Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Sep 1997

Vol. 480 No. 4

International Commission on Decommissioning: Motion.

The Taoiseach

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom Establishing the International Commission on Decommissioning, signed by Ireland in Belfast on 26 August, 1997, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Eireann on the 28th day of August, 1997.

I anticipated that the leaders of the parties in Opposition would wish to take this opportunity to make some remarks on the wider peace and political processes that provided the context for the international agreement for which the Government is today seeking the approval of Dáil Éireann. We have taken advantage of the recall of the Dáil today to move this motion, in order to fulfil the commitment contained in the Joint Communiqué issued following the meeting between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 29 July, the commitment to ensure that the mechanisms for decommissioning would be capable of being launched simultaneously with substantive negotiations on 15 September. With the approval of this motion and the other steps already taken and being taken by the two Governments, we will be able to deliver on that commitment. I thank the parties in the House for agreeing to deal with this matter today.

I shall speak to the motion and then say something about the wider context. Before I do so, let me welcome in the House the unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire that took effect on 20 July. In practice, it has proved to be of markedly better quality than the first ceasefire which ended with the bombing at Canary Wharf. There is an apparent absence of surveillance or targeting and punishment beatings in Republican areas have ceased. The absence of military operations or associated activity has enabled the Secretary of State, Dr. Mowlam, to conclude that the ceasefire is being observed both in word and in deed and, in the light of this, has paved the way for the two Governments to issue an invitation to Sinn Féin to participate in the negotiations in Belfast.

Pursuant to this Sinn Féin yesterday in open plenary session at the talks confirmed its acceptance of the exacting Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence. I greatly welcome that declaration which has the potential to represent a watershed in the history and politics of Ireland. I am glad the Government was able to play a constructive part in getting the IRA ceasefire restored and I acknowledge the very substantial groundwork towards that end by the previous Government and by Deputies Bruton and Spring in particular. We have the great blessing of peace now and thus a calm atmosphere and a level playing field for all who are eligible to take part in the talks. The guns have fallen silent, but we look forward impatiently to the time when, on a mutual basis and following substantive negotiations on a comprehensive agenda, the gun and the bomb are removed completely and permanently from the political equation in Ireland and throughout these islands. That is the objective of the agreement we ask the Dáil to approve today.

Deputies have copies of the agreement. It was signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Government at a meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in Belfast on 26 August 1997. Approval of today's motion will enable the requirement of Article 29, sub article 5.2 of the Constitution, to be met. That provides that the State shall not be bound by an 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 agreement as a result of the establishment of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. Under Article 7 of the agreement, the commission is to be funded jointly by the Irish and British Governments.

The agreement was framed to reflect the joint proposals which the Irish and British Governments put to the participants in the Northern Ireland negotiations on 25 June, as clarified in a statement — on behalf of the two Governments — by Minister of State Murphy at the talks on 16 July. The agreement also reflects the legislation already enacted in both jurisdictions, our Decommissioning Act, 1997 and the UK Arms Decommissioning Act.

The joint Government proposals did not attract consensus on the part of the talks participants in July. The two Governments believe that the proposals continue to represent the best way forward consistent with the report of the International Body chaired by Senator George Mitchell.

The agreement, therefore, provides that the commission will be independent in the performance of its functions and will have the legal capacity of a body corporate. Its objective will be to facilitate the decommissioning of arms in accordance with the report of the International Body and any regulations or schemes made in accordance with the Acts to which I have referred. It is, for the purpose of fulfilling that objective, being given the following specific functions: to consult the participants in political negotiations in Northern Ireland, including both Governments, and others whom it deems relevant on the type of scheme or schemes for decommissioning, including the role it might play in respect of each scheme; to present to the two Governments proposals for schemes for decommissioning having due regard to the views expressed by those it has consulted; to undertake in accordance with regulations or schemes enacted in accordance with the legislation enacted in each jurisdiction such tasks as may be required of it to facilitate the decommissioning of arms, including observing, monitoring and verifying decommissioning and receiving and auditing arms; and to report periodically to the two Governments and, through whatever mechanism they may establish for that purpose, the other participants in political negotiations in Northern Ireland. I commend the agreement and the motion to the House.

The other arrangements necessary to ensure the mechanisms for decommissioning are launched simultaneously with substantive negotiations on 15 September are well in hand. Offices are available for the commission in Dublin and Belfast. The Governments of Finland, Canada and the United States, in response to requests from the Irish and British Governments, have proposed well qualified persons for nomination as members of the commission. I thank them for that.

Arrangements are in hand for commission members designate to visit Dublin for briefing very shortly. Members designate will be briefed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and, on behalf of the British Government, by the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office. Security experts in both jurisdictions have made preparations to meet the commission members designate. Thus, any suggestions that the Irish Government has failed to deliver on commitments or held up progress in this area are completely wide of the mark. On the contrary, the Irish Government, with that in London, sees the resolution of the decommissioning issues as an indispensable part and outcome of the negotiations, and our actions bear this out. However, decommissioning, or any attempt to make it a precondition for participation in the talks, cannot be allowed to block the entire process.

That is why the two Governments have made it absolutely clear that substantive political negotiations must, and will, be launched on Monday next, 15 September. All Members will, I am sure, share my disappointment that the basis for doing this is not on an inclusive round table basis, as we hoped. I hope there will be a move forward in that regard. Consequent on the death and funeral of Princess Diana, it was understandably necessary for the Ulster Unionist Party to defer for one week its meeting scheduled for last Saturday. The UUP decision on participation in the move to substantive negotiations is now likely to be taken on that day. I hope it will decide in favour of participation and that it will be possible to bring all the eligible parties around the table together from Monday next. Be that as it may, the negotiations will be launched on that day with the objective of completing them on time to enable proposals to be put before the people, North and South, for their approval in referenda by the middle of next year.

The Government here wants the representatives of the Unionist and loyalist people to take part so that the voice and concerns of that community will be heard and fully taken into account during the winter. I stress that the process of dialogue offers no threat to the Unionist community or to anybody else. It should scarcely be necessary to say so, but in view of some recent concerns among that community, I reaffirm that the Irish Government — indeed both Governments — remains fully committed to the consent principle as set out in the Downing Street Declaration under which any change in the status of Northern Ireland would come about only with the consent of the majority of the people. This will be a guiding principle for us, and no doubt for the British Government, in the negotiations for which, of course, no outcome is excluded or predetermined.

