Vol. 441 No. 6
4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach his views on the statement made in New York by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew in relation to an IRA surrender not being required; the implications of this for the caches of arms held by that organisation on both sides of the Border; and the implications of this for the conditions for Sinn Féin's participation in the proposed Forum for Peace and Reconciliation.
Sir Patrick Mayhew's speech at a meeting of the Foreign Policy Association in New York on 12 April was a useful and constructive contribution to our collective efforts towards the development of the peace process and an agreed political settlement in the spirit of the principles contained in the Joint Declaration.
Both Governments share the determination that the use or threat of violence will not prevail. The position of the two Governments on violence is clear and unambiguous. The Joint Declaration has opened up a new avenue, by providing an honourable means for all sides to take the first step towards a lasting peace and an agreed just settlement in Ireland.
I agree with Sir Patrick's statement that ending of the armed conflict which has so afflicted the lives of so many in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years is not going to require any surrender. In my Irish Association speech on 10 January I made the same point in the following terms:
For over 20 years there has been a prolonged military stalemate that has stifled most of the possibilities for political and economic progress. There are no military victories on either side, nor on the basis of past experience does any side have any reason to expect one. It is generally agreed that there will be no surrender on any side, Loyalist, Republican or by the British or Irish Governments, and surrender terms are not acceptable to any side. It is totally unrealistic for anyone to expect peace on that basis. There can only be a mutual process of demilitarisation through confidence-building on all sides.
An abandonment of violence in favour of full democratic engagement does not imply victory or defeat for any side.
Cherished principles and aspirations would not require adjustment or relinquishment. Only the method of pursuing these demands would change in the context of a clear commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and to the democratic process.
The security forces on both sides of the Border will continue to search for illegal arms and weapons, both now and after a cessation of violence. A comprehensive process of demilitarisation on all sides will be essential if the confidence-building necessary for peace is to take place. That process will also include the withdrawal of the British army from the streets of Northern Ireland. The only condition for full participation in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation is a complete and permanent cessation of violence.
I would like to avail of this opportunity to express my grave concern and condemnation of a series of recent brutal and indiscriminate sectarian murders by Loyalist paramilitary organisations, which have been the agency responsible for most deaths in Northern Ireland since 1992. Since the beginning of this year, they have been responsible for eight out of the 11 murders committed. The Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew, pointed out last Saturday that, of the total 137 charged with terrorist offences so far this year, the great majority, 87 were Loyalist, reflecting the increased activity of the Loyalist paramilitaries. I would call on the authorities responsible for security in the North to step up their protection of vulnerable Nationalist areas, but it would be reasonable for those providing such protection to expect that in that situation they would be free from attack.
By and large, I believe that those closest to the communities from which paramilitary organisations spring are best placed to express the revulsion of all decent people at such acts. In that regard, I welcome the forthright comments of councillor Michael McGimpsey and of the Archbishop of Armagh, Dr. Robin Eames, who has called on the Loyalist paramilitaries to become part of the movement towards peace. The Loyalist paramilitaries have no vestige of justification either, under the Joint Peace Declaration, for any continuation of violence. The declaration states, not only that the British Government will uphold the democratic wish of a greater number of people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland, but I also solemnly state in the declaration that it would be wrong to attempt to impose a united Ireland, in the absence of the freely given consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. The Loyalist organisations know as well that, towards the end of the same paragraph 5 of the declaration, I have pledged the Irish Government to respect the civil rights and religious liberties of both communities, in terms very similar to those which they set out themselves.
As follows from what I stated on Saturday, when I spoke in favour of the indefinite continuation of the right to dual citizenship in the North, their British citizenship is under no threat from the Government and people of this State, either now or any time in the future.
Nor is there any question of using a majority in the island as a whole to override the constitutional wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. Indeed, even Sinn Féin at its Árd Fheis accepted the principle that it would be wrong to coerce Northern Protestants into a united Ireland. As I stressed in the House yesterday, any future accommodation must be based on agreement and consent in which the rights and participation of both communities must be guaranteed.
Is it the Taoiseach's view that the Loyalists would give up their violence if the Provisional IRA were to permanently cease their violence? The Taoiseach said that where the security forces go into areas to protect nationalists they should not be vulnerable to attack and would he clearly indicate that they should not be vulnerable to attack in any circumstances, in any part of Northern Ireland, from either side? Would he clarify his reference to British citizenship not being under threat now or in the future? Does that guarantee apply also in the circumstances he was envisaging in his speech on Sunday last when he spoke about a Government of an all-Ireland State in which a majority and minority in Northern Ireland would have 30 per cent of the seats? Does he envisage that, in that circumstance, they would retain their right to British citizenship?
Had the Deputy read my speech he would have seen, quite clearly that that is intended to be carried through in the event of an all-Ireland Parliament, a sovereign united Ireland, or an agreed Ireland and that that citizenship should be protected. On the question of security forces protecting Nationalist areas, they are entitled to expect that they would not be attacked by anybody; that is the rule of law as it applies there and here. What was the Deputy's third question.
