Vol. 474 No. 3
1 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister on the Report of the Independent Commission on traditional marches in Northern Ireland; and the Government's view of the report. [2761/97]
2 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister. [2929/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The British Prime Minister and I had a useful 15 minute telephone conversation on Friday last. On the North review, I emphasised the importance of speedy implementation of the recommendations — in particular, with regard to putting in place as soon as possible the proposed independent parades commission with the functions and powers recommended. I put it strongly to the Prime Minister that in view of the overriding imperatives regarding parades the suggested eight-week consultation period was too long. Implementation of the recommendations by a group which had already consulted widely should proceed without delay. The Government believes this is particularly important because of the urgency of the need to take pre-emptive action if we are to avoid a repetition or worse of last year's bitter confrontations. In that regard there is an onus on all sides to exercise the maximum responsibility and restraint and to engage in dialogue with a view to optimising the extent of agreement.
On matters relating to Bloody Sunday, I undertook that the Government would examine the additional material which was not taken into account by the Widgery Tribunal. Our assessment of that material will be forwarded to the British Government in connection with a fresh look at the matter we are pressing them to take. It is important, for many reasons, that the tragic events of that day should not continue to be an unnecessary source of additional grievance for the loved ones of those who died. The Government wants to see an unequivocal statement by the British Government that the victims were totally innocent.
The Taoiseach stated that he raised the North report with the British Prime Minister and pressed for its early implementation. Will the Taoiseach tell us the response he received during that conversation, which I welcome? I stated in the House last Thursday that there should be direct contact at a high level. Is he concerned by the impression given at the weekend by many members of the British Government that they are engaged in a long fingering exercise for party political reasons at Westminster?
The North report was prepared on the basis of widespread consultation. It was made very clear that those producing the North report were being asked to report in January so that action could be taken in time for spring and summer of this year. An eight-week consultation period is too long and I told the Prime Minister that. A two to three-week consultation period would be sufficient given the extent of the consultation that has already occurred.
I also pressed on the British Prime Minister the view that legislation should be introduced quickly. I know there are aspects of the North report which can be acted upon straight away without legislation but there are also aspects of it which require legislation and it is important that the complete apparatus for mediation and regulation should be in place before any significant preordained marches take place. I put that view strongly to the British Prime Minister. He is of the view that the eight-week period is the normal period for consultation in respect of documents of this kind and he felt it would be difficult for him to depart from that. This is not a normal situation and we need to act in a different sense. However, the British Prime Minister indicated that once the consultation period was over, the matter would be dealt with speedily and that preparatory work during the consultation period was not being put on hold. I hope a great deal of work will be done during the consultation period but it need not be as long as it is.
Will the Taoiseach accept the British Government is long fingering action on the North report because it is afraid of upsetting the Unionists who hold the balance of power in Westminster and that it is for selfish, domestic reasons that this long consultation period has been agreed by the British Government?
There is not much profit in my becoming involved in speculation of that kind. The facts are well known. We had difficult marching seasons in the last two years and the problems which are likely to arise are now foreseeable. The North committee was asked to examine the matter because it was felt that we needed new procedures, and if that is so they are needed for this year's marching season. All who have responsibility in this matter — whether they are in Government or Opposition, in this jurisdiction or the neighbouring jurisdiction — have an obligation to do everything possible to put in place effective arrangements to avoid a recurrence of what happened last year. I would prefer to concentrate on the urgency of that matter rather than speculate on anyone's motives.
That is a fair point. Would the Taoiseach agree that it is in the interests of both Governments to defuse tensions surrounding the marching season? It is clearly in the interest of the Irish Government to do so, given the impact of those tensions on relations in the island last year. Would he also agree that we are dealing with a clash of rights? Does he feel that, in the implementation of the report, the proposed marching commission should have a stronger, more explicit emphasis on minority rights? I have spoken to people from the Garvaghy Road and the Lower Ormeau Road and, while they welcome the report, they point out that this question is not well dealt with in the preamble.
