Vol. 316 No. 12
asked the Taoiseach when he proposes to lay an order amending the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952 before both Houses of the Oireachtas in the light of his agreement with the British Government on overflying our Border for security purposes.
2.
asked the Taoiseach if he will now explain to Dáil Éireann the nature of the agreement between the Irish and British Governments concerning overflying of our Border by British security aircraft, some details of which agreement he has already given to the Washington Press Club.
3.
asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the circumstances which caused him to give information to journalists in Washington which he had declined to disclose to the Dáil on 17 October last on the grounds of security.
With the permission of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I propose to answer Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together.
During my recent official visit to the United States, I was invited to address editors, correspondents and journalists at the National Press Club in Washington on 9 November 1979. My address was followed by a question and answer session. One of the questions put to me was:
What is the significance of the recent Anglo-Irish air corridor agreement on the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, and why have details of that agreement not been disclosed?
I was surprised that what started as speculation in this country was being represented as fact at the National Press Club which is probably one of the most widely representative organisations of journalists in the world.
I decided that I should get rid, as far as I could, immediately and definitively, of this destructive myth, the first account of which appeared, as I recall, even before the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Justice met their counterparts in London when this idea of an air corridor is supposed to have been agreed.
In the course of my reply I said, and I quote from transcripts of the meeting:
May I say in relation and in particular to this so-called air corridor—that it's without foundation. This is an assumption made by certain people that has no, well perhaps not no, basis, but very little basis in fact. Since 1952 we have had in our legislation provision whereby—the name is "Military Overflying (Foreign Aircraft) Regulations, 1952", under which a military aircraft from any other Government can fly in over our territory to a very limited extent—certainly not a ten mile corridor—after application is made and only after application is granted.
We decided to improve this situation very, very slightly, but there is certainly no question of a free corridor, north or south, between the North and the south of Ireland. And this is perhaps an emotive problem in our country because people believe that something has been conceded, some degree of our sovereignty has been surrendered, that wasn't conceded or surrendered before. That is not the fact. We have improved in so far as we can, within our rights and the sovereignty of our own territory, no more than was available under legislation going back as far as 1952, which was availed of by three or four successive governments.
The points I want to stress are made in that paragraph. First, there is no "air corridor" as that term is commonly understood. There has been a lot of speculation in the media about 15- or even 20-mile "free corridors" where planes or helicopters can patrol freely on either side. That is complete nonsense. I am not implying that there are no overflights: for example taking the past five years, there were 57 in 1974, 146 in 1975, 110 in 1976, 119 in 1977 and 64 in 1978. Even if there had been no London meeting there would have continued to be overflights.
Overflights are permitted under the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft), Order, 1952, which superseded even earlier regulations dating from the 1930s.
Secondly, there is no diminution of sovereignty. Overflights, once they are agreed to by the government of a State, involve no diminution of sovereignty whatsoever. Civilised governments allow such things as a matter of course, mainly for reciprocal ease of navigation, to defeat terrorism or to protect human life.
And thirdly, what has been agreed is a slight variation, no more, of what was agreed by the previous Government—of which Deputy Cluskey was a junior member. Because of the understanding on security at the London meetings, I am not at liberty to reveal details of that variation but I can say that it is so slight that it will not necessitate any amendment of the 1952 Order to which I have referred.
I want to add and it is clear from what I have said that I did not, as has been alleged, reveal any details in Washington of what was arranged in London.
But these issues, important as they are, are not the major issues as I see them. I have already assured this House that what was agreed in London involves no diminution of our sovereignty; that is not what is in question with us here today. But it is most definitely in question among the groups against which the agreed security measures are directed, among those who do not hesitate to bomb and to kill in an attempt to get their way, among those who would most dearly like to know precisely what was agreed, so that they can change their tactics and make them even more effective against the people of Ireland, their representatives and their interests. Sovereignty is an issue with them because they are out to destroy it. In case there is any mistake about what I am saying let me quote from an article in the American magazine Time dated 19 November carrying an interview with a person who is described as a political leader of “the movement” speaking on IRA aims.
Obviously, even the term United Ireland means that the Government that has been set up in the Republic must come down. The working class majority from Ulster—Protestants and Catholics—don't simply want to be absorbed into a decadent state ... Obviously that Government has to come down and they know it.
All governments since this State was founded have been elected by the Irish people at free elections under what is one of the most democratic systems of election in the world. The men of violence have been elected by no one and speak only for themselves. It is to the type of enemy who speaks in the Time article that elected representatives and others could well address their minds—as I know many of them do—when they consider security issues. He is an enemy who has no use for persuasion or consensus or democracy. It is important that all issues and all commentaries affecting security be considered in the light of that basic fact.
