Northern Ireland Peace Process: Statements.

The Taoiseach

Given the recent developments in the Northern Ireland situation, it would have been inappropriate to have a Dáil session today and not devote some time to a discussion of what has happened.

A statement issued by the Church and Government Committee of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland this week began with the stark sentence: "There are widespread feelings of fear, pain, confusion and stress throughout Ireland caused by the events of the last few weeks." The statement went on to identify decisions on parades as the immediate cause of the fear, pain, confusion and stress. It went further and pointed out that "the present situation requires the political process to be pursued positively which will involve courage and the taking of risks." The heart of this problem, as every Member of the House knows, is the failure to reach an accommodation around three sets of relationships: between the two communities in Northern Ireland, between both parts of Ireland and between Britain and Ireland.

The difficulties created, for example, by parades is but one manifestation of the underlying political problem and for this reason all our major efforts are directed towards negotiating agreement on political structures which will accommodate the three sets of relationships in a fruitful way.

Before dealing with the current political process I would like to reiterate some points about the parades and the severe difficulties which can arise as a result of handling them. I have already made my views known about the handling of the parade in Portadown. The authorities of a democratic state — any state — cannot afford to yield, or to be perceived to yield, to force or to the threat of force, cannot afford to be inconsistent and cannot afford to be partial in the way in which they apply the law. These basic tenets of democratic statecraft were, I have argued, breached in the case of the Portadown parade.

As is now clear, there is a deficiency in the regime for dealing with controversial parades in Northern Ireland. In this respect Northern Ireland is not Surrey, Dublin or Galway. It is a divided community with a long history of confrontational marches. That is why I have been pressing for a review of the arrangements for dealing with parades and marches, and I welcome the recent announcement by the Northern Ireland Secretary of State that the current arrangements are to be reviewed.

At present the arrangements do not allow for sufficient weight to be given to the overall interests of community relations and to the damage that may be done to these relations by allowing people to parade through areas where they are not welcome. At present there has to be a morally offensive auction between competing threats of violence and disruption. The RUC is placed in a position where, in the interests, as it sees it, of minimising harm, of achieving the least bad outcome, it has to make a calculation which essentially involves yielding to the greater threat of disorder even though the price of that may be a lesser degree of disorder. That is not an appropriate position for it to be in.

The parades arrangements clearly need to be revised to accommodate the issue of the likelihood of a parade resulting in long-term damage to community relations, something which has happened in recent times. In making decisions of this nature it might be profitable to study South African legislation which takes into account factors such as preventing "the causing, encouraging or fermenting of feelings of hostility between different population groups or parts of population groups". It should be possible to have arrangements put in place in Northern Ireland under which the identities of the two traditions can be recognised and accommodated in this way in regard to parades or demonstrations which can be offensive to one or other of them. Together with the Tánaiste, I will continue to monitor the parade situation closely. We are currently in discussion with the British authorities about possible upcoming flashpoints. We must not have a repetition of what happened on the Garvaghy Road.

No action or inaction on the part of the British Government in relation to Portadown justified the murder, intimidation, destruction of property and general mayhem which followed it right across Northern Ireland. Democracy fundamentally depends on the principle that people are free to argue against, disagree with and criticise the decisions of the lawful authority, but they are not free to disobey such decisions. I wish to quote the following from the Presbyterian Church statement:

...the properly constituted authorities of the state are to be obeyed. Only under the most extreme circumstances can this obligation be refused. We do not believe that such circumstances obtained in recent times.

That is a direct reference by the Presbyterian Church to the events in Portadown. I would go further and say there has not been, nor is there now, any justification for the use of violence to achieve political objectives. This is particularly so when negotiations are already taking place and for which the only entry qualification is that participating parties reject violence or any support for violence.

Of course all of us are frustrated at the pace of progress in these negotiations. After 40 days formal agreement has not yet been reached on the rules of procedure or on the agenda. This delay must at the same time be placed in the context of 25 years of violence and hundreds of years of division, supermacism, misunderstanding and fear in the northern part of this island. Procedural arguments which can appear superficial or almost irrelevant to outsiders can at the same time provide a means through which the participants acquire a sense of ownership of the process, thereby facilitating eventual agreement, and, perhaps, easier agreement, on issues of substance when the substance is eventually reached.

There have, however, been some recent encouraging developments in the talks. While I am inhibited by the confidentiality of the proceedings from giving details, I can say that we are working towards a situation where it might be possible to reach agreement before the holidays on many of the outstanding procedural issues and to pave the way for negotiations on the substantive questions after the short summer recess of the talks. These negotiations, involving the assistance of Senator George Mitchell, General de Chastelain and Prime Minister Holkeri, represent by far the best opportunity that has existed in out lifetime to arrive at a political settlement to accommodate the three relationships which have not worked in so far as this island is concerned and its relationship with its neighbour.

All the relevant parties are at the talks except Sinn Féin and all its members have to do to take their seats is persuade the IRA to restore the ceasefire. All the relevant issues are on the table at the talks and any participant can add any additional issue which he or she feels it is necessary to discuss. Both Governments have done an enormous amount of preparatory work to facilitate a successful outcome to the talks. During the past 40 days at the Belfast talks the Irish Government has shown its willingness to work with the other parties to the negotiations to accommodate their viewpoints. It is important that the political parties in the talks each take on their own responsibilities. The bigger the party the bigger the responsibility, not to its own supporters but to the entire community. The gainers in these talks will be those parties which take additional responsibility on their shoulders rather than those who try to pass off the responsibility for the hard, risky or difficult decision to another participant.

