Bertie Ahern
Question:1 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with the four Church leaders on Monday, 10 February 1997. [4281/97]
Ceísteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Meeting with Church Leaders.
Bertie Ahern
Question:2 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if the Government has expressed a view with regard to the utility of official contacts between the British Government and Sinn Féin at present. [4282/97]
Mary Harney
Question:3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he plans to have with Church leaders in Northern Ireland. [4249/97]
Dermot Ahern
Question:4 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of his recent discussions with the four main Church leaders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4366/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
As I mentioned in the House last week, I had a useful and wide-ranging meeting with the four main Church leaders on Monday, 10 February. We had constructive and informative exchanges on the prospects for peace and political progress in Northern Ireland, including related matters such as the forthcoming marching season and the multi-party talks. We agreed in particular on the need for everything possible to be done to reduce inter-community tension and to promote closer cross-community co-operation in the period ahead. The Church leaders emphasised their continuing commitment to playing their role, alongside political and community leaders, in this regard. While there are no plans for a further meeting at present, the House can be assured of the Government's intention to maintain close contact with the broadest possible spectrum of opinion in Northern Ireland in the coming weeks and months.
On contacts with Sinn Féin, the British Government is, of course, aware of my Government's position, which I set out clearly in this House on 22 January and on a number of other occasions since then. Obviously, the two Governments exchange views on issues such as this. Ultimately, of course, it is a matter for the British Government to decide its own position on this question.
Did the Taoiseach get a clear view from the Church leaders of what they thought could be done to defuse sectarian tensions in the North prior to the marching season?
Yes, I did. There was a strong emphasis in all that was said to me by the Church leaders on the need for local agreement and for everything to be done at local level to deal with the various difficult local conflicts in a practical way. We discussed other issues.
Did the Taoiseach have any discussions with them on the North report and were they disappointed that the British Government does not seem to want to implement the recommendations in that report before this year's marching season? What was their view, and what is the Taoiseach's view on how to deal with this year's marching season?
The Church leaders did not express a collective view on the North report. Individual opinions were expressed by the Church leaders but it would be wrong of me to attempt to represent any collective view on this matter. The view of the Government is well known. We are anxious to see the provisions of the North report, including its statutory underpinning, implemented without delay.
Given what happened in the House of Commons last night, would the Taoiseach accept that no progress will be made in Northern Ireland before the British general election?
The assumption the Deputy is making is not necessarily correct. Deputy Kitt made a similar assumption here last week and I said I did not accept the premise of his question either. There is no guarantee on this matter but one should not make the assumption the Deputy has made.
I welcome the fact that the Church leaders support the idea of local negotiation. Local negotiation is not a problem for most of the 3,000 marches. A breakdown in local negotiation only occurs in regard to approximately 20 marches during the season. Did the Church leaders express a view in this regard or did the Taoiseach ask them to encourage the Orange Order to enter into local negotiations in places such as the Ormeau Road?
Last week, in response to Deputy Harney, I strongly expressed the view that there is a responsibility resting on the shoulders of church leaders because the parades which are causing the difficulty in many cases take place to or from a church service. The same standards of restraint and Christian charity as they would be advised to display while at service in church should be applied by people on their way to and from church. Any notion of using a procession to or from a church as a means of displaying triumphalism vis-á-vis another community is entirely contrary to the Christian message and the underlying values in any Christian church service.
This is a view with which the church leaders concur. They do not have absolute control over what happens outside the church premises. They can, however, exercise a degree of moral responsibility and leadership in the matter. I agree with Deputy Burke that the areas where there are difficulties are relatively few in number, the bulk of parades will proceed without difficulty. Where they and I were referring to the need for local negotiation, it was in respect of those difficult cases where local negotiation is necessary.
Developing that point, will the Taoiseach agree that the authorities of any church which is the starting point or destination of any particular demonstration which is likely to cause increased sectarianism in Northern Ireland are entitled to be involved in the process whereby their buildings and facilities are used for these purposes and in these circumstances? Will the Taoiseach encourage the church leaders to assert a role not just as of right but as a duty in participating in the planning of these events?
The church leaders have both a right and a duty in this matter. It is also the case that in the Reform Church there is a considerable degree of local autonomy and democratic governance in decisions made in individual vestries, presbyteries and places of worship, something with which we are familiar for perhaps four centuries.
On the Taoiseach's view and that of the House of the marches to Harryville church where the protestations have continued for 24 weeks by a community that does not seem to be following any guidelines, was there unity among the churches? On the North report, the Taoiseach told me some weeks ago at Question Time that he pursued his line of argument with the British authorities to see if they would accept that any arrangements should be placed on a legislative base within three months. Is it now his view that there will be no change on this matter this side of the British general election?
I would put the marches in Harryville in a different category, they have deliberately been brought past a church by people who wish to make a point, antagonistic to those who attend the church in question. That is in a different category to marches to and from a church. The church authorities have less control over what others do to show antagonism towards their flock than they do over what their flock does on their way to and from church. I, therefore, regard the Harryville marches to be in a different category to the Drumcree events.
I expressed strongly my concern about what is happening in Harryville. The right to worship and to be able to go to and from a church service is a fundamental one. Any community that speaks frequently of the right to religious liberty as one of its founding principles should contain members who wish to interfere with the right of others of a different religion to freedom of worship. Most of the majority community in Northern Ireland are opposed to what is happening in Harryville. A number of Unionist politicians have shown by their presence their strong disagreement with what is being done. Many others have expressed their condemnation publicly and privately.