That well established position of the Irish Government's consent will not change. Its essence is that change in constitutional status cannot be imposed against the wishes of the majority. We hold to that, but consent also has a broader significance. As the Downing Street Declaration states, "stability and well being will not be found under any political system which is refused allegiance or rejected on grounds of identity by a significant minority of those governed by it".

The Nationalist community has never given its consent to Northern Ireland as it was or even as it stands now. Without prejudice to the absolute need for consent to a change in sovereignty, the achievement of mutual or two-way cross-community consent or acceptance of the arrangements to emerge from negotiations is also necessary and desirable. It is in the interest of all communities that the essential basis for stable and effective government be achieved and all parties should co-operate to this end. In dealing with the decommissioning issue, the Irish Government has always demonstrated its good faith. We do so again today in bringing this motion before the House. In thanking Members for taking the motion, I urge them to support it.

Mrs. Owen

I thank the Taoiseach for giving us an opportunity to express our sentiments not only about this agreement but about what we hope and pray to be an unequivocal and lasting ceasefire. At a time when our political system is under much scrutiny and criticism, it is a sign of its maturity that Northern Ireland has not often led to division in this House. All parties want peace to be restored in Northern Ireland and an end to death, violence and the threat of violence. All parties, whether in Government or in Opposition, will strive to see that achieved. That is why I, on behalf of Fine Gael, welcome the agreement reached between the Irish and UK Governments to establish the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.

The decommissioning of illegal weapons is not only a political issue, it is also a matter of public safety. There is an extreme risk that weapons have already found and will continue to find their way into what are referred to as "ordinary criminal activities". I commend our security forces, the Garda Síochána and the Army, for their diligence and commitment in seeking out, discovering and destroying weapons. With every weapon they destroy decommissioning is taking place, as those weapons can no longer be used for violence.

The agreement signed by the two Governments has its origins in the Joint Communiqué agreed by Deputy John Bruton as Taoiseach and Mr. John Major as Prime Minister on 28 November 1995. It was decided to launch a twin track process to make progress on decommissioning in parallel with all-party negotiations. Following that process, the International Body was established under the chairmanship of Senator George Mitchell, General John de Chastelain and former Prime Minister Harry Holkeri. As someone who worked with those gentlemen for a full year on the all-party talks, I pay tribute to them. They are not Irish people but they gave unstintingly of their time and exercised great generosity and wisdom to help this country and Northern Ireland to solve our problems. That spirit is to be commended.

The body was specifically 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. The body was also asked to report on whether there was a clear commitment on the part of those in possession of such arms to work constructively to achieve the removal of such weapons from life in Northern Ireland. The report was presented to the two Governments on 22 January 1996 and it was unequivocal in its recommendation that participants in all-party negotiations would have to confirm their commitment to the fundamental principles of democracy and non-violence. It outlined six principles which must be adhered to by any participant in all-party negotiations.

I welcome yesterday's affirmation by the Sinn Féin delegation to the talks of its total and absolute commitment to the six principles as outlined in paragraph 20 of the International Body's report. It is regrettable that the Unionists did not find it possible to attend that meeting but I urge them to reconsider their position before 15 September. The present and previous Irish and British Governments have maintained the position that the only realistic way forward is through the implementation of all aspects of the International Body's report. The real hope of progress in reaching agreement on a political solution to the problems in Northern Ireland rests with both communities being represented at the talks and engaging in the talks process with energy, generosity and, in the words of Senator Mitchell, "a decommissioning of mindsets".

I urge the Unionist parties to recognise that participants in all-party negotiations who have accepted the six Mitchell principles can be held to account during the talks if at any time they renege on any of those principles. I sat through talks from June 1996 to June 1997 at which certain parties had to account for breaches of the principles. That protection is built into the talks process which is why I believe there is no reason to suspect a trap.

Sinn Féin in making public its commitment to those principles has adopted all the responsibility which goes with accepting them. Sinn Féin leaders must now ensure none of their supporters engage in any acts of violence or threaten the use of violence. They must show they accept the principle of consent in any settlement which might be arrived at. This is a major undertaking for Sinn Féin which must by its actions and words convince its supporters that the war is definitely over and that violence can no longer be used as a means to achieve political aims.

Having participated in the talks from 6 June 1996 until the change of Government in June 1997, I recognise that decommissioning remains the main obstacle to the launch of the three stranded approach. I am reminded of the words of Seamus Mallon in September 1996 when he outlined clearly the situation in regard to decommissioning. He said:

The decommissioning issue is so potent because it touches such a deadly serious issue: illegal weapons and the havoc they have wrought. To question the decommissioning issue or even the way it has been tactically manipulated is to lay oneself open to attack as somehow making light of all the human suffering due to these guns.

I wish to make clear that any questioning of efforts to ensure decommissioning would not stall the all-party talks is in no way trying to make light of the extreme importance of decommissioning weapons and ensuring new stocks are not built up to kill or maim anybody else on this island or elsewhere. However, it is necessary for us to be reminded that this is a twin track process and that we need to make progress on the three stranded negotiations.

It was necessary to find a way around the impasse created by the decommissioning issue if progress was to be made. My colleague, Deputy Spring, and I and other participants in the talks sat for many frustrating hours in Stormont listening to the debate about decommissioning and were fearful we might not be able to find a way around that impasse. However, I am satisfied that, frustrating as that year was, it was necessary in order to bring people together. The progress which is now being made is partly as a result of that year and the work done by many of us in the former Government and the British Government. Although that year was slow and frustrating it was not a waste as it has led to a situation where we have the prospect of all parties participating in the talks.

In order to find a way around the impasse I moved the Decommissioning Bill in this House in December 1996, which became law in February 1997. A number of key considerations determined the nature of the approach adopted in that Act. There was a need for the legislative framework intended to facilitate the decommissioning — in the sense of the use of the word in the International Body's report — to be realistic by recognising the basic and inescapable reality that decommissioning can only be effected by those with something to decommission and in circumstances where they are prepared to decommission. The International Body also recommended the process of decommissioning should be neither a victory nor a defeat for anyone, it should take place to the satisfaction of an independent commission and result in the complete destruction of armaments in a manner which was verifiable and safe. It also recommended that the decommissioning process should not expose individuals to prosecution.

Unionists should remember what Mr. David Trimble said to the Ulster Young Unionist Conference on Saturday, 5 October 1996. Speaking about the paper on decommissioning the party had submitted, he said:

What we have done on our paper is to refine and define the issue of decommissioning and identify precisely what needs to be done at the present stage — the enactment of the enabling legislation, the Verification Commission, the Decommissioning Scheme — and what needs to be done later — in terms of the procedures to be followed if and when Sinn Féin enter the process.