I wish to take this opportunity to emphasise three key points: the negotiations are serious and comprehensive and both Governments are committed to achieving a successful outcome; we will not allow decommissioning of arms to derail the negotiations — it will be tackled but only in parallel with other issues in the negotiations; and both Governments will do everything possible to promote confidence building during the talks. This has been explicitly recognised in the communiqué which Prime Minister Major and I issued in London on 28 February last. I hope these three points will reassure the Republican movement and finally convince it that now is the time to restore the ceasefire and to give the political process a chance. There has never been a better or more appropriate time to do this.

To the Unionist community, I repeat a message already articulated many times by me and by all of my recent predecessors as Taoiseach. The principle of consent as set out in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Joint Framework Document is sacrosanct. There can be no change in the status of Northern Ireland unless and until a majority of the people there freely so decide. There has never been a more favourable climate or more constructive arrangements available for a successful negotiation. Again I say to Unionists, "You have seen the economic prospects and the security which 18 months of peace brought. How much more glittering is the prize which a lasting settlement of the cause of the division would bring? We on this side of the Border respect your traditions, heritage, beliefs and allegiance. We understand your fears and anxieties. We ask only that you respect the traditions, heritage, belief and allegiances of your Nationalist neighbours and that you, too, understand their fears and anxieties." As the Presbyterian Church statement made clear, the achievement of success in the political negotiations will involve courage and the taking of risks. I assure the representatives of unionism with whom we are currently in negotiations that this Irish Government has courage and is ready to take risks.

I also assure everyone on this island and in Britain that we are leaving no stone unturned in our efforts to reach a settlement. I know the British Prime Minister and his colleagues in Government share this commitment and, despite our recent disagreement, both Governments are continuing to work closely and constructively together to achieve the settlement that has eluded so many generations of Irish and British politicians.

Mr. B. Ahern

As democrats, it is our duty to continue to work for peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, regardless of whatever setbacks we may encounter. Other peace processes in the Middle East, South Africa and Bosnia have suffered huge difficulties from time to time. Often it would have been too easy to give in to despair and to conclude that the problems are so intractable that they can never be solved. So it is with Northern Ireland.

Few people could fail to be depressed, after the high hopes that lasted for 17 months, at how swiftly the peace process has seemed to unravel before our eyes. Mistakes made a year or more ago and past mishandling have snowballed into the current crisis. Equally, there have been acts and threats of violence that show a frightening irresponsibility, although at other times there has also been a commendable restraint. The right steps taken by the two Governments, leading to the all-party talks which finally started on 10 June, would have had far more beneficial and confidence-building effect if they had happened a year previously when the momentum was there.

More recently, on top of the difficulties created by the renewed IRA campaign and the snail's pace of progress in relation to both the talks and the Northern Ireland Forum, we have had the mob violence sparked off by the Orange parades through the Garvaghy and Ormeau Roads. There has unfortunately been a serious deterioration in community relations which we deplore. The state, which buckled under the threat of violence, is apparently no longer able to hold the line, and therefore cannot in practice guarantee the rigorous impartiality and parity of esteem promised in the Framework Document.

We face a prospect of further débâcle, violence and inevitable death, unless we use the shock of recent events constructively to arrive at a new basis for progress and accommodation. I would like to think that the two Governments and all the northern parties are urgently engaged on this task. Although public feelings and anger are very strong we must be measured in our recriminations and try to use the painful lessons of recent events to create a better future. There are deep-rooted feelings and frustrations in both communities which must be identified and dealt with in an understanding and sensible manner. There is a way forward, and that is where both Government's efforts can best be focused.

In the Downing Street declaration, the British Government committed itself to working actively to encourage, facilitate and enable the achievement of agreement. That was a cornerstone of the peace process which cannot be abandoned. The peace process and the talks leading to a settlement were always intimately connected. The ceasefires needed to be underpinned by engagement in early negotiations. Indeed, the understanding that meaningful talks would happen within a few months was the basis of the ceasefires. Does anyone in Northern Ireland seriously believe that a secure peace can be had without any willingness to engage in serious negotiation, leading to the creation of a structured settlement? Equally, it was wrong of the IRA to call off its ceasefire while efforts were still continuing to try and organise inclusive and comprehensive political dialogue.

Ths violence has left Sinn Féin, despite its enhanced electoral mandate, outside the Stormont talks. There is nothing to be gained by a return either to the communal or paramiltitary violence of the past 25 years. Neither community will gain and both stand to lose very heavily. It is not likely that this part of the country will remain untouched. Continued IRA violence, to the extent that it may provoke a loyalist reaction, puts Nationalists at risk in the North and also jeopardises the safety of the people of this State in a very tangible way. The only way to tackle the deep seated problems of the North is in a concerted, dignified and democratic way, with the two Governments giving the lead as far as possible.

Since we went into Opposition, Fianna Fáil has tried at all times to sustain the peace process, to find ways around difficulties and to encourage a political way forward. We have been able more easily than the Government to keep direct lines open to Sinn Féin at the highest level. We would not be willing to do this if we did not believe that most of the people with whom we have dealings are genuinely committed to reestablishing a viable peace process with a reasonable time scale. At the same time we do not underestimate the formibable task of persuasion and the ingrained scepticism they face.

The entire premise of the peace process was that a proper IRA ceasefire would enable Sinn Féin to go into talks. However, as former Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, stated in the Dáil after the Heathrow bombing on 10 March 1994, column 700 of the Official Report: "Let there be no illusions. There is a place at the negotiating table only when violence ceases for good, not before."