The British Government has decided on an eight week consultation period. This is too long, a consultation period of two to three weeks would be sufficient. The North report was the subject of lengthy consultation. It is important that whatever arrangements are to be made are made in good time in full statutory form before the principal marches occur. The Government will continue to do everything it can within the exigencies of the political situation in Britain to urge the British authorities to have the legislation passed in time.
Has the Taoiseach ever asked the church leaders to explain their true obsession with marching which usually involves the same people changing their sashes to suit the occasion, be they Orange, Black Presbytery or Apprentice Boys marches? While we agree it is a celebration of their civil and religious liberties, all but one of the scores of bands that marched past the church in Harryville last Saturday week stopped to play celebratory tunes. What is the logic behind this? What is the explanation of church leaders?
The church leaders who met me included the leaders of the Presbyterian, Church of Ireland, Methodist and Roman Catholic Churches. While the question the Deputy has posed might have some relevance to some of those mentioned it might not have the same relevance to others. I did not put the issue to them in terms of attempting to ask unanswerable questions. That would not be a constructive way to proceed. The church leaders do not organise these parades, they simply facilitate the services. It is the people who attend these services who have decided for traditional reasons to have processions or marches on their way to or from the church. The events objected to do not take place within the church but outside it. As I have said in the House on many occasions — I also made this point to the church leaders — there is something very strange in the fact that a group of perhaps 6,000 to 7,000 people gathers to go from a church along a particular route when the church in question only has facilities to accommodate a few hundred worshippers at the service. To say the least, that seems to be incongruous and suggests that there are motives other than religious ones for the congregation in such numbers for a post-church procession.
Provocative events affecting both sides of the community have occurred. There have been marches, perhaps not on a particular date, in other parts of Northern Ireland which have been profoundly offensive to the majority community. There is no monopoly of good behaviour. It has been drawn to my attention that marches organ-ised by the other side of the community have deliberately passed and stopped to play music outside certain households members of which have been killed by the IRA. That is just as provocative as many of the activities associated with Orange parades. It is important that we urge all sides to let their sense of hurt and of being the victims of discrimination be heard but it should be as a prelude to forgiveness because it is only if there is forgiveness that there will be reconciliation and it is only if there is reconciliation that there will be lasting peace.
We need to hear grievances voiced but that should be done as a prelude to forgiveness, reconciliation and, ultimately, complete peace.
Let us bring these questions to finality.
As the Taoiseach's discussions with the church leaders were held after the 25th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, I am sure he had an opportunity to raise with them their thinking on what should happen in relation to the now discredited Widgery report. What were their views? Was there a united view on whether there should be a new report? What insight did he receive from their understanding of the matter? I am sure they believe a new report would help to defuse sectarian tensions in this difficult year.
Will the Taoiseach give his view on recent statements by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on whether we are likely to get a review, an apology or any substantial move by the British Government on the events of Bloody Sunday 25 years ago?
I realise the Deputy must phrase every question by reference to the meeting I had with the church leaders but it would be better if I were to simply answer the Deputy's question without reference to the proceedings of that meeting as we would have touched on the matter but the discussion was not in great detail.
I have indicated in response to an earlier question by Deputy McDaid and have said publicly that I believe the concerns and sense of hurt of the victims and families of victims of Bloody Sunday must be heard clearly and their sense of anguish must be given full voice. Any slight on the character of those who died must be removed in the fullest fashion possible. I have already said that here many times and I repeat it again today.
I was glad that the Secretary of State met the relatives of the victims of Bloody Sunday and that they had an opportunity to present him with much new material about that day. As he had received that new material from them, I was surprised by comments which he made subsequently. I know from my conversations with the British Prime Minister that he is willing to look at the new evidence. For my part, we have instructed the services of the State to assemble all the evidence they can from all sources, internal and external, and we will be making a presentation of these matters in due course to the British authorities. As the House is aware, I will be having a meeting with the relatives later this week to hear their statement of the new evidence at first hand and their views on what can best be done now.
I understand from media reports the Taoiseach will meet the relatives on Thursday night. Would it be useful if, prior to that meeting, he was to ask the British Government or the British authorities at some level to clarify the position? Some British sources are saying that what Sir Patrick Mayhew stated on Saturday is not in actual fact the position, that the Prime Minister has in effect said that he would give an apology. Rather than allow this matter to drift on, would it be useful if the Taoiseach was to get clarification of the British position — whether there is to be an apology or if they really are just concerned about criminal damages — so that he could tell the relatives? The meetings on Friday left them thinking the Secretary of State was examining three separate areas and he effectively ruled out all three of them in an interview 12 hours later. If the Taoiseach or his officials could get clarification from the British, it could stop an unnecessary merry-go-round on which, unfortunately, the Secretary of State seems to thrive at times.
I would certainly like to hear the relatives in a very careful and full way. I will take whatever steps are appropriate to prepare for that meeting in terms of obtaining any information on the matter which I do not have already, but it would be best, given the importance and seriousness of this matter, if I did not demonstrably prejudge anything until I have heard the views of the people directly affected. I will be proceeding on that basis but I thank the Deputy for his suggestions which I will consider.
The Taoiseach said last week that he planned to visit Northern Ireland shortly. Has he finalised his arrangements for that visit? Does he believe it is important to have a meeting with the British Prime Minister soon in order to inject some life into the talks process?
Any meetings with the British Prime Minister which I consider to be useful will, of course, be arranged whenever necessary. I have obviously had the opportunity of discussing matters regularly with the British Prime Minister.
As far as my proposed visit to Northern Ireland is concerned, the arrangements are not finalised and it is not customary for me to give details in advance for security reasons.