Vol. 454 No. 6
3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the specific proposals, if any, he has put to the British Government regarding the release of prisoners in Northern Ireland and the decommissioning of illegal arms with a view to advancing the current peace process. [11227/95]
4 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will seek in further discussions with the British Prime Minister, as a first step towards addressing the problem of prisoners in the Northern Ireland, the restoration of 50 per cent remission withdrawn by the British Government in 1988. [11231/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
I have repeatedly stressed that matters relating to decommissioning, wider security issues and political progress will need to be addressed in an imaginative, but pragmatic way with a view to advancing the peace process to an agreed political settlement. All these issues are the subject of ongoing dialogue, at the political and official levels, with the British Government. I have taken and will continue to take every available opportunity to move matters forward in direct discussion with the British Prime Minister and with representatives of all the political parties in Northern Ireland.
As far as decommissioning and remission rates in particular are concerned, I do not believe that it would be helpful to elaborate further beyond what I have already said in the House, including in reply to Questions on 28 March and most recently, on Wednesday last, 14 June.
Does the Taoiseach think that Sinn Féin should be allowed to participate in all inclusive talks before the decommissioning of arms?
Our objective is to reach a position where all inclusive talks can take place. I recognise that there has been movement on this issue both on the part of Sinn Féin and the British Government. For example, in his interview with The Irish Times on 14 June Mr. Adams said that his party had discussed and examined closely the British Government's views on the modalities for decommissioning and that this may be an effective and acceptable approach to the practical aspects of the issue of decommissioning. On the other hand, Mr. Ancram made the remark: “There is an illogicality there which can only be met not by surrender — we all understand the fear of the term `surrender' — but by showing that they, Sinn Féin, are sincere in their commitment to peace by beginning the process of decommissioning.”
There is movement on both sides towards a view where some agreement might be found. Admittedly, it is quite subtle but significant just the same. That is probably the best way to approach the matter rather than making the black and white distinction that is perhaps implicit in the Deputy's question. I have always recognised that the decommissioning of arms is very important from the perspective of many of the parties whose participation is essential to agreement in Northern Ireland. There cannot be all-encompassing agreement unless some parties who are currently unwilling to sit down with parties associated with entities that still have arms unless those parties are satisfied on the decommissioning issue.
I agree there has been movement on both sides and people should read more into what Mr. Adams said in the interview in The Irish Times in which he made some interesting points. Did the Taoiseach note that the British Government spokesperson this morning accepted the point I have made many times, that there was no mention of decommissioning, nor was it raised by the British Government, prior to the ceasefire on 31 August? This is a central point if people are to believe there was not a breach of trust. Will the Taoiseach agree that, by accepting that point, the British Government is moving closer to the statement by the Methodist Church to the Forum last week, that decommissioning should be high on the talks agenda but not a precondition?
If the Deputy peruses the Downing Street Declaration he will find that the word "decommissioning" is not mentioned. It did not arise as a live political issue at that time in the minds of some of the political parties in the way it did after the ceasefire-cessation of violence. The concern of Unionists seems to be that the cessation is not durable or permanent unless there is some evidence that offensive weapons in particular are being put out of commission.
Unless the ceasefire is durable or permanent some of the Unionist parties are reticent about sitting down with Sinn Féin. That is not something being invented by the British or Irish Governments or by any other Government; it is a reality born of fear and suspicion during 25 years of violence, a reality that must be overcome.
It does not serve the purpose of truth simply to present this as an issue that is being raised by Governments as an obstacle. It is a problem in the minds of communities who have been the victims of violence — there are victims of violence on both the Nationalist and Unionist sides in Northern Ireland. Concern about weapons of death being put out of commission exists among families in the Nationalist community who have been the victims of loyalist violence just as it exists among families in the Unionist community who have been the victims of Provisional IRA violence. It is a concern among the people in Northern Ireland primarily. It is important to recognise that and not to present the issues exclusively as some governmental device for making the talks process more difficult. That is not the case.
I agree with what the Taoiseach has just said. Will he accept there is stalemate in the peace process and how does he believe it can be resolved?
I do not accept there is stalemate in the peace process.
Will the Taoiseach say whether reports are true that the Dalton-Chilcott discussions have recommenced since a report was made to Government on this issue last January? Will he accept that the guns of death are in the hands of both communities, loyalists and republicans? Both sides experience the same difficulty and have said that until there are inclusive talks they will not hand over their arms. Four or five weeks ago we were at this stage and there was no disagreement between the Taoiseach and me on this issue, as there is not now. It is the British Government that has allowed the issue of decommissioning to come back on the agenda. Prior to the Washington Conference it took the position that it could deal with this matter in a different way.
Does the Taoiseach consider the Dalton-Chilcott discussions as a means of moving towards talks, with decommissioning the first item on the agenda? The Taoiseach agreed with me on that issue a month ago and I think the British Government would agree if it did not have its own political difficulties. I am talking not about the views on the ground but those in Westminster.
I ask for brevity and direct questioning.