If we in this House are united on this point, we must be equally unwavering in ensuring that there is a place at the table for Sinn Féin as soon as IRA violence stops for good. I am glad that so far the response of the IRA to the provocations of the Garvaghy and Ormeau Roads has not been the planting of further bombs, which cause such dismay, destruction and sometimes death, as well as such injury, hurt and anger. The stopping of violence for good has to include an end to the barbaric punishment beatings, which are a disgrace to all the organisations which carry them out, and which are a gross violation of human rights. That is what they are and no verbal gymnastics can change that fact.

If paramilitary violence is unacceptable, so also is the street violence provoked by the Orange Order and their defiance of the rule of law. Democratic leaders may not stand at the head of large and angry crowds and threaten to break the law if they do not get their way. The leaders of unionism were prima facie in breach of the fourth Mitchell principle, which requires them to renounce the use of force themselves, and to oppose any effort by others to use force, or threaten to use force, to influence the course of the outcome of all-party negotiations. Organisations that make bomb threats are also in breach of this principle.

These actions raise the question of what sanctions are available against those who breach the Mitchell principles. The resort to physical force on the streets undermines trust and confidence, not only in the rule of law, but in the strength of any compromise settlement achieved at the negotiating table, given the history of democratic decisions being overturned in 1912 and 1974.

It must now be clear that Northern Ireland can only be made a viable political entity on the basis of mutual consent and accommodation. That is why the forcing through of Orange marches through overwhelmingly Nationalist areas where they are not wanted was so wrong. What sort of civil and religious liberty blocks off roads and streets, keeps people of another religion imprisoned in their homes, denies access to them, and has no respect for the feelings of a local religious minority? The Orange Order makes a hollow mockery of its own ideals in these instances and in so doing damages its own country.

The Christian Churches, whether Catholic or Protestant, should not become involved in sanctifying defiance of the law, and should strongly encourage a basic respect for the rights of the other tradition. In this regard, I welcome the measured wisdom of the Presbyterian Moderator and his Church in recent days. In the present tense situation measured and understanding words are a true sign of leadership and public bravery. It is indefensible that people anywhere in Northern Ireland should be driven from their homes because of their religion or that churches or community halls on any side should be attacked. Sectarianism must be combated vigorously.

All communities, where they are in a minority, are especially vulnerable. I call on the Orange Order to play its part in reconciliation by entering into negotiations with local residents in areas where there are problems, seeking agreement and consent, where necessary. We cannot afford a further repetition in a few weeks' time, or next year, of the orgy of destruction that has already taken place. Independent commissions may do good work, but unless the Orangemen are prepared to accept the rule of law and acknowledge the need for consent, the same problem will recur over and over again. If the Orange Order is not prepared to do this, political and community leaders must intervene and exert their influence to demonstrate that public order, community harmony and cross community relations are of a higher order than unfettered tradition.

When that has happened new police structures will be required in Northern Ireland. Fundamental policing reform must be on the agenda for the talks. The RUC has lost the trust of the people, following much good work in recent years to improve the image and reputation of the force in the community by many individual officers. It is clear that the decision to hold the line in Portadown was undermined from above and below and that the RUC as currently constituted is not capable of exercising rigorous impartiality or ensuring equality of treatment between the two communities. Much more police violence and intervention was exercised by the police against the Nationalist community, in terms of batoning peaceful protesters, firing plastic bullets and sealing off areas. It should be a matter of grave concern to the British Prime Minister that, unlike in Surrey or in the coal fields when Arthur Scargill and the miners were on strike, the police in Northern Ireland are not capable of maintaining impartiality and the rule of law and have abjectly given way to mob violence. The world has once again been shocked by recent events.

Our primary concern must be to ensure there is not a repetition of trouble on a similar or worse scale by the Apprentic Boys' march down the Ormeau Road or in Derry on 10 August. That is why I wanted to learn at first hand last week the true position from residents in different areas. That is why a presence of international observers and members of political parties from this House, from the European Parliament and elsehere should act as a moderating and restraining influence on both sides. If we have the will, we can do a great deal in this regard.

We must remove obstacles to a fruitful talks process. The filibustering over procedures must stop so that substantive talks can begin. There must be a clear assurance that Sinn Féin will be admitted to talks as soon as the original ceasefire is reinstated. In the light of recent events, the two Governments should recognise that an absolute insistence on parallel up-front decommissioning, however desirable, is no longer realistic and that it must be dealt with as an essential part of an overall settlement. Acceptance of those three points would significantly enhance the chances of a new ceasefire.

The freeing of the logjam on substantive talks is timely and welcome. No firmer sign of political leadership could be given in the current tinderbox of community tension than that the leaders of democratic parties in Northern Ireland begin meaningful negotiations on the future of the relevant relationships in the North, in Ireland and between Ireland and Great Britain. I am conscious of the vast amount of hard work done behind the scenes by officials of the Irish, British and US Governments in trying to facilitate a positive outcome at this vital time. They deserve our highest commendation for their work and continued efforts.

We must not witness again in our time a Nationalist community under siege to an Orange Order group determined to force its way on the community without discussion, consent or consensus, Let Drumcree and the Lower Ormeau Road be the end of that, once and for all. When we return after the summer recess I hope real talks will have started, that there will be an end to the violence and that the position will be much brighter than it is tonight.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Quinn)

Members will be aware that the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, is en route to Australia on an official visit. He asked me to address the House on this issue on behalf of the Labour Party.

I welcome this opportunity to reflect on the events of recent weeks and to take stock of their impact not just on Northern Ireland but on relations between the Nationalist and Unionist traditions on this island. The events surrounding the celebration of the Twelfth were a stark reminder to all of us of the real divisions which exist between the two communities in Northern Ireland and the powerful nature of the feelings which can be aroused on the issues of culture and identity. They also brought home to us the difficulty — the crucial importance and sensitivity — of all our efforts to make progress towards lasting peace and reconciliation. It behoves us all to tread carefully and weigh our words well.