Unionists should note that the legislation and the verification commission are now in place. I am not sure if the House will be told the names of the members of that commission today but it is now possible for it to discuss the mechanisms and modalities. The matters Unionists wanted addressed to ensure that decommissioning would not be dropped from the agenda are now in place. The talks on 15 September provide them with an opportunity to challenge Sinn Féin and to ensure their point of view, and that of the people they represent, is put forward.

The terms of the legislation I introduced sought to follow closely the recommendations of Senator Mitchell's body. However, it was also necessary to ensure that it was enabling in character. At that time, the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, criticised the legislation. He said it contained nothing and was only enabling. Now that he is the Minister and must deliver on the legislation, I hope he recognises the wisdom of its enabling provisions.

Mr. Spring

He does.

Mrs. Owen

I hope the Minister will show that generosity of spirit which was not always present when he was in Opposition.

Mr. O'Donoghue

That is not true.

Mrs. Owen

Perhaps the change has helped the Minister.

Mrs. O'Rourke

He is transformed.

Mrs. Owen

The Minister will recognise now that without the enabling features of the legislation it would not have been possible for the two Governments to reach agreement on the commission because there would have been too much inflexibility. The legislation allowed maximum flexibility to give effect to any arrangements which may have been agreed on how decommissioning would take place. It was a wise step to take and I hope the Minister will recognise that point. Similar legislation was passed by the House of Commons.

There are high expectations, following the agreement signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Ray Burke, and the Secretary of State, Dr. Mo Mowlam, that progress can be made on the launch of three strand negotiations without the threat of the issue of decommissioning causing another breakdown in the process. I hope the Minister will not be subjected, as I was when Minister for Justice, to seven hours of continuous questioning by Unionists about decommissioning. I hope he does not face that because it was a horrendous ordeal, although I survived to live another day.

Useful work was done by the Irish and British sides in the papers they submitted some months ago. It is now up to the talks participants and the two Governments to ensure that the decommissioning issue is not allowed to frustrate or thwart progress in the negotiations. The two Governments and the participants have a shared and equal interest in the satisfactory resolution of the problem of decommissioning. This agreement and the legislation provide the possibility of moving forward and ending forever violence and the threat of violence in the Northern Ireland context.

The progress made is a tribute to all involved, including successive Governments and individuals over the past ten years. It also involved the huge commitment of a small number of civil servants to the process. They are people of the highest integrity and we should not forget the work done by officials in this jurisdiction and in Britain. The progress made allows us to hope that the ceasefire is unequivocal and lasting and that we can begin again to talk about the peace dividend. We saw the advantages for a brief period during the last ceasefire. We saw the progress that could be made and what co-operation could achieve in the absence of violence in Northern Ireland. We are now on the threshold of massive change based on co-operation and worthwhile all-Ireland initiatives. The potential for co-operation between North and South is immense. An all-Ireland electricity grid and gas interconnector, which promise liberalisation in our energy policy, are exciting ideas on which we can now work. There are practical and social reasons further co-operation between North and South is essential. That co-operation can be expanded and become lasting now that we have a ceasefire. There are major changes ahead for the people of Northern Ireland as they examine the implications of peace. The massive spending on security during the last 27 years can be redirected into more productive areas and new institutions will have a chance to thrive.

In commending the Government on reaching this agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom, I, on behalf of Fine Gael, wish the talks process well on 15 September and continue to offer the support of Fine Gael to progress in those all-party talks. We received such support from the parties now in Government. I hope 1997 will be remembered as the year that lasting peace came to Ireland.

Mr. Spring

I welcome the opportunity to support this motion. We are at a very important juncture in Anglo-Irish relations. In five days' time, all-party talks will begin. It is regrettable that yesterday did not see the conclusion of the agreements necessary for everybody to be at the talks in a round table fashion, but I hope, as the Taoiseach said, that the Ulster Unionist Party will make the right decision next Saturday. It can still happen and I hope it does. Ironically, if the Unionists exclude themselves, the only people excluded from the talks will be those who do so by their own deeds. The only section of the community which will be disenfranchised in those negotiations will be those people whose political representatives have chosen not to represent them. There is still time for all parties to get around the table and, to use a cliché, there is an historic opportunity. I hope all parties will have the leadership and courage to be at the table next Monday to start on the next phase of reconciliation on this island.

It is a remarkable development and one that many in this House had begun to despair of ever seeing. For nearly ten years we have witnessed and participated in many moments when hopes were raised and then dashed. Ever since the first faltering steps toward talks were initiated by Peter Brooke and others, there have been moments when it seemed we were about to make the breakthrough only to arrive at the brick wall of intransigence. We have had communiqués, tests, agreements and declarations, walkouts and lockouts, day after day of endless negotiations, as described by Deputy Owen, parsing and analysing sacred texts in terms of art, obscure language and sometimes crystal clear language, progress and setbacks, generosity and churlishness on occasion. It has all been designed to one end, that of getting all representatives of a community around a table, or at least under one roof.

In that ten years, sadly, many have died, some in horrible circumstances which will leave scars forever. Many still grieve and find it impossible to forgive. There have been atrocities which have shamed us as a people and which have attached resonances which will never be forgotten to names like Enniskillen, Greysteel and Shankill. We have seen people come and go — men like Gordon Wilson, for instance, who died without knowing that his ambition, to see the laying down of guns and the depravity of violence replaced by talk, might soon be realised.

Now we are on the brink of a day when the talking starts. It must not be another false dawn. Those who signed up yesterday to the Mitchell principles must mean it. We must hope and believe that they signed with their hearts and not just with their hands. Too many have suffered and died to allow this golden opportunity to be wasted now.

All those who will go to the table on Monday must know that they are not going there to win. They are going to seek agreement, and that means they are going to compromise. I hope, as does every Member of this House, that within that process the specific issue of disarmament and decommissioning can and will be addressed, but more important by far are the other issues around which an agreement can be built.

We all know what those issues are. How is Northern Ireland to be governed for the future in a way that guarantees the loyalty and allegiance of every one of its citizens? How is that loyalty to be willingly given and never coerced? What are the relationships between North and South of this island that will underpin a dynamic and mutually benefiting relationship and guarantee rights for everyone? What new strands can we derive from the relationship between the two islands?

In many ways these are simple issues, yet they are ones which have divided us, led to the killing of thousands of people and erected barriers of distrust and suspicion over many generations. It would be naive to think that they can be dealt with easily or that the talks about to begin will conclude with ready agreement in a couple of months.