It was the first one the Taoiseach answered. Does the Taoiseach expect that the Loyalists will give up violence permanently if the Provos do so? In regard to the security forces going into Nationalist areas to protect Nationalists, the Taoiseach said they should be free from attack. Will he confirm that they should be free from attack anyway, that they should not be safe from attack merely when protecting particular individuals? My final question was in regard to British citizenship and his reference to the present majority community in Northern Ireland being able, in any circumstances, to protect and preserve their British citizenship. I understand the correct term is that they are subjects — that is the way they understand it — rather than citizens of the United Kingdom; the United Kingdom does not have citizenship in the same sense as have we. Is the Taoiseach talking there about simply a right to use that type of passport or is he talking about other rights of a territorial kind associated with their being subjects of Her Majesty?
If Deputy Bruton is asking if they can hold onto their British passports, the answer is "yes".
Is that all?
I do not know what other aspects Deputy Bruton may have in mind. Any civil or religious rights, of course, would have to be guaranteed either way. We have made that clear, whether talking about Nationalists in a minority in Northern Ireland or Unionists in a minority within an all-Ireland context when the same guarantees of rights and religious liberties would have to apply. In regard to my view as to whether Loyalists would give up violence if the Provisional IRA ceased their violence, my view is that they would.
I presume this 30 per cent seat scenario the Taoiseach put forward is a Government proposal with which the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs is in agreement and I hope it will be established that the Tánaiste did agree to it. Assuming that it has been agreed and happens, is that actually predicted in view of the fact that the Taoiseach has said that people there could preserve their British citizenship in a form of joint sovereignty in Northern Ireland? Is that what the Taoiseach is talking about as his long term goal?
I am not talking about joint sovereignty or any other specific proposal. These are matters for negotiation. There would be no need for a talks process were we to negotiate in public and across the floor of the House. These are all options to be discussed which hopefully will lead to an overall settlement. There are no conditions attached to what debate will take place within the talks process. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and that is the basis for the talks process. Clearly everything can be on the table.
Would the Taoiseach agree that he is giving the impression to some people that he is developing a habit of throwing out a half-baked idea that appears to be very detailed but, when asked a question about it he cannot answer and says that is all subject to negotiation? What does the Taoiseach envisage in terms of a constitutional arrangement when he spoke about this 30 per cent of the seats scenario? Is it joint sovereignty? Is it a sovereign united Ireland or is it some other form of hybrid we have not yet had explained to us?
I do not indulge in Deputy Bruton's habit of throwing out ten different ideas a day. Had the Deputy read and studied my speech he would have seen it was clear from where the idea had come. On the question of which option I might pursue in relation to it, clearly these are matters for discussion when we get all the parties around the table to discuss how we can work out a future accommodation for the two traditions on this island. If Deputy Bruton thinks I am going to put forward one option as my priority, I can tell him emphatically I will not do so. That will be a matter for discussion within the talks process. I hope all parties will get around the table to try to work out how the two communities can live together, how we can take violence out of society for good and how, within a peaceful environment, we can plan for a better Ireland for all.
I must be forgiven for commenting that this reminds me of the days when bishops used to throw in the ball at all-Ireland matches and walk off the field. Will the Taoiseach deal with reality as opposed to fantasy politics. He said the only condition for participation in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation is a complete and permanent renunciation of violence and will it be possible for a person to permanently and completely renounce violence and not be disarmed either voluntarily or otherwise?
I made my position clear in my reply, and on numerous occasions in this House. If Deputy McDowell chooses to go into fantasy land, that is his choice but what I have been dealing with over the past 18 months in this area are practicalities, addressing the matter in a pragmatic way, not in the way some people address that very complex problem. I have said clearly that the condition for Sinn Féin participating in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation is a real and permanent cessation of violence.
I asked the Taoiseach a simple question: do they have to disarm? He refused point blank to answer. Elementary courtesy demands that the Taoiseach answers a simple question.
I have called Deputy De Rossa. If Members are dissatisfied with replies in this House they have a remedy.
I would like to hear the Taoiseach's reply on whether it is expected the IRA will have to disarm. Perhaps the Minister will give us the benefit of his views on that issue. Will he indicate the basis on which he believes the Loyalist paramilitaries will stop their killing if the IRA stop as the statistics read out by the Taoiseach indicate that the Loyalists are now more active in the killing business than the IRA? It is clear to most observers that the paramilitaries are reacting as much to what they see as the perceived threat of a united Ireland as they are to the violence of the IRA.
I do not accept what Deputy De Rossa said. If he has good advice to give I would be glad to accept it. There cannot be a permanent cessation of violence if they do not lay down their arms. That is elementary and does not need to be answered. My view, on the best advice available to me, is that if Provisional IRA violence ceases Loyalists violence will cease when they get guarantees concerning the rights they expect, expressed in paragraph 5 of the declaration. The Deputy should study the declaration and if he has a different view or different advice I would be glad to hear from him tomorrow morning.
In view of the responsibility the Tánaiste shares with the Taoiseach in regard to Northern Ireland policy, will the Taoiseach say whether the Tánaiste was consulted about and agreed with the proposal the Taoiseach made in regard to guaranteeing 30 per cent of the seats in Government to those from Northern Ireland?