Enormous efforts have been invested in the search for lasting peace and reconciliation in recent years. After 25 years of violence, the killing stopped in August 1994 and the peace endured for some 18 months. During that time, there was a glimpse of the reservoir of goodwill and hope among the ordinary people that could be drawn on by political leaders seeking to build a better and brighter future for both communities in Northern Ireland and for better relations in Ireland, North and South. Fear was banished from the streets of the North. Investment moneys, public and private, began to flow into Northern Ireland's economy. Financial contributions to building the peace increased from the United States and Europe and cross-Border travel increased dramatically. Political leaders could take hope and courage from the public expressions of support and the obvious potential offered by the ceasefires.

This surge in hope and optimism found a focus in the visit of President Clinton at the end of the year. The welcome accorded the President and his wife Hillary, in Northern Ireland and in Dublin, was a fitting tribute to his enormous personal commitment to the search for lasting peace on this island. We all shared in that optimism. That and the knowledge that the United States stood ready to assist, further encouraged us in the search for an agreed political solution.

The ending of the IRA ceasefire was a setback to that search and a profound blow to the optimism that an enduring peace lay in the not too distant future. It was a moral travesty and an affront to the wishes of the vast majority of people on this island. It was also a profound political mistake. No amount of dissatisfaction at the political response to the ceasefires could even remotely justify a reversion of violence.

That the ending of the IRA ceasefire has not resulted in the sustained resumption of paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland has caused many to continue to hope that a return to a futile cycle of violence might be averted and the ceasefire restored. That the loyalist ceasefire endures is an important and praiseworthy achievement and offers further encouragement that peace can be fully restored. The Government and the vast majority of people on this island hope that this proves to be the case. For the good of all the people who share this island, for the good of the next generation who have to bear the burdens of our mistakes and failures and for the purposes of a lasting settlement emerging from the talks process, the sooner the ceasefire is restored the better.

While the Government is actively seeking the unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire of August 1994 which would pave the way for Sinn Féin to enter the negotiations, this process cannot be held in abeyance while we wait for this to happen. The current negotiations are part of a process in Anglo-Irish relations, aimed at achieving a lasting political settlement based on consent. The Anglo-Irish Agreement set the pattern of close co-operation between the two Governments which led to the joint declaration and a new framework for agreement. It remains the necessary condition for the resolution of a conflict which has proved so costly in human and material terms to both islands.

It is essential for the achievement of stability regarding Northern Ireland and has helped to steady many volatile situations. It has also imparted a crucial degree of comfort and support to political leaders in Northern Ireland engaged in the search for peace and reconciliation and who may be prepared to explore options for accommodation in that context which they might otherwise fear to do.

The work of both Governments is predicted on the evident truth which the leader of the SDLP, John Hume, has so consistently identified as the defining reality in the political landscape within Northern Ireland, that the problem of Northern Ireland arises from the division between the people of this island. The resolution of the problem, therefore, lies with bridging the divisions between our two traditions. That can only be achieved through agreed relationships based on the consent of both communities — relations between them within Northern Ireland, relations between North and South and relations between Britain and Ireland.

The key to the process of agreeing and constructing this architecture of political consent lies in the current political talks. I take this opportunity of recording the Government's appreciation for the patient and unstinting efforts of Senator George Mitchell as chairman, assisted by Harri Holkeri and John de Chastelain, to move the process through what has been a difficult and protracted opening phase. Their contribution has brought us to a position where there is now some real hope that the negotiations will move before too long from matters of procedure and agenda to issues of real political substance.

For many, including the Irish Government, progress in the talks has been painstakingly slow. Nevertheless, we are determined to do all in our power to accelerate the rate of progress and to pursue the political accommodation which we all know must sooner or later be achieved.

Events at Drumcree have had a profound impact on the political landscape in Northern Ireland, and have raised many deep questions in the minds of the Nationalist community. The Government's position, as stated repeatedly in the House, is that parades and those who organise them should be governed by the principle that they should not take place in an area or along a route where they are not welcome. This principle seeks to establish respect for the rights and sensitivities of local residents without impinging on the right to celebrate identity and heritage by marching.

The prospects for this year's marching season were reviewed at the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference held on 22 May 1996. As the communiqué which was issued after the conference stated, both Governments "called on all those involved in the planning of parades this year to exercise compromise and balance in the interests of the community as a whole. To that end, agreements between all concerned should be encouraged".

The Government continued to monitor the situation closely as it developed, particularly in regard to those parades most likely to prove contentious, for example, parades proposing to march along the Garvaghy Road in Portadown and the Lower Ormeau Road in Belfast. It was hoped that agreement could be reached between the local residents and the relevant Orange Lodges. The Government was aware of attempts to assist agreement through mediation and we supported them strongly. Regrettably, these efforts did not bear fruit.

The decision on proposed parade routes is a matter for the RUC. Under the Public Order Order of 1987, a senior RUC officer can reroute a parade if he or she believes that the parade, and I quote from section 4 of the order "may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community". The Government believes that this approach can result in a situation where the greater threat or the greater number will decide whether a parade proceeds along its proposed route or is rerouted in the face of local objections. There is clearly an incentive in the current legislation to exaggerate the threat to public order with a consequent motivation to back this up with a show of force. The dangers of allowing issues of public order to be decided by numbers rather than by the test of law or reason are two obvious to need elaboration.