The key is generosity. In 1992, having observed from a distance, when Unionist leaders had the courage to come to Dublin they were treated shabbily. There have been too many instances when they have reacted in a petty and vindictive way to events. Every time that happens, it sets the process back. All too often, process rather than form seems to matter most. It has always been easy to erect an artificial barrier to progress, to impose some new test of the bona fides of one group or another or to give offence at a delicate moment. That is why these talks will require more than resolve to reach an agreement, more than willingness to compromise. They will require endless patience, considerable diplomacy and a great deal of courage on all sides.

The talks begin with the full support of two newly elected Governments and have the full backing of an American Administration which is strong and knowledgeable on these events. They have the support of the European Union which has already expressed itself in tangible ways in Northern Ireland and in the Border counties. They will be chaired by a person of immense skill and stature, George Mitchell, ably assisted by his colleagues, John de Chastelain and Harry Holkeri. They have already displayed both courage and patience to help us get to this point.

Yet we all know how easy it is for the talks to go wrong. It is for that reason there is a particular onus on the Government to play the fullest possible part to ensure that generosity and openness are the key ingredients. The parameters of that generosity are to be found in the Joint Framework Document, particularly paragraph 21.

It is important also to recall that the Joint Framework Document was not only supported by this House but was negotiated in part by a Fianna Fáil-Labour Government and in part by a Fine Gael-Labour-Democractic Left Government. Uniquely, the negotiation of this document and its key paragraph has spanned the life of those Governments and involved the work and input of many of the key personnel in the development of the peace process.

Paragraph 21 commits the Government to introduce and support proposals for change in the Constitution to implement the commitments in the Downing Street Declaration. We are committed in those changes to fully reflect the principles of consent in Northern Ireland. The changes will demonstrably be such that no territorial claim of right to jurisdiction over Northern Ireland contrary to the will of a majority of its people is asserted, while maintaining the existing birthright of everyone born in either jurisdiction in Ireland to be part, as of right, of the Irish nation.

The constitutional changes to which we are committed will enable a new agreement — the agreement about which negotiations are about to begin — to be ratified. That agreement will include, as part of a new and equitable dispensation for Northern Ireland, recognition by both Governments of the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland as regards its constitutional status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland.

There are key words: a new and equitable dispensation, the legitimacy of a free choice by the people of Northern Ireland, and the demonstrable removal of a territorial claim of right to jurisdiction. These key words underpin a commitment already negotiated and entered into by five political parties in this House, and fully supported by the Progressive Democrats, to amend the Constitution as part of the process now beginning.

I urge the Government to be generous in this aspect. There is no point delaying the deployment of this commitment until the last minute, begrudging any risk and seeking to secure concessions from everyone else. The timing of a Government initiative in relation to the Constitution could play a vital role in shaping the atmosphere, and ultimately the outcome, of these negotiations.

Generosity must come from others as well. There will be a particular responsibility on the Unionist leadership to display all the courage and foresight of which it is capable, to put aside any temptation for posturing or point-scoring and to get stuck in in the interests of their people. There have been times when the leadership of Unionism in Northern Ireland has been willing to reach out and seek an accommodation whereby all could live as neighbours. Now more than ever they must be prepared to invest in the future. The British Government, especially the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, have shown courage and resolution in reaching this point. I urge the taking of further steps on issues such as the loyalist prisoners, a section of the community which, rightly or wrongly, has been left with the impression that confidence-building measures have not always been advanced in the most even-handed manner.

I wish to place on record my party's support for the process now beginning. We will play our part to help further the process. In this connection a role could be played by reconvening the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. The atmosphere of the Forum which developed under the superb chairmanship of Judge Catherine McGuinness played no small part in enabling people to begin the tentative process of working together. It enabled the development of many of the concepts that now play a key role. I ask the Taoiseach and his colleagues to consider the possibility of a meeting of the Forum that would allow commitment to be refreshed.

There is an extent of opportunity and hope unprecedented in our lifetime. I wish all participants well and we will give any constructive assistance possible to the process.

Proinsias De Rossa

This debate gives the House an opportunity to look in detail at decommissioning, a problem which has been and is likely to remain one of the most difficult to overcome in the peace process. However, it also provides an opportunity to review developments in Northern Ireland since the last sitting of the House.

When the Dáil met on 10 July there was a general sense of gloom as Northern Ireland appeared once more to be on the edge of a sectarian abyss. Ten days earlier two community policemen had been murdered in Lurgan and there was no sign of a resumption of the IRA ceasefire. The annual cycle of provocative marches and counter demonstrations had resumed. There were ugly and violent clashes on the Garvaghy Road as an Orange parade was forced through and sectarian confrontations were a nightly feature of life in many areas.

As on many occasions over the past 27 years, when things seemed irredeemably bleak, sufficient common sense prevailed to pull Northern Ireland back from the brink. The first positive development was the decision of the Orange Order to transfer or cancel four controversial parades scheduled for 12 July. This was a crucial decision and the leadership of the Orange Order is entitled to considerable credit for the courage and leadership it displayed in placing the needs and safety of the entire community above sectional interests. A week later the resumption of the IRA ceasefire was announced, a development that was as welcome as it was unexpected. All those who exerted pressure and influence on the leadership of the IRA to secure the resumption of the ceasefire are entitled to considerable credit.

The combined impact of these two decisions meant Northern Ireland was saved from a summer of sectarian conflict which seemed inevitable days earlier, thus saving many lives. Nothing in Northern Ireland, no sense of grievance about what happened in the past, no feeling of frustration at the slow pace of political change, no unfulfilled political aspiration, no flag or symbol, can justify the use of violence or murder.

The wish of everybody is that the IRA ceasefire is genuine, permanent and irreversible. Preliminary indications appear to be positive with the security forces reporting that, unlike on the last occasion, the IRA seems to have ceased training and the targeting of potential victims. On the other hand, the discovery in County Cavan last month of the biggest and most sophisticated IRA bomb factory ever found indicates the dangers that still exist and the extent of the challenge to find a solution to the problem of decommissioning.

