John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with the Garvaghy Road residents. [12669/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Northern Ireland Peace Process.
John Bruton
Question:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone conversation with the President of the United States of America. [12671/98]
John Bruton
Question:7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, head of the Northern Ireland Victims Commission. [12778/98]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:8 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with representatives of the Garvaghy Road Residents' Coalition, Portadown and the Lower Ormeau Concerned Community, Belfast on 26 May 1998. [12818/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:9 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meetings with residents from the Garvaghy Road and the Lower Ormeau Road. [12872/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:10 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, head of the Northern Ireland Victims Commission. [12873/98]
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:11 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach whether Northern Ireland affairs will continue to be dealt with under the aegis of the Department of Foreign Affairs. [12431/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 11, inclusive, together.
Last week I met representatives of the Garvaghy Road Residents' Coalition and the Lower Ormeau Concerned Community to discuss the issue of parades. I also briefly met members of the Parades Commission when I dropped in to a lunch hosted by Senator Haughey. At these meetings I took the opportunity to stress the importance of dialogue and accommodation and the Government's view that we cannot allow this year's marches to threaten the agreement that everybody has worked so hard to achieve. The two residents' groups expressed their fears and concerns about the situation. I hope the message being expressed clearly by people in both communities, that they do not want conflict, will be heeded by all of those involved directly.
The Government and I are anxious that a situation will be brought about in which there can be a balanced, fair and agreed accommodation of the rights of the various groups involved, in the spirit of the commitments given by all the participants to the British-Irish Agreement to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust, to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all and drawing on the accepted principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem. The Government and I will do all we can to encourage an accommodation on this issue, which will receive the highest priority in the weeks ahead.
My most recent telephone conversation with President Clinton was on Saturday 23 May as the results of the referendums on the British-Irish Agreement were coming in. I was delighted to be able to convey to President Clinton the news of the decisive and overwhelming endorsement given by all the people to the agreement and to thank him for his input and that of his Administration in helping to bring about this positive chapter in Ireland's history.
Last week I met Sir Kenneth Bloomfield. I congratulated him on his report and the work he had done in the presentation of the cases of the victims of violence. This is an important part of the healing process. As the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform announced recently, the former Tánaiste, Mr. John Wilson, will carry out a similar exercise for victims of the violence from a southern perspective.
It is not proposed to change the present arrangements with regard to Northern Ireland affairs. As I said in response to Questions recently, the implementation of the State's commitments arising from the British-Irish Agreement will be closely overseen by the Government, particularly the members most closely concerned, that is, me, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
On the meeting with the Garvaghy Road Residents' Association, did the Taoiseach receive representations to the effect that it would be useful if public representatives elected by the people of the area to public bodies were included in delegations he receives from the area to ensure the views he receives are representative?
Is the Deputy referring to local representatives from Garvaghy Road?
Local representatives of the SDLP such as Bríd Rodgers.
I received no such representations. The Garvaghy Road and Lower Ormeau Road residents requested the meeting. On previous occasions I met different groupings which included some of the same people as well as members of the SDLP.
Will the Taoiseach agree, while it is entirely appropriate he should be available to meet people without the intermediation of a public representative from the area in question, it is normal that public representatives would be involved in organising delegations to Ministers as well as to the Taoiseach? Given that the issue in these discussions is public opinion in the area in question, people who are elected in the area to serve on public bodies have a particular insight into public opinion in all its manifestations as opposed to from only one point of view. Will the Taoiseach agree, therefore, in regard to future delegations it might be appropriate to consult all the parties who have representatives in the area with a view to allowing them to participate in the delegation or at least informing them that the delegation is being received, to ensure wide and balanced representation of the views the Taoiseach receives?
In the past I met SDLP delegations, including Bríd Rodgers, and various other groups. It would be much easier for me and would save much time if the groups would unite in one delegation. Last year I met various groups on a number of occasions. The next time I meet those groups I will ask if they will agree to a meeting in a joint group including representatives of the SDLP and others.