Furthermore, the Government has repeatedly expressed its belief that the issue of parades in Northern Ireland is not simply a matter of public order. To treat them merely as a security issue would suggest a disregard for the lessons of history revealed by the last three decades in Northern Ireland. Parades, particularly those of the Unionist community, have traditionally been an expression of identity, heritage and allegiance. Parades have also been vehicles for political beliefs and responses to prevailing political issues, a function more often associated with the Nationalist community. In either case, the parades and the routes they take, are highly sensitive, not to say emotive issues. They should be handled with due regard for all their political implications, which, as we have seen, are sometimes very profound.

The Government has in the past conveyed its belief in the flaws in the approach to parades set out in the Public Order Order to the British authorities through the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. In this context, the Government welcomes the remit of the review of parades and marches in Northern Ireland announced yesterday by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew MP, in the House of Commons which includes in its terms of reference the following: "the adequacy of the current legal provisions, and in particular the adequacy of the statutory criteria used in making decisions on public procession and open air public meetings".

Many in the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland have expressed doubts about the adequacy of the proposed review to fully deal with the implications of the situation created by the events surrounding Drumcree. There is a need to fundamentally review the parades issue. The composition of the review body will be critically important in encouraging confidence that the process will be comprehensive in its research, impartial in its assessment, and sensitive and imaginative in its recommendations in all the areas which fall within its remit.

However, the impact of the events at Drumcree and the Ormeau Road and their aftermath went far beyond the question of parades. They precipitated a collapse in Nationalist confidence in the rule of law, the willingness of central authority to enforce it, and in the RUC itself.

That there was a challenge to the rule of law at Drumcree is without question. Based on the powers conferred on him by the Public Order Order, the Chief Constable directed that the return leg of the Orange Lodge's church march should not go down the Garvaghy Road. In the expectation of such a direction, there was an apparently coordinated effort to challenge that direction through widespread disruption across the entire area of Northern Ireland. That disruption involved blocking roads and access to ports and airports and illegal marches with intimidation, arson attacks and hooliganism following in their wake. It was accompanied by a well organised assembly of ever increasing numbers at Drumcree which at times erupted into riotous behaviour.

To many in the National community there appeared to be reluctance in the face of this disruption to enforce the rule of law. Yet there was also hope that the RUC would stand firm at Drumcree, that central authority would not buckle under the threat of numbers. The physical blocking of the road and the announcement that extra troops were being flown in added to the certainty that the authorities would call on whatever resources were needed.

It was the sudden shattering of this expectation and the harsh manner in which the Garvaghy Road was cleared of peaceful protestors by the RUC which combined to produce such shock within the Nationalist community. Its sense of dismay was shared by many here in the South and, indeed, by many people abroad.

The events of 11 July, the images of street violence, the rioting and the response of the security forces recalled images of the past which we had begun to hope had been left behind for ever. It appeared as if the stark forces of mutual suspicion and enmity had been unleashed. In the words of Cardinal Daly, who had done so much with the other church leaders to defuse the situation through mediation, it was a black day in the history of Northern Ireland.

The strain of events was felt at all levels, emotional and political. It was felt on the streets, among political and community leaders and between the two Governments. As the Government statement issued on 11 July said, the reversal of the decision on the parade route along the Garvaghy Road "runs entirely counter to the previously agreed approaches by both Governments to accord parity of esteem to both nationalist and unionist communities". It went on "the Government are fully conscious of the anger which today's decision has caused to the nationalist community in Northern Ireland".

Political leaders in the Nationalist community tried to give voice to the outrage felt in their community while not encouraging further disorder. Valiant efforts were made to maintain or restore calm. These efforts were not helped by the perception that disturbances in Nationalist areas were being made with assertive, and sometimes aggressive, RUC behaviour which was absent earlier in the week.

Reports began to circulate in the media of enormous numbers of plastic baton rounds being fired on Nationalist protesters. These reports were borne out in the final tally; a total of approximately 6,002 were fired, of which 662 were fired up to 11 July and the remaining 5,340 thereafter. A number of serious incidents involving the RUC were reported in the media and by local representatives. These, I should add, have been taken up with the British Government through the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

On the question of the use of plastic baton rounds and the general approach of the RUC, an approach which has resulted in death and serious injuries, the Government welcomes as a first step the announcement yesterday by the British authorities that the Inspector of Constabulary "will conduct a review of the RUC's procedure and training for handling public order situations including those relating to the use of plastic bullet rounds".

Despite the efforts of Nationalist political leaders and their appeals for calm, damage was heaped on damage. In towns, villages and streets across Northern Ireland, divisions were deepened, mistrust fermented and community relations soured.

There have been sectarian attacks on people and property. There are reports that businesses are being boycotted based on the religion of the owners. Nothing can condone this kind of bigotry, which should have no place in modern day Ireland or anywhere. The Government condemns all such actions, whoever commits them and against whomever they are directed. They contribute nothing to the resolution of our problems and only serve to make them worse.

We are not yet out of the marching season and there are obvious flashpoints where the emotions aroused at Drumcree, if they are allowed to prevail over calmer and wiser instincts, could escalate community confrontation still further. I appeal for restraint and, above all, for dialogue at local and wider level, to resolve differences on parade routes. Given how much is at stake, the suggestion that marchers should engage in dialogue with residents is surely the least that can be called for.

Even if, as I hope, upcoming flashpoints can be managed, it will take time, commitment and courage to restore the damage done. Both Governments began that process with the special Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference convened at the request of the Government on 18 July and which reviewed the serious deterioration in the situation in the aftermath of the decisions taken on parade routes. A range of matters was discussed, including the failure of the British authorities to fully utilise the structures and procedures of the intergovernmental conference, in particualre, the failure to provide advance notice of the changed decision relating to the Garvaghy Road. Serious concerns regarding the behaviour of the security forces were also raised by the Tánaiste and the Government will continue to pursue these within the framework of the conference.