Given the resumption of the IRA ceasefire and the assessment of the security forces in Northern Ireland that it is genuine, it was proper that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr. Mo Mowlam, issued an invitation to Sinn Féin to join the all-party talks. The previous Government, of which I was a member, put an enormous amount of effort into securing the agreement of the British Government to the opening of the talks in Stormont in June 1996. We made it clear to Sinn Féin that what was required to facilitate that party's entry into the talks process was an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire and a commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the Mitchell report. The IRA's decision to end the ceasefire in February 1996 was totally and utterly unjustified. Whatever frustration was felt at the slow pace of political developments in the aftermath of the August 1994 declaration, nothing justified that decision. Its futility is now clear; all that was achieved was the further unnecessary loss of life and the delaying, by more than a year, of Sinn Féin's entry into talks.

The circumstances of the Canary Wharf bombing represented a betrayal of the hand of friendship which had been extended to the republican movement following the 1994 ceasefire and made it more difficult for Unionists and many Nationalists in Northern Ireland, as well as citizens of the Republic, to believe the movement could be trusted. It is now clear that when Mr. Gerry Adams was shaking Bill Clinton's hand in Belfast, the Canary Wharf bombing was being planned. When Sinn Féin met Government Ministers, myself included, during the week ending February 9, the lethal bomb was already on its way to Canary Wharf. The murder of Garda Jerry McCabe in June 1996 was proof that the IRA had no qualms about using lethal violence on either side of the Border.

If the talks are to have any prospect of success, the republican movement must acknowledge that a major effort is now required on its part to overcome the legacy of suspicion and distrust left by the Canary Wharf bombing, its aftermath and the murder of Garda Jerry McCabe. The restoration of the ceasefire was necessitated by the failure, yet again, of violence in advancing the republican cause and by the resolve of the British and Irish Governments to stand firm against blackmail. Most important was the refusal by the people of Northern Ireland to give in to coercion. However, the restoration was a crucial development without which the prospects for progress were bleak and in many respects it was the least difficult decision for the republican movement to make. The real challenge now facing the republican movement is to find an accommodation with its political opponents which will recognise and respect all of the traditions and national allegiances in Northern Ireland and guarantee its people the peace and security they crave. This is the challenge facing all of the parties at the plenary session of the talks which will reopen next week. It is difficult to see what alternative options exist or where Northern Ireland can go if the talks do not succeed. Notwithstanding the suspicions and fears of the Unionist community, it would be a great tragedy if its political representatives were to absent themselves from the negotiating table at this crucial time. Even if it finds it cannot initially participate in plenary sessions, I urge the Ulster Unionist Party to find a formula which would allow it to participate in a more general way in the talks, leading ultimately to its full involvement in the process. The DUP and the UK Unionists should also be present at the talks to argue their case. It would be ironic indeed if, after bringing Sinn Féin in from decades of abstentionism, the Unionists were now to revert to this discredited and arid type of politics.

If the Unionists opt out of the process and continue to say "no" to virtually everything there will be an increasing clamour for the two governments to impose a solution over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland. That would be a great mistake. What have the Unionists to fear from full involvement in the process? They have a capable and articulate leadership to defend their interests and they also have the commitments in the Downing Street Declaration and the joint framework documents, which are unequivocally endorsed by the two governments and supported by every party in this House, with the exception so far of Sinn Féin, that there can be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland without the support of a majority there. That provides a bulwark against any fears they have of being bounced into a united Ireland. The talks will only succeed if all sides enter into them with a realistic expectation of what can be achieved. The British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, in his Balmoral speech shortly after the British election, was only being realistic when he said he did not envisage a united Ireland in the lifetime of the youngest person in his audience.

If Sinn Féin enters these talks claiming that it can achieve in this process the United Ireland the republican movement has been unable to secure by force of arms over the past 27 years, it is incredibly naive or deliberately misleading its supporters. Either way, Sinn Féin will disappoint its supporters and it would be better to be up front as to what is feasible now rather than have this disappointment and the backlash it will engender when it occurs.

What is achievable in these talks is a new democratic accommodation that will recognise and respect the conflicting national allegiances at the heart of the Northern Ireland problem, provide stable and acceptable governance that will guarantee justice and fair play for all sectors of society there and, most importantly, rid Northern Ireland for all time of the scourge of political violence.

The agreement before the House deals with one of the most difficult problems to be overcome in the talks process. In the Dáil debate on the original ceasefire in August 1994 I identified it as a problem that would be difficult to overcome. The last Government put enormous efforts into trying to find a solution to the problem and countless hours were put in by the then Taoiseach, Tánaiste and other Ministers and officials in trying to find a way forward.

The agreement in November 1995 to establish the International Body was on the initiative of our Government. I always acknowledged that decommissioning was a serious problem that would have to be overcome, but I expressed the view on a number of occasions that it should not be built into such a matter of principle that it created further obstacles to the primary objective, that of a political settlement and a lasting peace.

There was much criticism in the aftermath of the ceasefire about the position of the then British Government on decommissioning. Republican propagandists would have us believe that decommissioning was a roadblock erected solely by the British Government and the Unionists to obstruct the peace process. They point in particular to the alleged rejection of the Mitchell report by the British Government in early 1996. The fact, however, is that from early 1994 the president of Sinn Féin, Mr. Gerry Adams, knew that decommissioning would be a requirement for Sinn Féin's participation in talks. This is evident from several speeches and interviews he gave at the time, particularly an interview in The Irish Times in January 1994. We were later told by Mr. Martin McGuinness that the August 1994 ceasefire “does mean a complete cessation of military operations under all circumstances”. Note the words “under all circumstances”. These echo the Downing Street Declaration of December 1993 which stated in the clearest possible terms that “the achievement of peace must involve a permanent end to the use of or support for paramilitary violence”. It is worth noting the use of the word “permanent” in the light of the Sinn Féin-IRA objections to it subsequently.

The then Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, left no doubt as to what was required. He stated: "We are talking about the handing up of arms and are insisting that it would not be simply a temporary cessation of violence to see what the political process offers".

The Tánaiste subsequently reiterated this point in the Dáil on 1 June 1994 when he said:

There will have to be verification of the handing over of arms. As I said publicly on many occasions, there is little point in attempting to bring people into political dialogue if they are doing so on the basis of giving it a try and if it does not work returning to the bomb and the bullet. It has to be permanent and there must be evidence of it.

The then Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, did not dissent from these remarks although he has changed his tune since his return to the back benches.

It was a tactical mistake to let what was called the Washington Three requirement develop into a matter of principle. On the other hand, we must acknowledge the need to establish confidence in those communities that had suffered so terribly at the hands of paramilitary violence that the ceasefires were genuine and that there would be no return to violence.