Based on his discussions with the British Prime Minister and on his own reflections, could the Taoiseach give us his views on the report? It states that the marching commission's findings should be binding on both residential communities and the marchers, on pain of criminal prosecution, but can be over turned at any time by both the police and the Government. Given what has happened on previous occasions, does the Taoiseach believe that is rather too loose? The British Government will cite security reasons, as they have continually done throughout the years.
It would be totally wrong of us to ignore the views of the organisers of the Orange marches. They continually state, at Drumcree and other events, that the Irish Government has an input into whether a march takes place. Could the Taoiseach put on the record the factual position, which is that while the Irish Government expresses its views on parades it has no part in any decision to allow or to ban marches? This is unjustified Orange paranoia about the role of the Irish Government.
We should probably avoid using words which have any pejorative connotation when describing anyone whose rights are being sought to be balanced in this matter. I agree with the Deputy that this is a matter of balancing rights. As the North report says, there are two conflicting rights — the right to peaceful free assembly, subject to certain qualifictions, and the obligation to exercise that right with certain responsibilities, in particular taking into account the way in which the right is exercised in relationships with other parts of the community. It is important to temper the exercise of the right to free assembly with reference to the impact which a particular method of exercise of that right would have on relationships within the community. It is fair to say that in the exercise of all rights — such as the matter of recent controversy about what should and should not be published — having the right to publish something or walk somewhere does not mean that one is obliged to exercise that right in a particular way in all circumstances. There is a margin for judgment, discretion, humanity and decency and every individual who has a right has an obligation to remember that margin when deciding how he will exercise that right. To say that people have exercised a right in a way which was mistaken in a particular instance is not to say that they do not have the right, just that they have exercised it wrongly; nor is it to say that the right need necessarily be taken away from them. One could be satisfied that they will exercise it in a decent and humane way.
The North report contains a lot of useful recommendations apart from the ones referred to by the Deputy. It suggests a longer notice period of 21 days and the creation of a new offence which would penalise the conduct of individuals who set out deliberately, through force of numbers or threat of disorder, to contravene the legal determination of the parades commission in defiance of its authority. This recommended new offence is of considerable importance because it means that people who exercise a particular right in a way which has the effect described would be open to prosecution. There is also provision for a code of conduct in regard to parades, a band registration scheme and a control on the sale of alcohol in association with parades.
The Deputy asked about the decision the Secretary of State might make to vary, on appeal from the Chief Constable of the RUC, a determination by the parades commission. Under the recommendations the Secretary of State could only make that decision in accordance with the same criteria — which would ultimately be statutory criteria — which would guide the commission in making its original decision. He could not make it using other criteria.
The Irish Government does not become involved in decisions about individual parades and that should be understood by all in Northern Ireland. However, we have a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of both communities, particularly the minority, in Northern Ireland and in the avoidance of disorder, which could cause problems for people both within Northern Ireland and elsewhere, and we offer advice and counsel on that basis.
Does the Taoiseach agree that if the parades issue is to be resolved, not only will it require action from the British Government but the Unionist community will have a huge role to play, as they played such a major part at Drumcree last year? Does he also agree that Unionists would be far better to confront everything involved in the parades issue rather than complain about President Robinson's visits to Northern Ireland?
I might well have a view on that matter but I am not certain it is necessarily productive for me to become involved in telling other political parties what they should or should not be talking about. I would not attempt to advise the Deputy in respect of what she might say and, as I am seeking to reach an amicable conclusion to this matter, I do not think I should point the finger at other parties and tell them where they are wrong. That approach, which I would characterise as megaphone politics, is not useful. I would see my responding to the question put by the Deputy as an invitation to engage in megaphone politics, and I am not sure why the Deputy put the question.
The President should not be referred to and most certainly should not be involved in controversy in this House.
I agree with the Chair. She should not have been the subject of such abuse either from certain Unionist politicians complaining to the British Foreign Office.
Would the Taoiseach not accept that Unionist politicians should confront the parades issue? Also, does the Taoiseach really believe that we will see some action by the British Government on this issue before the British general election?
