Vol. 451 No. 2
1 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he has asked for representations to be made to the British Government on the accuracy of particular views attributed to him by Sir Patrick Mayhew, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with regard to progress on decommissioning weapons before Sinn Féin are permitted to join political talks. [5439/95]
2 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he has received any report or recommendations from senior officials of the British and Irish Governments with regard to possible modalities for the decommissioning of weapons. [5441/95]
3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach his views on whether some movement on the issue of the decommissioning of IRA armaments is now an essential prerequisite to any progress in moving to all-party talks in the search for a political settlement in Northern Ireland. [6003/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together.
The commencement of comprehensive dialogue on a settlement must be the primary objective of all. The decommissioning of weapons is an extremely important issue to be dealt with in the context of such a settlement. The Government has been anxious to ensure that the arms question does not become an obstacle to political progress and we are, therefore, working with all the parties to achieve progress on the issue. This is one of the matters for discussion at the meeting which the Tánaiste and I will be having with Sinn Féin representatives this afternoon.
The Sinn Féin leader, in his statement of 9 March, more recently in the United States and subsequently, has given clear indications that the decommissioning of weapons would be on the agenda for talks with British Ministers. I welcome that development. I hope that Sinn Féin will signal a commitment to use its influence with the IRA to put all its weaponry out of commission. Naturally, a similar approach is also required from the loyalist representatives in respect of their dialogue with the British Government and I welcome that talks at ministerial level have commenced. Issues such as prisoners and policing will also need to be addressed in an imaginative way. I believe that with realism and flexibility on all sides, progress on the arms, prisoners and policing issues would greatly enhance the climate of confidence for comprehensive dialogue, and would certainly contribute in a very significant way to the sense of security felt by all participants.
Now that ministerial talks with the loyalist representatives have got under way, the Government hopes that such talks with Sinn Féin will begin soon and thus expedite the commencement of a comprehensive process of dialogue. We are monitoring all developments in regard to those talks, including matters relating to the decommissioning of arms. However, I do not propose to comment on the substance of any exchanges with the British Government on that issue. Our primary concern is the achievement of a durable political settlement in an environment of peace, where all in Northern Ireland will feel a real sense of security and belonging.
The Taoiseach told me in this House on 24 January that it was the Government's position, and that of Minister Ancram, that the decommissioning of weapons is not a pre-condition for Sinn Féin's participation in all party talks. Is that still the Taoiseach's position? Will he confirm that he has not changed his stand on this position?
Of course that is the position. Nobody is suggesting that all arms should be dumped before talks take place.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the British ministerial talks with the loyalists began without any arms being handed up or concessions made on decommissioning? Does he agree that the disagreements now with Sinn Féin and the British Government appear to be on the order of an agenda rather than something more substantial?
The Deputy's question contained two parts. First, he asked if I agreed that talks had taken place with loyalists without the decommissioning of arms. That is true. Second, he asked if I agreed that those talks had taken place without progress being made on the issue of decommissioning of weapons. That is not true because the loyalists were willing to discuss that issue with the British Government and not to link it to any other issue.
We are working towards a formula which would enable discussions on the decommissioning of illegally held weapons to take place between Sinn Féin and the British Government, but that will be part of an agenda containing many other items. I made it clear in successive interventions here and elsewhere that I do not believe this should be a one item agenda. Neither do I believe one must necessarily have completely agreed the first item before moving on to discuss the following items. It is an inclusive agenda. We must recognise that the arms question is an important one, not merely from the point of view of the size of the arsenals now in existence, which is far greater than any in our history, but also from the point of view that we are the political representatives of the relatives of the victims of those arms. We will not have a complete settlement until there are all round talks involving, for example, Unionists and Sinn Féin. Anybody who thinks about the matter for more than ten seconds will realise that without the decommissioning of arms such talks will not be viable because one side will see itself as sitting down without arms to negotiate with another group which has arms available to it and the dialogue would not be an ordinary political dialogue. This is an issue that must be dealt with in a serious and consistent way. In this context I welcome the genuine efforts being made by both the British Government and Sinn Féin to reach a formula for discussions to take place on the basis of a clear commitment to, among other things, deal seriously with the question of getting rid of these arms.
Would the Taoiseach agree that it is important to distinguish between legally and illegally held arms? Is it his view that there are people in the provisional movement who believe that the talks can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion while they still hold arms?