The Mitchell report identified the core of the problem when it stated that one side had insisted some decommissioning of arms must take place before all-party negotiations could begin; the other side had insisted that no decommissioning could take place until the end of the process after an agreed settlement had been reached. Mitchell recommended an approach under which decommissioning would take place during the process of all-party negotiations. He said this approach was a compromise but it offered the parties an opportunity to use the process of decommissioning to build confidence one step at a time during negotiations. The report noted that as progress is made on political issues even modest mutual steps on decommissioning could help create the atmosphere needed for further steps in a progressive pattern of mounting trust and confidence.

The agreement signed by the two Governments in Belfast on 26 August last, and which we are now being asked to ratify, builds on the legislation passed in both jurisdictions and puts in place the technical procedures for a commission to supervise the decommissioning of arms. Of course the commission can only act if political agreement on decommissioning is reached at the talks. It is a challenge for all parties but particularly for those associated with paramilitary groups, Sinn Féin, the Ulster Democratic Party and the Progressive Unionist Party. The recommendation of Mitchell that there be some decommissioning during the talks must be the guiding principle. The reality is that there will be no agreement without progress on decommissioning.

The State cannot afford to remain passive in relation to illegally held weapons. I congratulate the Garda on its continuing good work in ridding our country of lethal weapons held for the purpose of killing our neighbours. There cannot be any question of equating the legitimately held weapons of the police and the security forces backed up by the force of law with arms held illegally by paramilitaries.

The Republican movement must take heed of the democratic demand of the overwhelming majority of the people on this island, expressed through all parties in this House other than Sinn Féin and confirmed in opinion poll after opinion poll, who want to see progress on this issue. Having taken so long to get to the opening of these talks I believe the public will show little tolerance of any refusal by Sinn Féin or others to seriously address the decommissioning problem. The purpose of arms decommissioning is to remove the threat of violence from the political equation. Progress on the issue is also essential to establish trust and confidence so that all-party talks can proceed in the best possible climate.

So long as the paramilitaries hold on to their weapons many people will retain doubts as to the true intentions of these organisations. Decommissioning should be a declaration of confidence in the political process, a statement of commitment to use peaceful and democratic methods exclusively to deliver political objectives and a willingness to accept the expression of will by the people at the ballot box.

Implicit in the public acceptance by Sinn Féin of the Mitchell principles yesterday must be the abandonment by it of the boast that not a single bullet will be surrendered in advance of a settlement. Republicans should take note of the words of the Reverend Martin Smyth who said last week: "I believe if people are going down the road of peace they do not need Semtex, they certainly do not need ground to air missiles. Those are weapons of offence and it would be an act of real belief and trust if they brought them forward now". Sinn Féin has long demanded confidence-building measures of others and by acting on Reverend Smyth's proposals it could create confidence among those with whom it wishes to engage in dialogue. The path to a settlement lies in exclusively peaceful and democratic means. As President Clinton said during his visit to Northern Ireland in l995: "Violence has no place at the table of democracy". Political violence in Ireland must be consigned to history once and for all. The talks and international commission can achieve this and we must do everything in our power to ensure that this historic objective can be achieved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I call the Minister of State, Deputy Cullen.

Mr. Sargent

With reference to the Order agreed by the Whips, I understand I have ten minutes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will call the Deputy after the Minister of State. The Order of the House is that the leaders of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left have 20 minutes each and that each other Member has ten minutes.

Mr. Sargent

That is at variance with the agreement reached with the Government Whip.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is the Order agreed this morning.

Mr. Sargent

I was informed I was to have ten minutes after Deputy De Rossa.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have read the Order and I intend to follow it. However, I will call the Deputy after the Minister of State.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I seek clarification on my opportunity to address the House. We are debating a very important issue and I have listened to the Taoiseach and the leaders of other parties outline their parties' positions. Many of them made direct reference to the party I represent in the Chamber and I wish to have an opportunity to present the Sinn Féin position in the House today. I would like confirmation that I will be afforded that opportunity.

I wish to advise the House that I made substantial efforts to be accommodated in the debate but sadly I am not in a position to confirm whether this will be the case. I seek confirmation that I will be afforded this chance today.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I appreciate the Deputy's point but under Standing Orders I am obliged to revert to the Government side. However, if there is time I hope to facilitate the Deputy.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Cullen)

If it is of any help to the Deputies, my statement is very brief. Indeed it is so brief that I would have concluded it by now if the two Deputies had not intervened. I will endeavour to accommodate the Deputies.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I thank the Minister.

Mr. Cullen

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this very important issue. The Taoiseach has already spoken about the important contribution the decommissioning of illegally held arms can make to the successful outcome of the substantive negotiations on a political settlement in Northern Ireland which are due to commence on 15 September. The agreement to establish the independent international commission on decommissioning which we are debating today is an important step in this process. The commission was initially recommended in the report of the International Body chaired by Senator George Mitchell which was submitted in January l996. The International Body conducted its business in Dublin and Belfast and the new commission will also have facilities in the two cities.

One of the first tasks which faced me when I became Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works was to arrange for the provision of accommodation for the decommissioning commission. I was glad of the opportunity to play a role in the decommissioning process and I am happy to report to the House that, within a matter of weeks, my office completed the major refurbishment of Block M in Dublin Castle for this purpose. The putting in place of these facilities demonstrates in a tangible way the Government's total commitment to this process.

Selective tendering was adopted for reasons of urgency and security. Because of the tight timescale the successful tenderer was required to work through the builders' holidays and week-ends to achieve the target completion date. The contract was completed on schedule and within budget and the building was handed over to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on 9 September last. Great credit is due to all concerned for the speedy and efficient manner in which this project was carried out in what was an extremely tight timescale.

As is standard practice, the Office of Public Works contracted the services of the private sector for the construction works. The completion of this project in such a tight timescale is a fine example of the level of co-operation between the public and private sectors. It should be noted that the building was ready for occupation 11 weeks after the date of receipt of confirmation that the accommodation was required. I welcome the opportunity to put this information on the record of the House. The completion of this project will facilitate discussion on important matters in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. Sargent

The Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, welcomes and supports the agreement to establish the independent international commission on decommissioning and the motion before the House. During a week when our thoughts have turned to India following the death of Mother Teresa whose life was an inspiration to people everywhere it is perhaps fitting that we should remind ourselves of the life and work of Mahatma Ghandi when considering the proposals on the decommissioning of weapons. It is also fitting that we do this the day after Sinn Féin signed up to the Mitchell principles which include a commitment to "non-violence". Non-violence as a political ideology is a gift to the world from India. We should keep its precepts to the forefront of our minds as we consider the role of the independent commission and the wider aspects of the peace process in the weeks and months ahead.