There is an obligation on everybody, and there is a particular obligation on the Unionist politicians because they have considerable involvement with the Orange Order, to deal with the issue of the effect that certain marches have on community relations, and to deal in particular with the situation where what is supposed to be a local march to a church in Drumcree, with a capacity to hold no more than 500 people, attracts a crowd of 6,000 people who claim that they want to march to the church. It is not as if there are not a sufficient number of churches elsewhere in which they could worship. The fact that they all need to march to this particular church raises questions in the minds of some as to whether it is purely a matter of worship. That issue needs to be dealt with in a way that is consistent with the principles of liberty and freedom that are claimed to be principles by all of the parties in Northern Ireland, including the Unionist Party.
As to the second part of the question, some action will be taken before the general election on some matters. The parades commission will be established, and the mediation process will be under way. Other aspects of the North report require legislation. I am not so certain that the legislation will be passed before the general election, but it is not for me to make a comment on when a general election might occur in another jurisdiction.
Would the Taoiseach agree that we have no desire to prevent the vast majority of Orange parades but are endeavouring to deal with those that continually cause controversy? Given what the Taoiseach has just said, would he agree that, as there are two routes of equivalent length and convenience, one controversial, the other non-controversial in relation to Drumcree, that the non-controversial route should be taken by future marches? Will the Taoiseach state that clearly and urge people to take the non-controversial route? Six thousand, or even 16,000 people, could march on the alternative route and it would not upset the minority. Would the Taoiseach agree that the alternative route should be taken?
There is a certain inconsistency between this question and an earlier question put to me by the Deputy. In an earlier question the Deputy invited me to confirm his understanding that the Irish Government is not involved in consultations about individual march routes, and this is true.
The Taoiseach said he had a view.
That was in response to a question by Deputy Harney.
Does the Taoiseach not have a view on this?
The Deputy should maintain discretion in the matter. The position is that the Irish Government is not involved in the routing of marches. Deputy Ahern sought reassurance on this point for the benefit of the people in Northern Ireland who feel we are involved in the routing of every march. The Deputy presumed that previous Governments were not involved either and asked me to confirm that. I did so. The Deputy is now asking me, in a separate question, to become involved in a discussion about the routing of an individual march.
I am not.
There is a difficulty and a tension between the two things the Deputy is driving at.
The answer to the first question is that the Taoiseach has no direct involvement and nor did any previous Government. In answer to the second question, the Taoiseach stated that he believed the matter of why 6,000 people march in a parish of 700 people should be looked at. That is a very good question. Is it not a logical conclusion that the parade should not march through an area that is 99 per cent Catholic? Would the Taoiseach not agree that the alternative route should be taken thus avoiding difficulty? Let us be honest and agree that the parades commission and all of the other matters will not be completed in time for the next marching season. This issue should, therefore, be dealt with.
The Deputy must look at this in a realistic way. Part of the difficulty in Northern Ireland is that the Unionist community feel we are telling it what to do in regard to particular matters. While I might have an opinion on the matter, as suggested by the Deputy, it might not necessarily be constructive for me to be drawn into making prescriptions as Head of Government of this State on the detail of the matter put forward by the Deputy. Anybody with a common-sense understanding of this situation understands well that we need to avoid confrontations in this area. I have no doubt that all those involved will take account of the considerations mentioned by the Deputy — and they are valid considerations — with regard to routes so as to avoid unnecessary confrontation. They should do so, and this should be taken into account by the organisers of marches and also by the forces of law. There is a risk that any attempt by the Deputy or any other Deputy to draw me as Head of Government of this State into making recommendations about individual march routes would be counterproductive.
That is an unbelievable attitude.
Perhaps Deputy Ahern might explain that to Deputy Cowen who seems to be unable to understand it.
I found that last reply quite extraordinary. The Taoiseach has emphasised the balance of rights at some length. Would he accept that the Unionist/Loyalist/Orange rights are well balanced when they have 50 other parades in Portadown to which the minority community do not object because they have little right to object? Would he accept that those 50 marches are a fair commemoration of the culture and heritage that we hear so much about in the North, and that the march from Garvaghy Road and back from Drumcree Church is merely a demonstration of supremacy by the Unionist community and the Orangemen? Does the Taoiseach agree that it would not be counterproductive for him to express a view in this House on the undesirability of a march which led last year to nearly 6,000 plastic bullets being fired over a weekend, to people being murdered and to demonstrations throughout Northern Ireland? Does he not feel it would be appropriate for him to express a view in this House to the effect that it is wrong that the rights of the minority should be trampled into the ground through a demonstration of supremacy, with a march of 6,000 through their community? Does he not agree that he would be doing the minority and the majority a service? Is it not a fact that no matter what he says he is going to be misrepresented by the Unionist community? He should not be naive about it.