The work to repair the damage done to community relations will be difficult but essential to the foundations on which lasting peace and stability must be built. The work of reconciliation will continue through the efforts of countless individuals and groups, both lay and religious, too numerous to mention. For their unstinting work, we all owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.

The real work of rebuilding confidence, however lies with the political leadership of both communities and the two Governments. As both Governments agreed at the intergovernmental conference, "they recognised the urgent need to rebuild confidence in the wake of these developments and reaffirmed the primacy of the political process as the means of achieving this". Both Governments are absolutely determined to achieve progress through the current political talks. There is no alternative to political dialogue.

It is only by bringing about a lasting, just and comprehensive political settlement that the issues which afflict Northern Ireland can be finally resolved, including the issue of policing and the handling of parades. The Government is doing all it can to ensure that significant progress will be made in the coming days and that the talks process will engage the substantive matters on an agreed agenda. I am confident together with the participants, that we are now making progress in that direction.

The events surrounding Drumcree during the week of the Twelfth were a deeply disturbing reminder of the potential for conflict and confrontaton between the two communities within Northern Ireland. It has done enormous damage, political and economic, but I firmly believe that that damage can be rectified, the lessons can be learned and that the failures that those events represented can be avoided in the future. It was a sad and unnecessary detour from the road to lasting peace and stablity. The surest way to avoid future detours lies in the pursuit of political agreement in the current talks, with courage, determination and an unyielding commitment to peace and reconciliation. I wish to assure the House, that the Government will do all in its power to bring about the lasting political agreement which is the shared objective of all the people of this island.

Mr. O'Malley

We are making this set of late night statements on the North in the Dáil at yet another bleak juncture in the North's affairs. These formal, usually prepared, set pieces do not constitute a debate. They are intended by the Government as little more than a gesture and an opportunity to provide the press with a few select quotations from those who get their advance scripts out in time.

It seems to the Progressive Democrats that because the present position is so bleak there is a particular need to show novelty in approaching the position. The bleakness is exemplified by the fact that more than six weeks have elapsed in procedural wrangles in the talks at Stormont. These have prevented any substantive talking and at the same time we are labouring under the shadow of Drumcree and its aftermath. The legacy of Drumcree does not appear to have added any greater urgency to the efforts of those who are talking. It has not brought their willingness to compromise any closer to the surface because some of them see it as a form of victory and that is profoundly depressing.

I do not find the fact that we are told that there is to be a vote next Monday on adopting new procedural rules put forward by the former Senator Mitchell and that it will be probably carried very encouraging or exciting. Several of the parties appear to have serious reservations and will presumably want to leave avenues open to themselves to continue to argue on procedural points and to procrastinate further. Irrespective of what happens on Monday, presumably these talks will be adjourned at the end of next week for the month of August and will not resume until September. It would be an extraordinary optimist who could foresee those talks being successful on the basis of their track record to date in 1996 and on the basis of the record of their predecessor talks in 1992. The present difficulty has been compounded by the holding of an election in the North recently, which was unnecessary, foolish and which, as I and others forecast, has served simply to polarise the positions on each side and to weaken the centre.

Because the realistic position, as opposed to the propaganda one, we heard from the Government side tonight, is so weak and uncertain, serious consideration will have to be given to a different approach that will not depend primarily on the parties within the North for progress. I do not say that lightly. I fully realise the ideal in any normal society is that the elected representatives of the local population should compromise and agreed about the future Government of the area inhabited by that population.

As we all know Northern Ireland is not a normal society and the normal rules of democracy and politics do not appear to succeed nor are they likely to prevail now. If we come at the problem in a somewhat different way, it is no more than a recognition of the unique and peculiar nature of the Northern Ireland situation. Increasingly there appears to be less and less alternative to the clear need for the two Governments to draft and prepare a form of settlement document, offer it for debate and suggested possible amendments to the parties and then put it directly in its final form to the people of Northern Ireland for acceptance in a referendum. The basic conditions of any settlement document will have to include a power-sharing administration within Northern Ireland, acceptance of the principle that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom, except by the consent of a majority of its people, and the establishment of North-South institution links to guarantee the missing parity of esteem and the rights of Nationalists.

If a package like this is seen as the price of the union, there is every possibility that the moderate sober majority of Unionists will accept it. If such a package is a genuine and permanent guarantee of the rights of Nationalists, and includes the means to vindicate those rights, then surely there is every possibility that a majority of Nationalists will also accept it.

Those on each side who genuinely hate war and violence will see it as the only reasonable alternative to chaos, in truth the only way forward. Thereby can the moderate centre ground be allowed and encouraged to assert itself at last. The agenda need not be written by extremists.

Intransigence and loyalty to so-called basic principles and demands is the approach which has tended to win electoral success in Northern Ireland. The two Governments will have to change the ground rules to remove the reward from intransigence on both sides. I make this suggestion as others have, including in particular my colleague Deputy McDowell, against the background of the failure of the all-party talks initiative. This was the basic demand of Sinn Féin-IRA for many years but when it was agreed and implemented it chose to stay outside the all-party talks by its resumption of terrorism and rejection of the very process it alleged it wanted. Its intent is not just clear from the overt and completed acts of violence in recent months such as Canary Wharf, Manchester, Osnabruck and Adare, but also from the evidence of the equal atrocities that were averted by good luck in the case of Hammersmith Bridge and by the good work of the British and Irish police in the arrests in south London and in the discovery of an active operational bomb factory in Clonaslee, County Laois. These activities make it clear that Sinn Féin has no intention of accepting the rules for its own inclusion in all-party talks.