There are four questions on decommissioning that must be dealt with: what is to be decommissioned, where it is to be decommissioned, to whom is it to be decommissioned and when. There is considerable agreement on the first three of those questions; the difficulty arises as to when the decommissioning will take place. The Government has been proactive in this matter. We have been seeking to work out ways of breaking the deadlock on this issue — perhaps I should not use the term "deadlock" because there is no deadlock; there has been significant movement but it is movement which has not yet reached the point where there is a conjunction of views. We have been seeking to accelerate that movement and it is in that context that the pace of the Dalton-Chilcott discussions has been speeded up. The Dalton-Chilcott discussions on the modalities of decommissioning have been continuing and we decided to accelerate them recently with a view to making a proactive contribution to bridging the ever-narrowing but slowly narrowing gap between the parties on this issue.
Will the Taoiseach agree that in this stalemate what is required is adoption by the Governments of a dramatic confidence measure? The spokesman for loyalist prisoners, Mr. Colin Crawford, when making his submission to the Forum said that the single most important measure that would restore confidence in Northern Ireland among loyalist and republicans is a 50 per cent remission for all prisoners. That is the sort of dramatic movement that would help break the logjam. The argument on decommissioning is similar to a theological argument. A confidence building measure is necessary to impact on the public at large. Will the Taoiseach agree that the dramatic and meaningful suggestion by the loyalist spokesman to the Forum should be considered in this regard?
I raised on a number of occasions with the British Prime Minister the question of increasing the rate of remission of sentences of prisoners to the 50 per cent level. I pointed to the case by case release policy we have successfully adopted in this jurisdiction and suggested that this would have considerable merit from the perspective of the British Government. It is important to recognise that this is a case by case approach and that any other measure would tend to engender fears among the victims of violence. It is important to remember the feelings and views of victims and families of victims of paramilitary violence just as we speak frequently about the concern of victims of other forms of crime.
The assuaging of the fears and worries of victims is also part of the peace process. There are difficulties from the perspective of victims of violence. It is problematic from their perspective if the perpetrators of violence are released, but the weapons used to kill their loved ones are still available for use. I urge all in the House to consider this process in a holistic way, to consider the whole of the problem rather than one aspect of it, whether prisoner releases, decommissioning, constitutional progress or the talks process. All those processes interact.
When the Taoiseach rightly raised the matter that the issue of the release of Private Clegg should be tied in with overall prisoner releases, the Northern Ireland Office bluntly told him that whatever happened to prisoners in Britain was none of Dublin's business. Does that response not indicate the British Government wants or appears to be satisfied with peace, but a political stalemate? Does the Taoiseach consider it appears that the British Government's intention is to keep dividing the Nationalist consensus built up over time? At the Forum last Friday a discussion on the political structures in Northern Ireland developed into a discussion on decommissioning.
I do not believe that the British Government considers the approach should be one of simply accepting the status quo. The Framework Document in which it made a number of clear and, in some cases, unprecedented declarations of policy towards the achievement of an overall settlement clearly belies that view. That document was agreed to by the British Prime Minister in the face of substantial potential opposition from his back benches and showed courage and commitment on his part to the achievement of an overall settlement. I do not agree with the Deputy's analysis which I consider unduly pessimistic. I believe there is a need to accelerate rapidly moves towards bridging the gap on a number of issues, most notably, decommissioning and prisoner issues. Those issues interact with the wider question of getting political talks under way because some parties are unwilling to take a bottom line on, say, the decommissioning issue without the prospect or a framework for political agreement being in place, but that prospect can only be delivered with the consent of certain parties like the Unionists for whom the decommissioning issue is vital as they represent many individuals and families who have been the victims of paramilitary violence. All those issues are interrelated and we must seek to move them forward simultaneously.
Does the Taoiseach believe that Sinn Féin should continue to engage in exploratory dialogue with the British Government?
I believe it is for each party to make its decision on that matter. I will not get involved in advising parties what they should or should not do publicly. Obviously, I will be availing of an opportunity I expect to have quite shortly for face to face discussions with Sinn Féin to discuss every aspect of its policy and tactics regarding the present situation. I believe it will be more appropriate to convey any views I have on that matter to its members face to face in that context.
The Taoiseach asked us to consider all aspects of the issue but, as I said earlier on the question of decommissioning, the issue affects republicans and loyalists. That applies also to prisoners as loyalist prisoners played a fundamental role in bringing about the loyalist ceasefire. Regarding reports on the Private Clegg case in British newspapers today, is it not the case that the British Government is unlikely to pass legislation required to change the remission of prison sentences back to the 1988 position until the autumn at the earliest?
I omitted to answer one aspect of Deputy McDaid's question. Under the Anglo-Irish Agreement this and any Irish Government has an absolute right to express views about issues that affect communities in Northern Ireland.
We have always had that right.
In that context I was perfectly entitled and right to raise publicly and privately the Private Clegg issue because it does have an effect.
On the question of when legislation might be passed through the House of Commons, that is a matter on which I would not care to speculate at this stage beyond saying that the rates of remission should be increased in light of the fact that we have enjoyed an absence of violence — and have had peace — for a number of months.