It is essential to make a clear distinction between legally and illegally held arms. I have made that distinction in all interventions I have made. I have made it clear that it is one of the marks of any civil power that its army and its police have the right to bear arms to defend the existence of the State or the political entity in question. This is entirely separate from any question of illegally held arms. There is an intermediate position of arms issued to individuals for self-protection because these individuals were considered to be under threat. If that threat is lifted, the need to hold arms is substantially lessened. Legally held arms are not in the same category as the arms held by a police force or an army. Essentially we are dealing with three categories — illegally held arms, arms legally held by individuals for self-protection and arms held by the civil authority. Each must be dealt with separately. It is relevant, in a certain context, to discuss all of them.
The Taoiseach forgot to answer the second part of my question.
I would not care to speculate on the opinions of individuals within any political movement. I have no doubt there are minorities in every movement, whether it be a political party or other association, who disagree with the view of the majority. The loyalist organisations, Sinn Féin and the IRA are committed to the cessation of violence and a preponderant number of people in all those organisations is working assiduously towards that end. It is important, however, that in so doing they recognise that they are dealing not just with the concerns of their own people but also with the hurt, fears and worries of another community which may in the past have been their antagonists or their victims. One cannot deal with these issues in isolation, in the context of what will or will not go down well in one's community. One must consider how certain gestures or activities will go down in the other community close to home. It is one thing to be understood on the international stage but the important thing for both elements in Northern Ireland is to seek an understanding of each other.
Is the Taoiseach saying that the decommisioning of arms is part of the wider demilitarisation agenda and that he believes that is the right approach rather than chasing one item on the agenda?
I prefer to use my own words rather than have even somebody as well meaning as the Leader of Fianna Fáil summarising what I say. I have made a clear statement about this matter already. In a society where all the relevant people, including those who control the weapons, are committed to peaceful political methods, these weapons — the Semtex, the rocket launchers, the conventional weapons, the machine-guns and the AK47s — are a redundant legacy of the past, but they are not simply some antique reminder of the past; they represent an ever present threat to communities and they must be disposed of. That is a practical political reality which we must all understand. How and when are matters that can be discussed, but it is essential that there be a firm commitment to deal with this issue as quickly as is humanly possible. We cannot afford to have the fear still in Northern Ireland remain at its present level; it has to be constantly reduced by confidence-building measures on all sides.
I agree with the Taoiseach but it is not much use our debating it at Question Time when decommissioning has not commenced. If decommissioning is taken separately from demilitarisation, it will not work. Does the Taoiseach accept that decommissioning is part of the broader demilitarisation agenda or is there some way that he, as Head of the Government, can help Sinn Féin and the British Government to move from their position? It is ridiculous that two similar agencies are holding up all the aspirations the Taoiseach set down and with which I agree, and that talks cannot start because of the order of the agenda. If the agenda does not say that decommissioning is part of the overall demilitarisation issue, I cannot see how we can move forward. Does the Taoiseach have a proposal that will help or is this an issue in which the United States should get involved?
I identified three categories of arms — illegally held arms, arms legally held by individuals and arms held by the army and the police force. I prefer to describe it in those practical and precise terms rather than using language like the phrase used by the Deputy where arms appear to be the property of one side or the other.
It is in the letters between both sides.
The Deputy seems to be under a misapprehension. Very real progress is being made. The positions are coming quite close. As I said on several occasions when I was in the United States, I was and remain optimistic that the difficulties will finally be completely overcome. I am confident about that. As to my involvement as Head of the Government here, I have been in touch at the highest level with all the relevant parties with a view to encouraging them in a very practical way to come to a point where the remaining small difficulties are eliminated. The situation is much closer to resolution than the Deputy seems to think from the phraseology he used in his question. I hope he will be pleased to hear that.
Would the Taoiseach agree that the security response will come when the decommissioning process begins? Does he further agree with the comments made at the Forum last Friday by Dr. John Alderdice that, for many people in Northern Ireland, equating IRA arms with British Army arms is like equating loyalists arms with those in the possession of the Garda and the Irish Army and that they find this offensive?
I have no disagreement with Dr. Alderdice. Even without the decommissioning of arms, each week or month that passes in which there is no violence, in a practical sense, makes it sensible to reduce the security presence and activity. I would not be as categoric as the Deputy in creating a link but I agree with her when she implies that the decommissioning of arms is a very important issue.
Whatever about talks with the British Government getting under way, as I believe and hope they will quite soon if there is reason on both sides, it is important to recognise that the long term goal is a situation in which the Unionists and loyalists, the sons and daughters, brothers and sisters of victims, will sit down with representatives of Sinn Féin and on the other side loyalists will be able to sit down with nationalists. That is the objective and real prize we are seeking.
We must recognise it is not conceivable that those talks will be fruitful as long as there are huge stores of explosives and arsenals of arms illegally held. In practical terms, the full consensus we are looking for is not possible as long as those arsenals exist on either side because people will be too fearful to be generous and people must be generous to the other side if we are to make progress. The existence of arms engenders fear.
