base. The Senator can beat me all he wants, but I will continue to say he has missed the point of the legislation.

The report recognised that decommissioning will only come about as a result of negotiations between the parties who have weapons, in parallel with the discussions on political progress. We may want it differently. I would like if there was no chance of weapons being whipped up from under the table. However, I recognise the reality. I have nothing to decommission nor does the Senator or anyone else in this House. The people who have weapons to decommission are the IRA and the former loyalist paramilitaries. The latter have put them to one side. They have not decommissioned their weapons, but that will come about through negotiations following agreement among the parties. Hence the necessity to have arrangements in place whereby those regulations can be made. We do not want to wait until we get that agreement and there is a a long gap while the legislation is written and put through the two Houses of Parliament here and in Britain. We want to be ready and able to bring about the regulations when the agreement has been reached. If there is any case for this legislation it is to make sure it does not become another roadblock.

Senator Mulcahy referred to the delay in introducing the Bill. He was having another go at me and perhaps hoping to get a line in the newspaper because having a lash at the Minister for Justice is like a bloodsport.

Mr. Kelleher

It is no longer news.

Mrs. Owen

The Bill, of necessity, needed to be drafted carefully. Sometimes the quality of the work produced at the end is what counts rather than the quantity.

Mr. Mulcahy

One year?

Mrs. Owen

I do not want to minimise Senator Mulcahy's intellectual capacity.

Mr. Neville

It is limited.

Mrs. Owen

He does not understand what has been going on in the last year as regards decommissioning and the efforts to bring Sinn Féin on side. The reality is that bringing a Decommissioning Bill forward at an early stage would have been seen by Senator Mulcahy's party and many others as a roadblock created over and above the condition of an unequivocal ceasefire. If the Government, on June 10, had not only set up talks but set down a decommissioning process, Fianna Fáil would have been the first party into the fray to say we were ruining the possibility for peace. All parties in this State would have been concerned that it was a hurdle. That is why the Washington Three condition by the British caused a problem and why I welcomed that condition being taken off the table by the British Government. They had to face some hard political debate in their Parliament in order to remove that condition.

Senator Mulcahy's contribution is inconsistent. On the one hand he says the Bill took too long to be introduced and on the other he is concerned about creating hurdles for Sinn Féin entering the talks. He cannot have it both ways. The Bill is now being introduced at a time considered wise and propitious by the two Governments. We made a judgment at the talks — at which I was part — that it was the right time to introduce this enabling Bill in the hope that it would contribute to progress. As Senator Neville said, the transfer of sentenced persons was also seen as progress. I assure Senator Neville we are progressing all the time although we are also conscious that the agreement of three parties — the prisoner, the receiving state and the holding state — is essential in the transfer.

It is not an exact science. If there was an exact prescription by which we could bring about peace in Northern Ireland, some other wise person would have found it by now. It is a step by step process. One might take one step forward and find oneself back where one started two steps back. Careful and wise decision making has brought us this far. We still have huge problems. Senator Mulcahy will have to accept the bona fides of both the British and Irish Governments that the reason why the Bill is in this form and is only coming now is that we feel it may take another problem off the table.

The Unionist Party would have liked this Bill to be introduced six, eight, or nine months ago; but it might have stopped progress in talks and perhaps allowed time for a ceasefire to be restored. Sadly, this has not happened, but there was good method in giving the parties to the talks some succour that the two Governments were serious about putting a decommissioning process in place without the modalities laid out.

I hope by the time the Bill is law that Senator Mulcahy will have changed his mind about it. His party leader did not need to change his. I listened to Deputy Bertie Ahern's speech and recognised he was showing his experience and involvement in Government in the earlier days of the peace process. He understood why this Bill is in the form it is and why it is being introduced now rather than earlier. Then, Deputy O'Donoghue made an appalling speech, full of his usual colourful phrases, saying this was the worst legislation etc. By the time the Bill was finished, he also recognised what it was about. I hope Senator Mulcahy will reach that stage.

Senator Neville raised the convention on the transfer of prisoners. We are pleased we have already managed to bring back some prisoners and will continue to do so as speedily as possible. There are court procedures involved, similar to the extradition procedure. It is not a case of saying if the prisoner wants to be transferred, he can be and everything is fine. We have to obtain court orders and make sure the sentence can continue to operate in this country.

Senator O'Toole raised a number of valid issues as regards sections 5 and 6 of the Bill. It was important we drafted those sections to acknowledge that the kind of circumstances which the Senator mentioned would not be allowed. If somebody bringing weapons to be decommissioned — there is a process and regulation which lays down how and where they are brought etc. — used the opportunity to carry out a robbery on their way, that crime would not be covered under any amnesty. The requirement focuses on what the person was doing at the time the offence was committed.

Somebody caught in possession of a firearm will not be able to escape prosecution simply because the decommissioning process is in existence, but only if they are engaged in the process of decommissioning that firearm in accordance with the regulations. Thus, somebody caught in possession of a firearm which they were pointing at a bank teller or shopkeeper will not be able to escape prosecution for possession of a firearm by simply saying he was on his way to decommission it. The converse of that is that someone caught in possession of a firearm while legitimately on their way to decommission it will be covered by the prohibition, as the definition of decommissioning extends to an act leading to decommissioning.