I also expect to be misrepresented by the Deputy.
The Taoiseach is abdicating his responsibility.
Hectoring by the Deputy is not helpful but only exacerbates the situation. The Deputy's intervention shows that he does not understand the nature of community relations in Northern Ireland. Each community has an appropriate sense of its dignity, and it is important that anything that is said is designed to achieve agreement on this matter. The provocative, one sided approach which the Deputy is adopting is counterproductive and will do no good.
Fifty marches do not——
Order. I call on Deputy Harney to ask a final question.
Six thousand people marched through a Catholic area as an act of supremacy. That is not——
Deputy Burke, please desist.
I meet and talk with my leader to people from the Garvaghy Road and the Ormeau Road. It is scary how out of touch the Taoiseach is with what they believe.
Deputy Burke may not ignore the Chair.
It is really terrifying.
I call on Deputy Harney to ask a final question. I advise the House that we will proceed to deal with Priority Questions at 3.15 p.m. I am anxious to make further progress on the questions to the Taoiseach. Dealing with only two questions is not satisfactory from any standpoint.
It is so difficult to have questions on the North taken that I am delighted we get some latitude. Does the Taoiseach agree that, notwithstanding the fact that the talks process is not as successful at this stage as we would wish, it is important that those talks continue? Can I take it that the Government would not support the suspension of those talks in the run up to the British general election?
The Government wants to ensure that those talks continue. It is very important that they continue as they represent the largest assembly of different views and opinions gathered together in recent years to deal with one of the most divisive and difficult conflicts of allegiance in western Europe. Nobody expected that these talks would be easily concluded. It is very important that they continue and move into the three strands of negotiation. If we, as a Government, are to have influence in moving them in that direction, it is important that we do not adopt an exclusively one sided approach in regard to matters of the kind referred to.
Try the Nationalist approach for a change.
If we want to have influence we must show that we understand both sides and their rights. As Deputy Ahern said, there is a conflict of rights here. However, it appears from the language used by some of his colleagues that they do not share his view.
Nonsense.
In his discussion with the British Prime Minister, did the Taoiseach seek again what is being widely requested by people from all traditions — Ken Maginnis was the latest to state it in the Belfast Telegraph this morning — which is an apology from the British Government for Bloody Sunday? Second——
I asked for brevity. We have dealt with these two questions for over half an hour. There is little time left for other questions.
We are moving to statistical questions as all the others have been ruled out. Was there any indication from the British Prime Minister that a new commission of inquiry into the events surrounding Bloody Sunday 25 years ago would be set up?
I raised this matter with the British Prime Minister. I said to him that there was widespread disquiet about this matter, arising from recent publications such as the books by Mr. Mullen and Mr. Walsh and the Channel 4 television programme, all of which suggested new evidence, and that a new look at the matter was required. Furthermore, the evidence from Dr. Maclean about the trajectory of the bullets calls into question the official version of events. It is very clear that the people who were shot were entirely innocent of any wrongdoing and they deserve an unambiguous apology for the matter.
The British Prime Minister indicated to me that he would take a fresh look at any evidence presented. I said that the Irish Government would assemble evidence and present it. He undertook to look at that evidence. In light of that evidence, it will be then a matter for decision on what the next step should be. Perhaps a further inquiry might be the appropriate course but that may not be necessary if the evidence is sufficiently clear to persuade the British Government to do what is necessary to assuage the concerns of the relatives. I hope that satisfactory outcome will be reached. As I said in the House in reply to questions on three consecutive days, I intend to pursue this matter vigorously and consistently.
What form will the gathering of the evidence take and how long will it take?
I cannot say how long it will take. It is being undertaken by my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs.
