Northern Ireland Workers' Party members were permitted by the RUC to carry handguns to protect them against attack, it emerged yesterday in the libel case being taken by Mr De Rossa in the High Court. Seven months after the split in the WP, Mr De Rossa had been contacted by Alan Murdoch of the London Independent, who asked him if he had been in Moscow in 1986. Mr De Rossa said he might have been but could not recall as that was six years earlier.
He agreed he had no recollection of the Moscow letter which appeared to have his and Mr Garland's signatures. He agreed he told the journalist that it "does not ring a bell with me".
He said he had not telephoned Mr Garland to ask if it rang a bell with him. That would have been the last thing he would have done. As far as Mr Garland and other people in the WP were concerned, "I was a traitor and they would not speak to me. They would not walk on the same side of the street as me and they would not speak to anyone belonging to me." He did not recall Mr Murdoch asking about special activities and he did not remember telling the reporter that in 1986 he had no role in the financial area and would not have been privy to information about a shortfall in party funds.
Mr McDowell asked Mr De Rossa to look at a copy of the Independent article. Mr De Rossa refused, saying he did not want to assist counsel. "I am here to defend my character; you are here to destroy it." Mr De Rossa added: "You are being paid by the Sunday Independent, are you not?"
Mr McDowell: "Of course I am. At least I hope I am."
Mr De Rossa said Mr Murdoch had drawn his attention to an accusation at a special WP conference that Mr Garland had a secret army. Mr Murdoch had also referred to five WP members being specially trained by Soviet experts. Mr De Rossa agreed that he had said he would be quite alarmed at that suggestion.
The former Minister had told the journalist that there were a lot of revelations around that time that were shocking to many people. He agreed that in his interview with Mr Murdoch he had singled out one statement of Mr Garland's in which he claimed the right to defence in all circumstances.
Pressed on why this had been of particular significance, Mr De Rossa said it betrayed his attitude in relation to politics in Northern Ireland. People who opposed the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland were constantly under attack. Two years earlier, the son of a WP member had been shot dead.
A number of people in the WP were permitted by the RUC to have handguns to protect themselves. What was significant was that Mr Garland had said "in all circumstances." Mr De Rossa said he took exception to that remark at the conference because he felt it was a recipe for anarchy and for anti-democratic politics.
He had spoken to the journalist late on Sunday night and the conversation had lasted for two or three minutes.
Mr McDowell suggested it was Mr Garland's view that any revolutionary party should have the right to have arms at its disposal to defend itself. Mr De Rossa agreed that was the implication of what Mr Garland said. It did suggest a huge chasm between himself and Mr Garland on a fundamental point of principle.
Mr De Rossa agreed that if Mr Garland had known of any WP members in Northern Ireland who retained the capacity to use weapons he would not have told him (Mr De Rossa) about it. There were a lot of groups in Northern Ireland who would not be prepared to defend the WP in any circumstances. He agreed that many WP members had been subjected to violence.
Taking that into account, Mr McDowell suggested it was not entirely implausible that an armed group linked to the WP existed. Mr De Rossa said that was based on an entirely theoretical argument.
What was surprising about Mr Garland's comment was that he was one of the strongest critics in the party of violence. But he seemed to be implying that a revolutionary party should be able to defend itself by the use of physical force as well as by propaganda.
Mr De Rossa said it was extraordinary that members of the WP went into areas in Northern Ireland to carry out political campaigning work and the possibility was that some would not come out alive.
Mr McDowell said he did not doubt the threat to members in Northern Ireland, but he added there was a strongly held view that members there had taken steps and had weapons to defend themselves.
Mr De Rossa replied that he would not draw that conclusion. Mr McDowell put it to him that if the WP had "heavies" to defend members against gratuitous violence, that could be the basis for a lot of the media speculation which Mr De Rossa felt was so distressing about links between the party and violent people.
Mr De Rossa said he did not accept there was a group of "heavies".
Mr McDowell put it to him that any party linked to a group that used violence was on the slippery slope towards undemocratic politics.
Mr De Rossa agreed, but added that the WP never did that.