The decommissioning issue has dogged the peace process during the past three years and Comhaontas Glas welcomes the long overdue agreement between the two Governments to establish the commission. We wish it well and look forward to the day when it can dissolve itself, its work complete and the gun taken out of Irish politics forever. The independent commission offers development of the role of neutral facilitation of the conflict resolution process in Northern Ireland which is very welcome. Since its foundation the Green Party has called for such an international dimension to be introduced to Northern Ireland. While this is but a small step in that direction, it is an important one.

There are many parallel lessons to be learned regarding decommissioning and post-conflict situations worldwide. We remember the Truth Commission in South Africa. We should also remember the wider implications of the end of the Cold War, one of the largest decommissioning scenarios ever seen in the world. It was supposed to herald nuclear disarmament. Those involved with CND down through the years will recall at that time that the nuclear disarmament campaign was at a crossroads. Membership of groups, such as CND, tumbled because of a perception that decommissioning of arms had been achieved. In hindsight it is important to remember that what also happened is that arms had shifted from land based areas to submarines in the sea. In that process there was decommissioning, but there was also a decoy that was called decommissioning. It is worth remembering what Senator Mitchell said about the need to talk about the decommissioning of a mindset as well as the hardware of militarism, which is not the full picture and can be a decoy in the process of achieving peace.

It is important that the commission should consist of international personnel and not exclusively of individuals with a military background. It is also important that the commission should not seem to reflect in its membership any particular military alliance. For that reason I ask the Government to consider the appointment of a member to it from one of the non-aligned nations.

I am sure everyone in this House would like to see the complete demilitarising of Northern Ireland society immediately, but it remains a long way off. It seems strange that organisations committed to the principle of non-violence and the long haul of democratic dialogue and conflict resolution cannot openly call for the immediate decommissioning of all offensive weaponry. If there are difficulties related to the unilateral nature of such a gesture, should we not consider whether there is a role for the independent commission in brokering a multilateral gesture of some kind? There is no doubt that building trust towards peace takes considerable courage. It is appropriate and important to commend measures that have been taken. I also commend measures taken in the British Army. On visits to the North I have spoken to soldiers who no longer wear helmets. That is a gesture and a symbolic step towards demilitarisation.

The wider economic ramifications of the peace process and decommissioning should be remembered. My farming colleagues in north County Dublin need a licence to buy fertiliser, otherwise they are suspected of terrorism. If we could take immediate steps in that area throughout the island it would go a long way towards normalising society.

Article 4(a) of the agreement states that the commission is to consult with all the parties, including the two Governments in regard to its brief and that it would be important that it be free to explore possibilities for confidence building measures in the security area as a form of quid pro quo for the start of decommissioning. It is not credible to separate the issue of State military disengagement from the issue of decommissioning. I would like to be assured that such a role will be possible. The commission falls a long way short of the level of international and neutral involvement in the security area that I would like to see. At the very least it must be authorised to make recommendations, in private if need be, to the British Government in relation to security and policing, which might advance the day of decommissioning.

The militaristic nature of northern society was brought home forcefully to me when I was an observer on the Garvaghy Road in Portadown last July. Observers who were members of the Canadian Parliament were asked by an international television crew what they thought of the situation. In an almost flippant, but very telling way one said that he did not think the Canadian Army had as many troops as he saw before him on the Garvaghy Road. That shows how abnormal is the situation with which we are dealing.

The absence of the UDP from yesterday's meeting in Belfast is a matter of regret. Non-violent conflict resolution requires even-handedness all round. It would be useful if the commission could make recommendations on other confidence building measures, such as the prisoners issue, which is a matter of concern to loyalists and a contributing factor to their current unwillingness to decommission.

I wish the talks well on 15 September. I offer the efforts and modus operandi of the Green Party to help bring about lasting peace, to ensure we do not talk only of an absence of guns from Irish politics but of a consensus towards living at peace with one another on this island into the future.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Next Monday, 15 September, substantive negotiations are due to begin in Belfast. If the air of anticipation is somewhat muted, it is because the path to this point has been wearying and tortuous. No one should understate the significance of the point we have reached.

Yesterday I had the honour to represent my party at the first plenary session of the talks at Stormont. We were there on the basis of our electoral mandate, an all-Ireland mandate. That democratic mandate, the voice of Sinn Féin voters, constitutes our credentials for the talks ahead. It is vital that the leaders of the Unionist section of the Irish nation realise the critical importance of what lies before us all. For the first time since partition there is an opportunity for national reconciliation to become a reality.

This misnamed issue of decommissioning was responsible for the destruction of the first peace process. It was the weapon which, in the hands of the last British Government and at the urging of the Unionists, was used to hold up progress until all efforts to bring about substantive negotiations came to a standstill. It was a diversion, a road block erected not to achieve the aim of removing all the guns from Irish politics but to postpone the start of negotiations, to keep Sinn Féin outside talks and to stall talks indefinitely once they began. Through determined work by my party and others, this road block was finally removed and the way was cleared for the substantive all-party peace negotiations which have been so long in the making.

I will not support the ratification of the agreement on the international commission as constituted on the grounds that the remit of the proposed commission is too narrow. Sinn Féin has a much broader view of the need for demilitarisation in the Six Counties. All armed groups must be included, most especially the largest and most heavily armed section, the British Crown forces. There is also the neglected issue of the huge number of legally held firearms in the Unionist community, estimated to be around 140,000. All the guns need to be removed from Irish politics and that includes the plastic bullet guns which were used against Nationalists across the Six Counties during the summer. Yesterday along the Border in south Armagh near the road from Castleblayney to Dundalk, a British army spy post, hidden under a derelict house, was discovered by workmen. It is only the most recent example of continuing British military activity, both overt and covert, along the Border and across the Six Counties. This includes the reinforcement of the monstrous hilltop post overlooking the main Dublin-Belfast road north of the Border.

All these issues must be addressed under the heading of demilitarisation. They must be dealt with in the context of real peace negotiations where agreement and trust will form the basis for forward movement. However, I affirm that Sinn Féin will work with this or any commission established in the interest of the peace process. We look forward to progress on every aspect of the historic negotiations now before us.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

The agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom establishing the independent international commission on decommissioning was signed in Belfast on 26 August 1997 on behalf of both Governments. The legal basis for the agreement is contained in the Decommissioning Act, 1997, and the terms of the agreement reflect the provisions of that Act, which have already been approved by Dáil Éireann.