The question then arises, could such talks be fruitfully held without them? The talks certainly can be held without them but the evidence of the undemocratic attitude of Mr. Trimble at Drumcree and the lack of progress of the last six weeks at Stormont does not suggest any great likelihood of success for those talks, irrespective of who is or is not there.

Relying on such talks in the future to produce a viable and acceptable settlement is just not realistic. If the present round of talks end in failure or even if they just drag on interminably, a political vacuum will again be formed and deepened which, as we know from experience, will only be filled in one way. All out violence from extremists on both sides in the North is too terrible to contemplate. What is now simmering just below the surface is a potentially bad as anything we have seen in the past 28 years. Post Drumcree anger is intense. The intimidation of people out of their homes is intolerable. So-called punishment beatings continue apace and become more vicious and depraved by the day.

The Governments, I strongly believe, have no alternative but to act together on the lines that I advocate here. I urge them to do so without delay before both countries become locked in the sort of political paralysis that innevitably precedes a general election. The Progressive Democrats pledge full support to the Government in any action it reasonably takes on the lines I advocate. From my recent discussions I believe that the Opposition in Westminster would be equally anxious to afford support to the Government there if new initiatives were undertaken jointly with the Irish Government. No reasonable effort by either Government, or both, will be sought to be capitalised on in the forthcoming general elections, even if those efforts were ultimately to fail.

Minister for Social Welfare (Proinsias De Rossa)

I take a contrary view to what has been suggested by Deputy O'Malley when he implicitly states that the talks in Northern Ireland have failed. Both yesterday and today some progress has been made. It is slow progress but nevertheless it is being made and I warmly welcome it. It is a good sign that common sense is beginning to prevail. It will be good news to all those who seek a negotiated settlement of the Northern conflict and who believe that there is no acceptable alternative to the talks. It is my view and that of the Government that it is not possible for the two Governments to impose a solution in Northern Ireland. It is simply impossible and would be a recipe for disaster to attempt to do so.

The violence that returned to Northern Ireland a fortnight ago is totally unacceptable. It represented a failure of political leadership and a victory of mob rule over the rule of law. It also reflected the depth of intercommunal divisions and marked a return to the destructive politics of "them" and "us". The ugly and depressing scenes witnessed at Drumcree, Garvaghy Road and the Lower Ormeau Road and in towns and villages across Northern Ireland a fortnight ago are brutal evidence of an intransigent commitment to the politics of communal siege and defence, without regard to the risks posed to the possibility of an agreement which would respect the interests and identities of the people, Nationalist, Unionist and others, who live in Northern Ireland.

Whatever about the intransigence and triumphalism displayed by Orangemen at Drumcree and elsewhere, it does not serve us well in the Republic to indulge in our own form of self-righteousness. Parity of self-righteousness will not get us very far. That there were loutish, bigoted and even fascist elements associated with the Orange march is very clear. That, however, should not blind us to the fact that many on the Orange side were, and are, genuinely worried that their own culture and political identity is under threat, not only from the IRA, but from constitutional Nationalists, North and South. We in this Government believe this fear, in so far as it refers to the political aspirations of the vast majority of a Nationalist identity on the island, is a totally groundless one. However, we must realise it as a real one.

It does nothing but harm to any hope of political accommodation on this island to talk, as did columnist in The Irish Times this week, of bigotry being the essence of Unionist politics and of “Unionist fascism”. This is a profound insult to the tens of thousands of Unionists who fought, together with Nationalists from North and South, against fascism in the Second World War. It is a despicable slight on the decency of the vast majority of Northern Protestants who would have nothing but contempt for the fascist thugs who murdered Michael McGoldrick in Lurgan.

It is one of the deeply worrying aspects of the sharpened communal polarisation that has taken place in the past fortnight that sectarian murder and intimidation have reappeared. This cannot all be ascribed to "them" as opposed to "us". Do not let us forget, when condemning Orange fascists, about the Green ones who intimidate Protestants out of their homes, burn Protestant-owned businesses and, in one case, write letters to a newspaper advocating a boycott of Protestant businesses.

Much media comment and what passed for reportage in the Republic was not only hysterical but inflammatory. There were those who invoked the "spirit of 1969" who found justification for the Provisional IRA as a "defender" of Nationalist areas. This would be like saying to the Italian people: your choice is between fascism and the Mafia. But quivering media indignation is a poor substitute for hard facts. And it is a fact that republican paramilitaries have killed no fewer than 500 Catholics in the course of the so-called armed struggle. As for 1969, the events that flowed from the confrontations of that year led to the sinister alliance of interests that resulted in the formation of the Provisional IRA, which in turn caused a serious threat to the security of this State and initiated a quarter century of violence that claimed more than 3,000 lives.

I was taken to task on Saturday last by the television critic of The Irish Times for stating on “Prime Time” that there are bigots on both sides. Coincidentaly, a report in the same issue of The Irish Times referred to incidents in Newtownbutler on 12 July when: “a 150-strong Nationalist crowd burned a car, intimidated a Protestant family from their home and attacked businesses and homes”.

This was by no means an isolated incident as Archbishop Robin Eames has drawn attention to this week. And we know also that elsewhere in Northern Ireland Catholic families were intimidated and homes and property attacked. Sinn Féin can, apparently, only see the violence of one side. But, I repeat, there are bigots on both sides.

We are all familiar with the image of the bowler-hatted bigot, the stereotypical Northern Protestant. However, we should realise that most Protestants in Northern Ireland are not members of the Orange Order. They have a legitimate Unionist political identity — just as Nationalists have theirs — and many would have been concerned at the damage that Drumcree did to the Unionist cause. By the same token, it is necessary for the leaders of the Unionist political parties to recognise the deep anger caused in the Nationalist community by the Drumcree and Ormeau Road confrontations.