I assure the Taoiseach that with regard to his description of the aims and motivations of what he described as "the men of violence", I totally agree with his assessment of these people. But we would like to know whether or not there has been an agreement between the British Government and this Government for the operation of British security forces within our territorial jurisdiction. The Taoiseach in his reply——
Sorry, Deputy Cluskey, a supplementary question.
I am looking for clarification on this point. The Taoiseach indicated that there had been an extension of the 1952 Navigational Orders, agreed in the recent meeting between the British Prime Minister and the Taoiseach which would allow British forces to operate within our jurisdiction. In view of the inherent dangers in that agreement——
Deputy Cluskey, we cannot have statements at Question Time. A brief question, please.
The question will not be brief, as the Taoiseach's reply was not brief.
The reply is in order but it does not allow any other Deputy to make statements on it.
It is not in the interests of this House, the interests of the Taoiseach or in the interests of democracy to disallow reasonable discussion on this matter.
It is Question Time. A supplementary question, please.
In view of the very controversial nature of this agreement and the inherent dangers in it, would the Taoiseach consider it to be in the national interests to place this matter before the Dáil either for ratification or rejection by the elected representatives of this Parliament?
As I indicated, when Deputy Cluskey was a junior member of the Government in 1976 an arrangement was made, much along the lines of the arrangements made last month, and that arrangement was not discussed in the Dáil. Deputy Cluskey may not be aware of it. But, as far as the dangers——
I am not aware of it.
The Deputy ought to discuss the matter with some of his colleagues. As I indicated, there have been literally several hundred of these overflights. In the case of any overflight, there is an inherent danger but the danger involved in overflights now is no more critical than the danger involved in overflights during the time when Deputy Cluskey was in government.
Could I ask the Taoiseach——
Sorry, I am calling Deputy FitzGerald.
I endorse what the Taoiseach said in the final part of his statement and I hope that all Members of the House will endorse it. I also accept that an understanding on further administrative arrangements made under the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952 involves an exercise of sovereignty, not a derogation from it. I cannot comment on the Taoiseach's statement that what is now agreed involves so slight a difference from previous arrangements, as not to make any significant difference, because I am unaware of what has been agreed. To that extent I am in a difficulty in that matter. I am aware of what our Government agreed and of what they rejected, but I cannot make further comment on that.
A question, Deputy.
Why, when the Taoiseach told this House that it was not possible for him to convey any information in this regard additional to that conveyed in the communique, and when in this House no reference was made to anything to do with military aircraft in any shape or form, did he feel it necessary when in the US to refer to the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, 1952? In addition to the Taoiseach's statement that this does not permit incursions of more than ten miles—which is inaccurate—he went on to say that we had decided to improve the situation very slightly——
A brief question, Deputy.
In view of the fact that the Taoiseach had not divulged to this House information as to the nation's security arrangements to the extent that they relate to the overflying by aircraft, why did he disclose that in the US?
I indicated the reasons why in the original answer. The question asked was what was the significance of the recent Anglo-Irish air corridor agreement. I was conscious of the fact that I was in one of the most influential organisations of journalists whose reports are widespread and I felt it only right to scotch there and then any suggestion that there was such an agreement providing for an air corridor.
Deputy Blaney, please.
A supplementary question from Deputy Blaney, please. I will call Deputy Cluskey later. The Chair must be obeyed. Deputy Blaney has been called.
I will await my turn.
Despite the Taoiseach's statement that sovereignty is not an issue, he says that there is an improvement in the 1952 Order, yet it requires no amendment. Does this mean that military or other security aircraft will, under the 1952 Order, be given permission to come in over our territory to a degree that they have not done or had not the permission to do under this order up to now?
Permission will always have to be given. The overflights are regularly being monitored and reviewed month by month, so there is no question of anything being done that would affect our sovereignty. I do not want to elaborate any more because, as I indicated to the House, we agreed in the course of these talks not to disclose details of the arrangements made.
Is it correct that the 1952 Navigation Order was in respect of overflying by military aircraft of other nations? This agreement is in connection with Border security. Will helicopters and planes of British Forces flying over our territory carry arms, under whose control will they be when operating in our territory, and will the Taoiseach explain why he has not sufficient confidence in the capacity and capability of our security forces to operate whatever security is necessary or desirable on the Border?
The aircraft permitted to overfly will overfly under the same conditions and with the same type of personnel as the hundreds of aircraft that overflew the Border area during the period when Deputy Cluskey's party were in power.
A final question from Deputy FitzGerald. We have been 20 minutes on these three questions and that is long enough.
I will confine myself to a supplementary question on my Question No. 3. Would the Taoiseach accept that it is difficult for this House to regard the Washington Press Club as a more influential forum as far as we are concerned than this House? Will he accept that, whatever the desirability of, as he says, scotching the story about the air corridor—and that depends upon one's definition of an air corridor—in his own terms as expressed in this House it was undesirable to disclose the nature and character of one of the security arrangements outside this House if he felt it inappropriate to disclose it within this House?