The removal of arms is part of a process of reducing the level of fear so that the level of generosity will be sufficient to ensure the reconciliation we need on the island of Ireland. I hope people will see this matter in that political context and not harp back, as some do, to what happened in 1867 or 1798 and other events.
Or 1970.
The fact is that in those times we did not solve the problem. Even after all those events there still remained division between the peoples living on this island. Citing those historical precedents as justification for what we are doing now is citing a formula which did not work.
Correct.
What we now need is a new dispensation and a new approach which genuinely takes not just the gun but the culture of the gun out of Irish politics forever. That is what we are seeking and we are very close to achieving it. In the way it has treated this matter, including today, this House is contributing greatly, by the sanity of its discourse, to bringing this much desired eventuality closer.
In his wide-ranging replies the Taoiseach mentioned three categories of arms — those held illegally, legally and in the hands of the security forces. Will he take into account the fact that the Provisional IRA is not the only group which holds arms? Given the Official IRA's involvement in the troubles, its continued existence and the fact that it continues to hold arms has the Taoiseach asked the Minister for Social Welfare, the former leader of the political wing of the Official IRA, to use his influence with his former associates to decommission its weapons? Will he also take the initiative in relation to those "legally" held arms by members of the Unionist community, in the hands of those who felt threatened, which run to many hundreds of thousands?
In response to Deputy Harney I identified the issue of arms legally held by people for their own protection as one which is capable of being discussed in the course of further talks because the threat which justified the issue of those arms has lessened considerably. I recognise the validity of that matter. In response to the first part of the question I am surprised the Deputy should make such a point in this House, it is of no relevance——
Official IRA arms are of no relevance?
——and injects a partisan spirit into a discussion which is far more important——
The Taoiseach is being unfair.
This is a very serious matter, as I can vouch for as a former Minister for Justice.
I have no doubt that any illegally held arms in this State will be tracked down with vigilance and determination by the Garda.
They should be handed up.
If the Deputy has any information about the holding of arms by any organisation, either now or dating from the time when he was Minister for Justice——
I have just told the Taoiseach——
——I suggest that he pass it to the Minister for Justice and not bring it up in this manner in the House.
It is a very important item.
I advise the House that a mere 30 minutes are available for dealing with questions to the Taoiseach and that time is fast running out.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the statistics which the Forum has already considered on the number of full and part-time reservists of the RUC? In each case the figures in 1969 was zero but now in the order of 4,500 are in possession of arms. This must be taken into consideration in discussing the decommissioning of weapons and demilitarisation. Deputy Harney rightly emphasised the need to decommission weapons held by ex-paramilitaries. As the British Government is not the appropriate authority to arbitrate on this matter, as a confidence building measure, will the Taoiseach consider, with the British Government, the engagement of some outside Government or agency which would command the confidence of both Governments and communities to make an impartial assessment on the issue of demilitarisation, including the decommissioning of weapons held by paramilitary groups? That is the best confidence building measure that could be taken at this time.
The more people one tries to involve in solving a problem the more difficult it becomes to solve. If yet another party is introduced into the discussion half way through everybody retreats to their original position while this new intervenor gets up to speed on the facts. The Deputy's suggestion does not have much to recommend it. We are very near to getting discussions under way in a fruitful atmosphere between the people directly involved. This is far more effective than bringing in third parties who may have to spend six to eight months getting to understand the facts and the views on either side.
On the question of the arms held by reservists of the RUC I am sure the Deputy has not forgotten that many RUC reservists were murdered. One of the reasons many RUC reservists hold licensed arms is self-protection. I am sure the Deputy is also aware that many politicians on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland who were considered to be at risk of assassination were issued with licensed weapons for the same reason, self-protection. In response to Deputy Harney I said that the issue of legally held weapons for self-protection in a situation where the necessity for protection is less because there is no violence is a legitimate one for discussion but I do not think we can create any moral or political equivalents between illegally and legally held arms; They are not the same and I do not think we can put them on the same plain. That is not to say that the legally held arms issue should not be dealt with also because there should no longer be a need for many of these arms if the threat is removed. It is one of the issues that can and will be legitimately raised in discussion and I hope it will be dealt with.
We may have time for another question but I feel we have dealt adequately with the questions before us.
I understand the Taoiseach has a meeting at 3 o'clock. I do not wish to delay him.
I do not mind dealing with the questions but I am going to the European Union Headquarters in Brussels tomorrow. I will not, therefore, be able to take questions.
I am happy to put off my question until next week.
Unfortunately, time is against us and I do not think we have time for any other questions. That disposes of questions to the Taoiseach for today. We now proceed to priority questions and I remind the House again that 20 minutes only are provided for in dealing with priority questions.
