Staff Reporter, 28 Dec
There were mixed views among officials in the early 1990s over how to
interact with political parties linked to loyalist paramilitary groups,
files have revealed.
In 1993 the Government refused to talk to Sinn Fein representatives due
to their refusal to condemn Provisional IRA violence.
On the other side of the political divide in Northern Ireland, there
were two political parties linked with loyalist terrorists – the
Progressive Unionist Party (PUP) linked to the Ulster Volunteer Forces
and the Ulster Democrat Party (UDP) linked to the Ulster Freedom
Fighters.
Both parties had a small number of elected representatives in the early
1990s.
A previously confidential file reveals there was discussion over how to
interact with the PUP and UDP.
A briefing note for then secretary of state Sir Patrick Mayhew dated
February 1, 1993 described a “piece of unfinished business from the
proscription of the UDA” was “how ministers should treat two very small
political parties, each with links to proscribed organisations”,
describing a benchmark having been set over the treatment of Sinn Fein.
“The parties only have three councillors between them. The issue is not
clear-cut because, despite their parties’ links, these elected
representatives have generally condemned violence and have had recent
contacts with ministers,” the note reads.
It said the issue had been brought to a head by a planned visit by then
direct rule health minister Lord Arran to Derry and whether then UDP
councillor Ken Kerr should be excluded along with the Sinn Fein
councillors.
The memo included notes on the loyalist councillors, describing Mr Kerr
as despite having served a sentence in the early 1970s for possession
of weapons, he had “publicly denounced paramilitary violence” and
“appears to enjoy a harmonious relations with local SDLP councillors”.
It also described the UDA as “virtually moribund” in Derry.
It said while formally the guidance with regard the UDP was the same as
Sinn Fein, previously ministers had decided not to follow it and met
with Mr Kerr.
However, it also said the guidance on contacts with Sinn Fein does not
apply to the PUP and there are no restrictions, adding that the
secretary of state had met PUP councillor Hugh Smyth in Belfast the
previous year.
The memo goes on to describe the parties as “small beer” but said how
ministers treat them “needs to be seen against the background of wider
and more important policy considerations”.
It said they wanted to encourage political involvement and “not to cut
off contacts with politicians unnecessarily”, but also noted a rise in
loyalist violence as focusing attention on how the Government treats
anyone with links to loyalist groups.
“Nationalists and the Irish Government will study our approach for
signs of bias,” it read.
“On the other hand, the rise in Protestant extremism also emphasises
the importance of keeping political avenues open, if possible, for
politicians who can articulate extreme Protestant grievances.”
The memo concluded: “There is no clear consensus among officials. The
Secretary of State may find it best to hold a meeting. The majority
opinion is that contact should not be broken off at a time when there
is increasing talk of Protestant alienation.”
Minutes of a meeting on February 2, 1993, records the Secretary of
State summing up a discussion as that he regarded loyalist violence in
the same way as republican violence, but on the balance he considered
that Mr Kerr and Mr Smyth could be met by ministers.
“Sinn Fein could be expected to say that we were operating double
standards but provided that the SDLP confirmed they did want Kerr on
the delegation criticism could therefore be countered by saying that he
was there at the invitation of the SDLP and not the Government,” the
meeting concluded, according to the note kept by private secretary W K
Lindsay.