Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, subsection (3), line 23, to delete "subsection (2)(II)" and substitute "subsection (2)(ii)".
These are drafting amendments necessary to correct citations in the Bill as published because of a minor printing error which escaped notice. In subsections (3) and (4), references to subsection (2)(ii) use the upper case version of the Roman numeral "II" when the lower case should be used. These amendments make the necessary correction and involve no change to the substance of the Bill. The problem was caused by a typing error which might have caused confusion in terms of interpretation.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, subsection (4), line 29, to delete "subsection (2)(II)" and substitute "subsection (2)(ii)".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister deal with the point I made on section 5? Apparently a weapon surrendered in accordance with the Bill could not be used or referred to in evidence if it emerged that it had been used in connection with an offence, that had nothing to do with decommissioning, which had taken place five years earlier. It would be a pity if someone was to avoid punishment in such circumstances. I recognise that the same person may not have committed both offences because these weapons are moved around within such organisations and are held by quartermasters who issue them for specific murders, bank robberies, etc.
This is obviously a fraught point because there are concerns that during an amnesty, be it limited or general, the possibility exists that someone will escape punishment for a crime they committed. However, this section gives effect to the recommendation contained in the International Body's report, paragraph 48 of which states:
Individuals involved in the decommissioning process should not be prosecuted for the possession of those armaments. Amnesties should be established in law in both jurisdictions. Armaments made available for decommissioning, whether directly or indirectly, should be exempt under law from forensic examination. Information obtained as a result of the decommissioning process should be inadmissible in evidence in courts of law in either jurisdiction.
It is clear that the eminent group who drew up this report believe that this provision would have to be made available because there would be no progress in respect of decommissioning weapons.
There is no prohibition on forensic examination or testing of arms obtained in other ways by the security forces. As Deputy O'Malley stated, if a weapon is decommissioned and recognised as having been used in an offence committed five years earlier, the authorities are precluded from testing it to check whether it was used in the earlier crime. They must pursue different evidence to convict the person accused of the earlier offence. That is one of the downsides. However, I believe such a provision is the only realistic proposition if we want to bring about decommissioning. The people we are discussing have held weapons and explosives for 25 to 26 years and would have decommissioned them long ago if that had been their intention.
I accept Deputy O'Malley's point but the section is necessary to give effect to the recommendation in the International Body's report. Its wisdom was that this kind of prohibition was required. Other types of evidence which do not involve ballistics can be obtained to convict people of crimes. That is one of the things we are obliged to purchase, if you like, with this kind of scheme.
Four people might use a weapon at different times but only one of them can surrender it. Would the other three be held guilty of offences committed five years earlier for the remainder of their lives? Could these people assume themselves absolved of their crimes if they were not responsible for surrendering the weapon?
We must be realistic. If we ever reach the stage where the men of violence make their weapons available — perhaps in a town square or a designated bunker — they will not do so unless there is a prohibition of this kind. We may be angry that such action must be taken but we must face these realities if weapons are to be made available.
I agree with the Minister that we must be realistic. If an individual surrenders an armament and his colleagues might be prosecuted as a result, he will not do it. If there is one thing worse than the perceived enemy, the IRA, it is member of that organisation who is an informer. No member of the IRA will hand up a weapon if he believes any of his colleagues will be prosecuted. That is the reality. Therefore there is no point in beating around the bush. We should accept the reality or we drift into fantasyland and forget about it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
TITLE.
I will not move amendment No. 3 as it relates to the same point as amendments Nos. a1 and b1. The Minister is to look seriously at the non-existence of the commission and the agreement specifically at the time of the passing of this legislation. I hope to discuss this again on Report Stage when the Minister should have a relevant amendment.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Title agreed to.
Report of Select Committee.
I propose the following draft report:
The Select Committee on Legislation and Security has considered the Decommissioning Bill, 1996, and has made amendments thereto. The Bill as amended is reported to the Dáil.
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
I thank the Minister.
I thank members for their useful interventions to this important legislation.
The Select Committee adjourned at 12.35 p.m.