I am not going to dispute the respective merits of the two fora, but certainly the forum in which I decided to scotch this speculation was one from which could emanate, more widespread around the world than from any other forum perhaps, speculation that was not true and was false. I felt that I should take the opportunity when I found that there was unfounded speculation or belief that the speculation was a fact, that I should immediately scotch it at the first opportunity.
A final supplementary question from Deputy Cluskey.
When the Taoiseach states that precisely the same arrangements were operational under the last administration, of which I was a junior Minister, first of all, as such, obviously I would have no knowledge of that arrangement. I consulted with members of my own party who were members of the Cabinet at that time. They assured me that they were not aware of any such arrangements. I ask the Taoiseach——
Deputy Cluskey, a brief question, please.
Can I take it that all members of the present Cabinet are aware of all these arrangements?
A brief question from Deputy Cluskey, please. We must move on.
I am asking the Taoiseach a brief question. Will he tell me and the House how he can reconcile these two statements which he has just made?
The Taoiseach. A brief question from the Deputy, please.
May I be allowed to ask the question? First of all, the Taoiseach said that precisely the same arrangements operated under the last administration and then he said that there has been a slight alteration in those arrangements and a slight variation on the agreement. How can the two be reconciled?
I should like to answer the first part of the Deputy's question first since he has tried to eliminate it from our minds. He says that he consulted former colleagues in Government and they told him that no such arrangements existed and they knew nothing of them. I ask you, Sir, to bear with me for a moment.
All the Taoiseach's Cabinet know this arrangement.
I quote from the Official Report of 17 October 1973, column 4, Volume 268, when the Taoiseach in reply to questions about overflying from Deputy Blaney said:
Neither the Deputy nor anybody else need suffer from any fears or disturbance about this. The practice of allowing aircraft from another country to cross the territory is one that has existed for a long time and permission has to be given in each case. There has been no change in that situation.
What about the Border?
The Deputy need not stick his neck out too far because I have something on that too.
Anything the Taoiseach has——
The Taoiseach must be allowed to reply.
I am sitting here being the subject of attempted blackmail by the Taoiseach and the Taoiseach has let the House and the country know about it.
The Chair must move to the next question. The Taoiseach will finish his reply.
The Chair is on his side.
On 18 October 1973, the next day, in reply to an adjournment debate, Deputy Donegan, then Minister for Defence, referred to two of my colleagues. I quote from the Official Report of 18 October 1973, column 289 of the same volume:
If Deputy Colley, Deputy Meaney, or anybody else in the Fianna Fáil Party wishes to know the piece of legislation under which such permission is granted
—that is permission for overflight—
it is the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order, S.I. No. 74 of 1952... under this authority permission for foreign military aircraft to fly over our land must be granted expressly by the Minister.
Deputy Donegan continued to the effect that he was glad that he could continue this arrangement if it was saving lives. If Deputy Cluskey would inquire from some of his former Cabinet colleagues about the meeting dated 25 June 1976——
I was never a member of the Cabinet.
The Deputy has just told us that he consulted with his former colleagues and they knew nothing about these arrangements. I am inviting him to discuss with his Cabinet colleagues the outcome of a meeting on this very precise matter dated 24 June 1976.
Would the Taoiseach tell us——
I am calling Deputy Blaney. This is the last question on this matter. We have been half-an-hour on it. A brief question, please.
I wish to say something in reply to the Taoiseach if I may.
Deputy Blaney is in possession.
Why, in all these circumstances and in all the various questions asked in this House, or attempted to be asked, did the Taoiseach not deny categorically the rumours and the statements that were going in regard to this air corridor? Secondly, in view of recent happenings—and I am not talking about today—should we have any association with the people who contain within their higher echelons and the establishment people like Blunt?
Deputy FitzGerald wants to ask a brief question, and then I will move to Question No. 4.
I want to reply to Deputy Blaney. There are many aspects of security in which co-operation is given between the security forces here and the security forces in the North. If one was asked questions on each aspect of those and was obliged to answer yes or no, by a process of elimination those against whom these security measures are designed could identify what is and is not being done. It is better that there be no answers yes or no and no answer that would indicate either the negative or the positive in these matters in the interests of security.
Deputy FitzGerald, one brief question.
I deplore the fact that the Taoiseach——
A question, Deputy.
Does the Taoiseach feel that, though under pressure, it has been unwise and improper of him to quote partially from the records of meetings of previous Governments? I add that, while I have the record——
A question, Deputy.
Does he not think it unwise and improper to quote from them even when he is in difficulties? While I have the record of what was refused at that meeting as well as what was agreed, in the interests of security, or indeed of political stability, I feel that I should not proceed further.
I disclosed nothing. I invited Deputy Cluskey to consult his colleagues about a meeting dated 24 June 1976.
I am calling Question No. 4.
I wish to raise the subject matter of these questions on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