Article 4 of the agreement sets out in more detail the functions of the commission, including its relationship with the political negotiations in Northern Ireland. I will return to the question of the functions of the commission under Article 4 of the agreement later. The agreement was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas on 28 August 1997.

The signature of the agreement is a key stage in preparing for the establishment of the independent international commission on decommissioning. The establishment of this commission was recommended originally in the report of the International Body, the Mitchell report, presented to both Governments in January 1996. The Mitchell report recommended that the decommissioning process of illegal arms should take place to the satisfaction of an independent commission acceptable to all parties. It further recommended that the commission would be appointed by the Irish and British Governments on the basis of consultations with the other parties to the negotiation process. Arising from developments in the Northern Ireland talks, both Governments gave a commitment that the commission would be in a position to commence work on a fully operational basis along with the start of substantive negotiations which are due to commence on 15 September next.

In accordance with its terms, the agreement will not enter into force until both Governments exchange notification of their acceptance of it. It is intended this should take place on the date of the commencement of the substantive negotiations in the Northern Ireland talks. I will make a number of further legal instruments under the provisions of the Decommissioning Act, 1997 on that day to ensure all the legal formalities required to enable the independent international commission to operate from 15 September are completed.

Among these formalities is the granting of those privileges and immunities to the commission, its members, staff and agents, which will be necessary to enable the commission to perform its duties effectively. Article 8 of the agreement imposes on these persons the obligation not to disclose any information obtained in the performance of their functions unless such disclosure is authorised by the commission.

Article 12 of the agreement provides that it shall continue in force until terminated by the mutual agreement of both Governments. In addition to the legal formalities required, a range of practical matters also arise in connection with the establishment of the commission, including issues of accommodation, support staffing, an IT system, transport arrangements and funding. All of these matters are being handled by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

In conformity with the precedent established by the International Body, the international commission will have offices in Dublin and Belfast. It is too early at this stage to say how the commission will distribute its time and activities between these locations. This may depend on, and vary with, the different stages of the commission's work under the various headings of its responsibilities, set out in Article 4 of the agreement. Suitable office accommodation for the commission has been provided in Dublin Castle, as was outlined by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works, Deputy Cullen. I compliment him and the Office of Public Works on the priority given to the preparation of these facilities.

Article 2 of the agreement provides, as does the legislation, that the commission will be independent in the performance of its duties. The commission's independence is underlined by the inclusion of the word "independent" in its formal title. Article 7 of the agreement provides, in accordance with the basic legislative provision in the Decommissioning Act, 1997, that both Governments will provide necessary funding for the proper functioning of the commission. In line with the arrangement which applied for the International Body, the ongoing costs will be shared equally by both Governments. Any capital costs arising will be incurred where they fall. The overall cost of the International Body was approximately £200,000 which was in respect of a ten week period in 1995-6.

On that basis, it is possible that the operation of the commission, which will be for a much longer period, could cost approximately £1.2 million for a 12 month period, 50 per cent of which would be borne by this Government. Provision will be included in next year's Estimates for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on that basis by way of a grant-in-aid payable to the commission. Expenditure in 1997 can be borne from the existing provisions in the Vote for my Department.

Article 9 of the agreement places an obligation on the commission to keep proper accounts and to appoint, at the request of both Governments, auditors whose reports will be submitted to the Governments. The first task of the commission in accordance with its mandate under Article 4 of the agreement, will be to consult the participants in the Northern Ireland negotiations, including both Governments, on the type of schemes for decommissioning, including the role it might play in respect of each scheme. The consultation phase of the commission's work is not limited by time in any way. When it has been completed, the commission will be expected, in accordance with its mandate under Article 4, to present to both Governments proposals for schemes for decommissioning which will have regard to the views expressed to it by those it has consulted. This will include the considered views of both Governments and also those of participants who are likely to have most influence with the different paramilitary groups who hold the illegal arms involved.

It is appropriate at this stage to emphasise the intrinsically voluntary nature of decommissioning, which is the subject of the Mitchell report's recommendations. This has obvious implications for the modus operandi of the commission and for the terms and details of schemes of decommissioning that may be prepared by it.

The search for illegal arms by the security forces, or pre-emptory decommissioning continues unabated. The Garda have had notable successes in this regard, including a recent major seizure of bomb-making components in County Cavan, for which it deserves great credit and our congratulations.

The work of the commission will fall into two broad phases. I have already covered the first phase, involving consultations with other parties and the drafting and presentation of proposals for schemes of decommissioning. In the second phase, the commission will be involved in the implementation of agreed schemes, including the observation, monitoring and verification of the ultimate destruction of decommissioned arms, along the lines recommended by the International Body. This is the third of the functions given to the commission in the agreement. Before any such schemes of decommissioning can be implemented it will be necessary for me to make further regulations under the Decommissioning Act, 1997 in relation to the logistics of decommissioning.

The operational stage of the commission's work will also involve considerable demands for technical advice and field resources by the commission as well as independent legal advice. The International Body anticipated this in its recommendations and suggestions that the commission should be able to call upon the resources of the relevant technical expertise of the Irish and British security forces when and as appropriate. I expect that these issues will require considerable teasing out with the commission at the appropriate time.

The final element in the menu of functions which the commission will have under this agreement is a duty to report periodically to both Governments and, through whatever mechanism they may establish for that purpose, the other participants in the political negotiations in Northern Ireland. This reinforces the connection that already exists and is accepted by both Governments between the decommissioning issue and the political negotiations in Northern Ireland.

The need to build trust and confidence is a major requisite for progress in the political negotiations. The process of decommissioning can act as a catalyst in building confidence within the negotiations and can be advanced itself as a result of progress in those negotiations. In this way a dynamic can be created lending momentum towards an eventual political agreement in the way visualised in the Mitchell report. The commission will have a vital role to play in this process and I wish it every success in discharging its important and challenging mandate.

I thank all the participants in this extremely important debate. I acknowledge in particular the work of my predecessor in dealing with the decommissioning issue for which I thank and congratulate her. I commend this motion to the House.

Mrs. Owen

On a point of order, it is normal for the Minister's speech to be circulated. I would like a copy of what he had to say, particularly as he gave a slight word of praise to me at the end. It is so unusual.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I regret to inform the Deputy that the words of praise will not be included in the text.

Mrs. Owen

I would like a copy anyway.

Mr. O'Donoghue

A rose by any other name.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the motion agreed to?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I wish to record my opposition as stated in my address.

Question put and agreed to.