On 28 May I tabled a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, on the extreme importance of the parade scenario which we face, and in his response the Minister stated that the Government is emphasising the importance of local dialogue and of all concerned contributing to it. Only a tiny fraction of the 2,500 loyal order parades which take place annually in the North are objected to. The Orange Order and the Apprentice Boys refuse to negotiate with local residents. Will the Taoiseach urge the loyal orders to begin dialogue immediately, recognising that this is the only means by which we can break what is described by some people as a logjam? Given the unhappy experience with the appointments to the Parades Commission, which is now seen as discredited by many Nationalists in the Six Counties, does the Taoiseach agree the Commission on Policing must be truly independent, impartial, representative and include expert and international participation? Does he agree it is vital that those appointed are able to fulfil their briefs and that the input of the Irish Government in this matter is crucial?
I, too, hope those directly involved in the marching season take account of the British-Irish Agreement. In many parts of Northern Ireland people are meeting in an effort to resolve these confrontations. I urge people on all sides to try to reach an accommodation on these matters. I am encouraged that many communities are doing this, but unfortunately they are not all doing it. The Deputy referred to the 2,500 parades by the loyal orders. Of the 3,000 parades that take place, 12 create a difficulty. With innovation and talk, it should not be beyond the bounds of commonsense to find a way to resolve those difficulties. We are conscious we have not achieved that——
People have to start talking.
——particularly in respect of the parades on Garvaghy Road, the Lower Ormeau Road and a few others. There has been more talk between groups outside that net this year, but we must encourage further talking.
I welcome the remarks of the Chief Constable, Mr. Ronnie Flanagan, to members of the Orange Order when he stated that whatever about their right to march, they should do so in a way that would not impose on the lifestyle of local residents who do not want them to march through their communities. We must work to reach an accommodation in areas where parades of a confrontational nature take place. I discussed this matter with the Prime Minister on Monday and through formal and informal contacts with political parties, community bodies and others, the Minister and Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and I have been trying to find a way forward.
I am aware of the perceptions about the Parades Commission, but having listened to Mr. Alastair Graham and representatives of the residents' groups last week when they met members of parties from this House, I believe they are endeavouring to resolve the difficulties. I was pleased when I heard Mr. Chris Patton had agreed to accept the position on the Commission on Policing. He is a senior political figure with vast political experience. He has also dealt with difficult situations in recent times and has a relatively fair and balanced track record in regard to Northern Ireland. I would have liked if at least one other nominee, along with Dr. Ger Lynch, had been accepted, but that was the call of the British Government. I wish the commission well. It will be made up of people with vast experience and in time we will know if their work succeeds. I wish the commission well and will do everything possible to co-operate with it.
I would be happier if all organisations in Northern Ireland voluntarily stopped marching for at least 12 months to give the Agreement a chance to work. Does the Taoiseach agree it would be worthwhile to call on all parties in Northern Ireland, including Sinn Féin, to urge their members and supporters to avoid confrontation over marches? Does he further agree a confrontation cannot take place unless a march is opposed by a group, that people should accept the common sense that conflict will only arise if there is opposition? Does he agree also that in the interest of the greater good of the community in Northern Ireland and the Agreement that has just been so overwhelmingly endorsed by the people parties should urge their supporters to avoid confrontation over marches?
I agree it would be better if everybody took a break, but where there are hostilities or enmity is at a high level, that is unlikely. We must acknowledge there are some areas where people are adamant they will march. We must try to see if we can find a way of avoiding conflicts if there can be route changes or if some of these marches can be rerouted by the commission. The important matter is that there will be no giving in with regard to decisions it makes.
However, before we come to that, I will continue to talk with the politicians, communities and residents as will the British Government. The Prime Minister Mr. Blair and the Secretary of State are adamant about getting people to come to an accommodation. It is very difficult from a distance to stop people engaging in activities that obviously build up hatred and bitterness regardless of what side of the community they come from. We will do all we can to try and avoid that. Given that we are dealing with ten or 12 marches out of 3,000, it must be possible to find a resolution if people are not determined to create difficulties. Most people are familiar with the main routes and know what accommodation could be reached, but that requires compromise. It must be reached this month. If we reach a quid pro quo people could avoid these confrontations.
Does the Taoiseach agree the attitude of the residents of the Ormeau Road and the Garvaghy Road were not necessarily represented entirely by the residents' associations that came to Dublin last week? Does he agree there is a wide range of views about these marches in these areas and that it is important the Taoiseach, the Government and the Opposition are not seen to take the side of one group in this dispute about marches? The Taoiseach should make an effort in the foreseeable future to make it clear to the people of Northern Ireland that we are not taking sides on the issue of marches.
