Éamon Ó Cuív: Dialogue, Not Violence, Is Key to Reducing Paramilitarism

The first thing I must say here, although I'm only stating the obvious, is that I have all through my life been opposed to violence, no matter where it is used. I have done my best endeavours always to discourage people from seeing violence as the way forward. And that's particularly relevant today because more and more states as well as individuals seem to be turning to violence as a solution to our problems. The second thing I'd like to say is that organised crime is a major, major challenge in our society. But again, I've always believed that as well as dealing with the perpetrators of crime, we must try and reduce crime. We must look at the causes of crime. We must ask ourselves why do we get so much crime deriving from intergenerationally deprived communities with poor educational activities? And what could we do better to try and help those communities, which is in the ultimate, the best way of trying to reduce crime? And I particularly in that regard regret the demise of the rapid programme that was abolished in 2011, which hit the most deprived communities worst. I think we must also say here that anybody who takes an illegal drug, anybody, people who use cocaine and say it's only recreational, you have to ask them who they get it off. And are they part of this whole circle collectively of this problem? Minister, I welcome the report on the Special Criminal Court and the Offences Against the State Act. I haven't had an opportunity to read this report obviously yet. I normally do these things over the summer. I collect all the reports and then when I get a bit of an opportunity I read them. And I will do that over the summer. Now the report proposes that there will be a consultative process and that you would consult it on Garda, Siochan and DPP and so on. I would like to suggest to you that there is one glaring omission in relation to the people you have said that you are going to consult with. And that is the Independent Reporting Commission, which was established by statute here and in London on foot of an international treaty that was agreed in November 2015. And its purpose is to progress towards ending paramilitary activity connected with Northern Ireland in both jurisdictions. And I think it is worth noting what they have said in their recent reports that you are familiar with but maybe the House isn't so familiar with. They said in Turalia that these two tracks and law enforcement and so on should be added a further dimension. Namely that to end paramilitarism we also need an agreed formal group transition involving direct engagement with paramilitary groups themselves. They went on to say a critical question is who had owned the process. Our answer last year was and remains the two governments and the executive acting on a coordinated collective basis as happened for the fresh start agreement. They say that they envisage that the overall process would be overseen by a formal body established for that purpose by two governments. And in the meantime they suggest the two governments appoint an independent person who would be authorised to speak to the various parties including the paramilitary groups themselves. Now as you know this is a statutory body, three very very responsible people on it. And I believe that their recommendations should be acted on forthwith. I do understand there is a favourable disposition here. I think we have to persuade the British that having set it up they should act on the recommendations. I have noted your comments in relation to the high threat level in Northern Ireland and with the very wrong attack on Inspector Caldwell. That is very very obvious and very unfortunate. However, it seems to me that the threat level is much lower here based on my observations. An unverifiable fact which I come to. And I think we should ask ourselves what is so remarkably different about the approach in this state as compared to the approach in Northern Ireland. And why is the threat level? They are demonstrably very different here. And this is where, in my view, implementing the recommendations of the IRC report becomes vital. Thirty years of work with Republican prisoners has convinced me that dialogue is the most effective way of reducing Republican violence. And persuading people that there are more effective, peaceful ways of promoting their objectives of united, independent Ireland. And I would like to cite here some interesting figures. In December 2020, there were approximately 30 prisoners held in the Republican Wing in the E Block in Portlaysha Prison. Including three from a group called ONH. The ONH went on ceasefire in January 2018. And I think it is worth noting that there are no prisoners associated with that group in prison either North or South. In relation to all other groups that are in the E Block in Portlaysha, we have reduced from 30 to 7 in that time. And there is one further prisoner awaiting finalisation of a request for extradition which is before the Supreme Court. There are no prisoners, to my knowledge, out in bail or remand, who would be likely to wind up in the E Block. And of those prisoners, a number are due out within the next year or two. Now I would like to ask you Minister, in view of what you have said on the record here about threat level, would it be possible for you to get me figures in relation to the number of Republicans brought before the Special Criminal Court in each of the last five years? Because as I have said, time and time again in this work, when you are working towards peace and you are interacting with various groups, and I have visited the prisoners North and South on a consistent basis. You will find that you are making more progress by dialogue, by interaction, by listening, by persuasion. And I think that is what the two governments set up are actually saying. They have validated this view. They have validated that interaction is likely to be a rich scene of progress. And acting on that interaction. And I do not have time today here to go into all of the issues from the different perspectives. But we do need to move forward. And one thing I was disappointed about when we discussed the Good Friday Agreement, and it was discussed ad nauseam, there must be more people making more money out of running symposia, and the Good Friday Agreement. But one thing that I did not see an awful lot of debate about, no, I did not go to too many of the events, but one of the ones I did attend was the role of the prisoners in the 94-97 period in progressing matters. And without dealing with that issue, Good Friday would never have happened, without interacting with them. And I can remember back in 94-95-96, when I was going over to England to visit the prisoners, and to say that conditions weren't good is an understatement. And people were saying, what are you doing? You are consorting with men of violence. And I believed at that time, as I still believe today, that dialogue with anybody is never ever wrong. If somebody is willing to speak to you, I think it is only reasonable to speak back. And I have boxes of files at home from that period. Letters, correspondence, submissions. And there were lots of people who eventually got the message. And to my view, there was no Good Friday Agreement, no matter what the politicians agreed. If we hadn't grasped that nettle, that you had to interact with the people who were involved in the violence, because if you didn't, you were missing the problem. I remember saying to politicians many, many years ago, that if talking when they wouldn't talk to Sinn Féin, and you can remember that, and they weren't going to talk to the DUP, and they liked talking to the SDLP, and the Alliance Party, and the official unions, I said, if that was the problem, there was no problem. There was no problem with violence. That you had to get down on the ground, and see how we can move forward. And I do recognise, you mentioned it yourself, you see, that there were very, thankfully since OMA, there have been very, relatively few killings. There have been a number, and each one I seriously regret. But what I say to myself is this, you never ever got thanks for the person who didn't know that if history had been different, they would have got attacked, and they would have got killed. You'll never get thanks for that. And the only way you can measure that is, measure what it was like before you took action, and measure after. And in the end of the day, Irish history tells us one thing when it comes to Republican violence. Repression doesn't actually have the effects that those who promote it think. Dialogue always seems to have more effect. And there are people in our society, who could speak much more authoritatively than I can. And can I finally say, in doing this work in recent years, I have been working with two other people, well-known, well-respected community activists, impeccable people who have worked for violence. I think it would be worth listening to them too, and to their perspectives. And the people that interact with the Northern authorities, we need to move this forward. And I am not convinced that, you know, what's... Well, I will put it this way. The measure is, measure North against South, and look what we do in the South different from the North. And I think you will find the key to the way forward. The area is, as you can, the leader has a very popular way to make people's rights to. You can be a very popular way there. You can be a very popular moment in the city of Northernrain Australia. You can find the lucky place to be a man that you have won't be a part of the country of Northern Israel. Yeah, you can find the pin. You can also find the pin. The natural people that you carry on to the nation of Northern Ireland. You can also find the pin to the others. And you can find the pin to the Ri-Gi-Gi-Gi-Gi-Gi-F,