I do believe that the Unionist leaders failed their electorate at Drumcree and the related Orange activities elsewhere. But what should we do? We can hardly wash our hands of a whole community because, in a specific crisis, their elected leaders show neither courage nor generosity. Drumcree should not in any event blind us to the flexibility and courage shown by some Unionists on various issues in recent times, most recently on the issue of Senator Mitchell's role in the all-party negotiations. We should not underestimate his acceptance by all of the parties to the talks. We should recognise the many pressures Unionist leaders come under from within their own community and the added burden represented by the IRA's return to violence. But the true test of political leadership is to take the long view as to what will best defend the real interests of the community at large, not just one's own tribe and not be knocked off course by the demands and pressures of the moment.

An article in last week's New States-man by Arthur Aughey went some way to explain one of the enduring conundrums of Northern politics whereby flexibility and inflexibility seemingly go hand in hand from which I quote:

How is it that commentators have spoken of an overwhelming desire for peace and yet it proves impossible to sustain that peace? The answer goes to the heart of the problem. People in Northern Ireland may express liberal sympathies about the need for equality, fairness and compromise. They generally have illiberal instincts when it comes to matters concerning identity and belonging. In particular, there is a powerful instinct which tells people that communal solidarity is ultimately essential. It is an instinct that local politicians can rarely ignore.

I respectfully suggest it is an instinct that politicians of all persuasions will have to overcome if a settlement is to be agreed.

I firmly believe that the long-term interests of Unionists are in an active engagement with the substantive issues set out by the two Governments in the joint framework document. This is not a blueprint for joint authority or a slippery slope to a united Ireland. Rather, it sets out the elements of an historic compromise between Nationalism and Unionism on this island. It provides for the governance of Northern Ireland on the basis of shared power and responsibility between the people of Northern Ireland and for a North-South dimension that, for the first time, would give effective and democratically accountable expression to the identity of Unionists within Northern Ireland.

The framework document is not something that this Government wishes to impose on the parties and people of Northern Ireland. It is there as an indication of the kind of settlement both Governments favour. But, at the end of the day, the outcome of the negotiations must be agreed by the negotiators and will have to be put to the people of Northern Ireland for their endorsement or otherwise.

I recognise the problems that the Unionist parties have with our approach, but I would emphasise that, following Drumcree, we are confronted with the possibility of a spiralling descent into communal hatred. Such sectarian polarisation, with its attendant self-righteousness and demonisation of the other side as the source of all evil, will reinforce the hardliners in the republican and loyalist paramilitaries.

Likewise, to engage in, or to orchestrate, confrontational street politics in a deeply divided society like Northern Ireland is to play a very reckless game. It is no exaggeration to say it is literally playing with people's lives. To insist on the unrestricted right to march and to protest in circumstances that bring us close to civil war is not to assert democratic rights, but to undermine them.

It is beyond comprehension to me that some people of a Nationalist persuasion, who would bitterly and justifiably condemn Orange intransigence on the Garvaghy Road, would insist on their right to march through the Waterside in Derry where the Unionist community is a local minority. Parity of provocation seems to be on offer here.

In this regard, I would like to commend the statement this week by the Presbyterian Church and Government Committee calling for local compromises on marches. This statement is a model of fairness and should be closely studied by those for or against this or that particular march. It expresses the hope that politicians will be facilitators and encouragers of necessary compromise, and urges all church leadership to encourage movement. It notes the perception by "our Roman Catholic neighbours" of a lack of even-handedness in policing while recognising "the impossible task which the police faced and the difficult decisions which the Chief Constable had to make". The statement also makes the point that "those who initiate actions in volatile situations cannot evade total responsibility for the consequences of what they begin".

Extremism thrives in a political vacuum and the present perceived vacuum increases the possibility of further violence. It is essential, therefore, that both the primacy and efficacy of politics are quickly restored. This means that political leaders must give leadership and dispense with protest and posturing. Threats of violence have no place in political discourse.

I strongly urge people not to allow themselves to be driven into the conflict with their neighbour. That way only leads to pogroms and sectarian murders. This is exactly what the extremists on both sides want. They must not be allowed to win. We have seen what happens when common sense gives way to intolerance. Let us learn the hard lessons of recent events and not reap the bitter harvest of petrol bomb and baton round.

The road of peace and accommodation was never going to be easy, but it is the road we must travel if we are to have a peaceful future together on this island. The only way forward is through honest dialogue and the desire for peace, not through bluster and aggression. The rights of all the people of Northern Ireland must be respected. The most important of these is the right to live an ordinary life in peace and without fear. The people of this island must resist the call that no one has any wish to revisit. If we really want peace, we must not allow the initiative to pass to the bigots, the thugs, and the wreckers.

Communal conflict will kill the hopes and the future of the people of Northern Ireland. Confrontation, intimidation, burnings and killings bring nothing but grief, while sectarianism fuels the politics of hatred and revenge.

The events of a fortnight ago remind us just how fragile is peace. We have once again witnessed the tragic loss of life, we have seen democratic politics undermined and the peace process gravely damaged. But the peace process is not dead. Democratic politicians can and, indeed, have a duty to revive it and bring it forward to a successful conclusion. That requires patience and tenacity. Above all, it requires the goodwill and spirit of compromise that were missing at Drumcree. If they can be found again in Derry the process of peace will be enhanced.

Let us all resolve then to give our full support to those who are working for an honourable compromise on the issue of the forthcoming Apprentice Boys' parade in Derry.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 25 Jul 1996