Deputy Bruton should not be devious. I assure him that when the Tánaiste or I speak on Northern Ireland, we speak with one voice. Any attempt by Deputy Bruton to drive a wedge between us will fail abysmally.
That is not an answer to my question.
This cannot go on indefinitely.
Did the Taoiseach consult the Tánaiste and, if so, did he agree to that specific proposal?
I never discuss in this House or elsewhere our private discussions or our discussions in Government.
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, Deputy Harney and Deputy O'Donnell are offering.
On a point of order, I understood that questions to the Taoiseach would be concluded in half an hour and that we would proceed to deal with questions on Foreign Affairs.
That is the procedure on Tuesdays only.
Can you give me a guarantee that we will, at least, get to the priority questions of the day.
If I get the cooperation of the House I will be very pleased to deal with questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The limit of 30 minutes applies to Tuesdays only.
Can I clarify, once and for all, the question of the surrender of arms by the IRA? I take the Taoiseach's point that on a cessation of violence it would have to lay down its arms. The net issue then is whether they would have to surrender them to be considered as having totally given up violence and capable of coming within the democratic process.
I fail to understand how there can be a permanent cessation of violence if arms are not laid down.
The question is whether it has to give up arms.
If the Deputy had listened to my reply he would have heard that the searches will continue.
Before calling Deputy Harte I have to clarify matters for the House in respect of the Taoiseach's questions today. There are priority questions and, to dispose of them in accordance with Standing Orders, I shall have to deal with them at 3.30 p.m.
Following from Deputy O'Keeffe's question, the Taoiseach said that a permanent cessation of violence meant giving up arms, laying down arms or handing them in. How can anyone do that without surrendering? The definition of "surrendering" in any dictionary is to hand over, to give up, to yield or to capitulate——
Quotations at this time are not in order.
——without disagreeing. If the IRA does not have to surrender does it not have to stand over, give up, yield, cease resistance or capitulate? I admire the efforts being made by the Taoiseach, Sir Patrick Mayhew and all other people involved in the search for peace but I would like clarification on the words "they do not have to surrender".
Deputy Harte did not listen to my response. I made it clear that an abandonment of violence in favour of full democratic engagement does not imply victory or defeat for any side. Cherished principles and aspirations would not require adjustment or relinquishment. Only the method of pursuing these demands would change in the context of a clear commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and the democratic process. That is clear and simple. I said on numerous occasions in this House that we want a real and permanent cessation of violence for participation in the forum. I went further and said that even if there were words, phrases or a sentence or two in the Joint Declaration with which people had difficulty a real and permanent cessation of violence remained the entry passport to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation.
With respect——
We are talking about aspirations. I have made it clear that on all sides, for the past 25 years, nobody that I know of expect either victory or defeat. It is accepted that after 25 years there will not be victory on either side. Consequently, the question of surrender terms does not enter the formula.
The word "surrender" has been used by Sir Patrick Mayhew and Deputy Bruton asked for clarification.
Sorry, Deputy Harte, I am now calling Deputy Harney.
I want clarification on what the Taoiseach believes is the full meaning of "surrender".
If the Deputy wishes I will read the reply again.
No, you may not repeat it several times.
Will the Taoiseach accept that it is very difficult to accept into constitutional politics persons who have been engaged in violence for 25 years unless their armaments are disposed of in a verifiable way through an amnesty or whatever? Second, it is unhelpful to use words such as "demilitarisation" in the context of the activities of the British Army and the paramilitaries. The British Army is the legitimate army of Britain and Northern Ireland. We cannot compare the activities of both and use the same terminology. I am surprised that the Tánaiste agreed to guarantee 30 per cent of the seats in Government to those from Northern Ireland. I would have assumed that came from the Mansergh word-processor to appease the party troops——
Questions please.
The Taoiseach has already said he does not envisage a united Ireland in his lifetime and, therefore, I do not envisage that he will give 30 per cent of his Cabinet to representatives from Northern Ireland, short of a united Ireland.
The Taoiseach will not be alive when that happens.
I am surprised that Deputy Harney would try to belittle a speech with serious content made last Saturday. If Deputy Bruton chooses to laugh at the idea he may do so. That is what has him where he is. In recent times the word "demilitarisation" has been used regularly in relation to the conflict in Bosnia.
By whom?
This is like a long playing record.
If it is not applicable there, it is not applicable here. I made it clear in the event of peace in the North there would be no need for the British Army on the streets. That is the question in the whole context of demilitarisation and I hope nobody wants to twist the words I used.
Would the arms have to be disposed of in a verifiable way? How does the Taoiseach expect others to engage in dialogue with people who have been using arms for 25 years if they still have the arms?
That will be the job for both Governments when we arrive at a peaceful situation. The Deputy can take it that both Governments will carry out their duties in that respect.
I now call Question No. 5, in the name of Deputy John Bruton. We are required to take priority questions one minute from now.
We should take priority questions now otherwise we will not be able to ask the Taoiseach supplementary questions.
The time has expired for questions to the Taoiseach and we will now deal with priority questions.