People know that having negotiated the Agreement, I did not take sides and was balanced. People know my view and since it was only signed last month, they will hardly have forgotten already. In terms of the views put forward by the residents, I know there are other views, but as the Deputy knows, surveys were carried out last year and 98.8 per cent of the people supported the leadership groups. They were representative——
Who carried out the surveys?
MRBI.
Would the Taoiseach not have answered the question if they knocked on his door?
One would probably do that but when some individuals were challenged about not being representatives some time ago and put their names before the people they were also elected. Two members were elected and I would be slow to criticise their representation. However, there are other views and over the past year I met the Orange Order and individual religious people from both sides of the divide to discuss these issues. I will continue to do that because the matter does not simply affect the Garvaghy Road or the Lower Ormeau Road. I am conscious of that but these parades go through small stretches, particularly on Garvaghy Road, and it is hard to find an alternative view. If both sides spoke to each other I think we could make substantial progress but that is unlikely to happen in the next few weeks.
Does the Taoiseach accept that at least some of the riotous behaviour was not spontaneous? There seemed to be an element of preparedness, as shown by the presence of petrol bombs. From that viewpoint, does he agree we should deplore such pre-arranged attempts to organise riots? Has he any idea who might have been involved in such an arrangement in preparation for the march?
Of course I condemn such behaviour. It seems a certain number of petrol bombs and a large amount of other debris, including boulders, were readily available. That is a matter of concern and does not help us avoid a conflict in the next few weeks. As to the security report, all I have been told is that there were gangs in the area at the time — there was no reference, good, bad or indifferent, to a particular grouping.
What advice, if any, did the Taoiseach give to the Garvaghy Road and Lower Ormeau Road residents' associations?
I advised them to seek an accommodation to avoid difficulties this year, to work with those who are endeavouring to do that and to do nothing to heighten tension.
What was their response?
They said they were readily available to enter into discussions with the local lodges or the wider organisation to avoid trouble. In the absence of those discussions things are not positive.
I support the view that the marches should be given a rest for 12 months, if possible. Last year, a quick decision was taken to allow the march to proceed down Garvaghy Road. This was done while negotiations were taking place, and despite assurances that no decision would be taken before the negotiators were informed. In his conversations with the British authorities, I ask the Taoiseach to endeavour to ensure that is not repeated. Given the significance of reforming the RUC, such a repetition would present an ugly picture which would do nothing to help in that reform.
Given the use of religious symbolism and places of worship in these marches, could the Taoiseach make special efforts to meet the two archbishops of Armagh and those directly responsible to them to ensure no such places of worship are inadvertently used to add to tension, and that everything is done to disperse such tension which is building even at present?
I think Archbishop Brady and Archbishop Eames have consistently made their positions clear. The important thing is to deal with the parades issue and to manage it in an open and fair manner. We must continue to do that. It would be wishful thinking to imagine all the parades would not take place this year — people have made clear that is not going to happen. The Parades Commission, under its rules, must issue its report five days before a particular march. Some people on the commission and elsewhere think it should give its opinion earlier. That is still an open question with the Parades Commission. Certainly it would assist but, if my recollection is correct, the Deputy was present on the last occasion and the decision was only conveyed to me shortly after 4 a.m. The residents may have known a little earlier——
At 2.30 a.m.
——because hundreds of troops had descended on their area at 2.30 a.m. That was not very satisfactory. All of that will not help. We have to get those directly involved to see whether we can find some understanding on these issues. As of today, local representatives on the Nationalist side are prepared to talk and maybe some on the Unionist side as well. There is no indication of any support from the lodges for talks with local residents. If we could find some way of dealing with that it might be helpful. There has been the difficulty previously of the local lodges saying they would talk to certain people in the residents' committee and not to others. This never seems to work out successfully. We will continue over the coming weeks to do all we can to de-escalate the position. We should take account of the views on all sides with a view to reaching some accommodation between the various groups.
Will the Taoiseach agree that unfortunately we have to bear in mind a consideration this year which we did not have to consider in previous years, that is, the involvement on both sides of groups opposed to the British-Irish Agreement who are seeking opportunities to wreck the Agreement? In those circumstances there is a special responsibility, if only in their own interests, on David Trimble and Sinn Féin to try to find a solution to this problem. It is in their interest because of the nature of the attack being made that they find an answer to this problem. Will the Taoiseach further agree that in the aftermath of the British-Irish Agreement, a phrase being used — which was archaic but is now anachronistic — which refers to Northern Ireland as the Six Counties is not in the spirit of the Agreement and should be stopped? Will he bear that in mind in relation to one of his backbenchers who has a question on the Order Paper today where that phrase is used?