It is very important for the message to go out loud and clear that the cover of decommissioning cannot be used to commit an offence on one's way to decommission a firearm, and will not be accepted as a defence for stopping to commit an offence while on the way to decommission a firearm. It will not be possible for such a weapon to be just thrown onto a pile of decommissioned weapons without being forensically tested.

Senator O'Toole also referred to the amnesty. The Mitchell commission discussed this element. They concluded in paragraph 48 of their report that it was their considered opinion there was no chance of decommissing weapons without an amnesty. That is the reality. As I said on Committee Stage in the Dáil, we might like it to be different but there would be no chance of getting any weapons, apart from a few pea shooters which had not been used, if those weapons could be forensically tested and used to convict people for crimes committed many years earlier. That is the price we might have to pay.

However, Senator O'Toole indicated he understood that forensic testing is not the only evidence which can be used to convict somebody. Just because a weapon is handed in and cannot be forensically tested for a crime committed five years earlier does not mean the RUC will stop investigating that crime. It has other ways of getting evidence and can continue to do so. It is important to realise that the handing in of a weapon used in a crime does not negate the investigation of that crime.

Senator Gallagher raised the issue of what has gone on during the ceasefire and since then. She is absolutely correct that there are people making bombs in her and neighbouring counties. People are continuing to practise for war, even if they are not actively carrying out operations at this time. Those people will have to understand that if there is to be an unequivocal ceasefire they will have to cease that kind of training and mind-set. They will have to go back to being ordinary citizens like the rest of us by training to be carpenters, scientists, nurses or whatever. They will have to retrain for a democratic way of life because they cannot continue to "work" at learning how to make bombs, kill people, carry out punishment beatings and other heinous crimes which are being committed all the time.

I thank Senators for their contributions to the debate. It was useful to raise some of the issues. There is no doubt that 27 years of violence has had an effect on the proliferation of illegal weapons in the State. My job, and that of the police force, is to get as many as possible of those weapons out of the system so that they are not used for aggravated burglaries. I am glad to say that the number of aggravated burglaries using firearms is down; unfortunately, the number of aggravated burglaries without the use of firearms is still growing.

I have resisted a very strong lobby, of which Members may not be aware, for the licensing of hand guns in this State, particularly for sporting purposes. I believe we need to have fewer guns available in this State rather than more. We must work to get as many as possible of the weapons in the hands of the IRA and others out of the system. That can be done thorough a decommissioning process.

I hope it is understood that this legislation has been very carefully drafted and that the timing of the Bill was an issue. It was not a case of us having to take a whole year to prepare the Bill. The preparations for the Bill were done carefully and with great commitment. Senator Mulcahy will be able to criticise certain elements of it. However, the wording of the Bill, its enabling nature, the commitment to matching the international body's report, the timing of when the Bill would be announced as being in preparation, the timing of when it would be prepared and the timing of when it would pass through the two Parliaments were all part and parcel of the peace talks in Northern Ireland.

I say that as a sign of the bona fides of the Government, the Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, and the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, who have been closely involved in the process. It is because of their progress and commitment, and that shown by others, that we still have a talks process, which is available for Sinn Féin if it wants to be there — it knows how it can participate in the talks. I urge it to find a way to bring about an unequivocal ceasefire which will allow it to take its place and be part of those discussions.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Mulcahy

My party has supported this Bill in both Houses. I am very glad, however, that I had the opportunity to put on the record my misgivings about it which, unfortunately, do not enable me to oppose it. It is a bad Bill, its timing is inappropriate and it will not contribute one whit to the peace process.

I say to the Minister and Senator McAughtry that it is a long used tactic of those who are not constitutional republicans to try to slur those of us who believe in a united Ireland by peaceful means and to tar us with the same brush as the IRA. They try to intimate that we sympathise with the IRA or encourage them. The Minister cannot find anything in what I have said to support that. Of course, I condemn the IRA and have done so on every occasion. Since Deputy Reynolds was forced out of office there has been little or no substantial progress on the peace process.

Ms Gallagher

He was forced out of office by his wrongdoing. What happened at the beef tribunal?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has already made his point.

Mr. Mulcahy

This Bill will not contribute to a peace process which is dead, as the Minister well knows.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I must ask the Senator to conclude.

Mr. Mulcahy

It will not negate the failure of the Government regarding the peace process. It is a charade and an attempt to conceal the Government's abject failure and lack of progress in this area.

Mr. Neville

I welcome the passing of the Bill. We hope for an early resumption of the ceasefire and the space to build trust between the communities in Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain and to make progress in moving towards a long-term political solution to the problems in Northern Ireland. I appeal to the people of violence, to Sinn Féin and the IRA, to give us the space and the opportunity to work on these matters and to allow peace to have a chance.

Ms Gallagher

I welcome the passing of the Bill. It is important legislation because it will allow the Government to enable the gun to be taken out of Irish politics at the appropriate time. What could be more important? I congratulate the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice on their ongoing efforts in all possible fora to do what they can to enable the peace process continue. The ball is now in the court of the IRA to reinstate its ceasefire.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.