In the various groups, David Trimble as leader of the Unionist party, Sinn Féin and everybody else has a responsibility to ensure we reach some accommodation. Otherwise, it could be very damaging to what we are trying to do. At a time when we are starting the commission on policing and dealing with the equality agenda and several of the key areas, including the prisoners issues and many other matters on which work will continue right through the summer, anything people can do to calm the situation and avoid conflict should be done. I do not want to say it is anybody's responsibility more than anybody else's. We all have to work at it. In terms of names attached to areas, I note what the Deputy has said. As the Deputy will be aware, both North and South people still use the old terms. The Deputy is aware of the term I always use.
Will the Taoiseach agree the reason I put particular emphasis on Sinn Féin and David Trimble was because there are groupings involved who are aiming at Sinn Féin and David Trimble to cause problems for them, so it is in their interests to be involved? So far as the second part of my question is concerned, I am aware that this terminology in Northern Ireland relates more to the 1920s than to the present but the phrase to which I referred, "Six Counties", is one that should not get official support. It is contrary to the spirit of the British-Irish Agreement. Will the Taoiseach heed the advice I am giving him in relation to having a word with a certain backbencher who used this phrase in a question today?
(Dublin West): Will the Taoiseach recognise that it is futile to look to the Parades Commission for a solution to the difficulties presenting themselves in regard to the marching season? The Parades Commission is a discredited body which does not have any authority. It was unlikely to sort out the problem as an outside body removed from the reality of the situation. It would be better for the Taoiseach to recognise that, stand down the Parades Commission and give a powerful impetus to local agreement, recognising the right to march and express one's views and the right of communities not to be put upon or humiliated. A powerful impetus towards real dialogue among the groups at a local level is the only way a permanent solution can be found to the tensions caused by parades. In that way, this nightmare problem would not arise every year in these communities but would be sorted out by agreement once and for all.
As I said in reply to the first question, we urge all those directly involved to approach this issue in the spirit of the British-Irish Agreement which was approved by an overwhelming majority of the people in this island. They sent a clear message that difficult issues should be resolved through dialogue and accommodation, and I urge all sides to reach an accommodation.
There are difficult issues before the Parades Commission on which the commission will make a determination and it will fall on the security forces to implement those decisions. The commission will not be slowed down by the British Government. Regardless of the level of influence of the Parades Commission on the situation this year, it will continue to have a role; time will tell the extent of that role. The commission has highlighted its difficulties and we cannot discount them.
I want to ask several questions relating to the questions I put down. In relation to my earlier question about urging all parties to call on their supporters and their members to avoid confrontation, will the Taoiseach agree that would include calling on people not to travel to these flashpoints, to avoid the political voyeurism that seems to take place every year where people from outside these areas travel to them to witness this confrontation while many people who live in these areas leave them to avoid this confrontation? If the crowds that are bussed in and encouraged to travel to these areas were discouraged from doing so, it would be a significant step in de-escalating the tension surrounding these marches.
Will the Taoiseach agree that constantly referring to the commission as being incapable of doing the job is destructive? The commission exists to do the job in relation to parades. People can have their views as to its makeup but the fact remains that there is no other mechanism for making an independent decision in relation to parades. Unfortunately, as the Taoiseach said, the security forces will be in the firing line yet again regardless of the decision the commission makes. It is wrong, therefore, for people in this House to constantly declare that the commission is unworkable and useless because it is the only light at the end of the tunnel in relation to these flashpoint marches.
I welcome the Taoiseach's announcement in regard to the commission for victims in the Republic of violence related to the Northern Ireland conflict. However, would it not be better to have that commission under the aegis of his Department rather than the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which according to press reports is his intention? What does he see as the purpose of the commission? When will its terms of reference be available to the Dáil?
It would be very helpful if people did not travel to locations. Some of the real difficulties last year and the year before were caused by people travelling, particularly in Derry last year. This time last year we were urging the people from the Garvaghy Road not to bring in outsiders. They did not do so but left it to the community itself, which I acknowledged at the time.
I have already commented on the Parades Commission. I strongly supported its setting up last year. There is no point in ignoring its setbacks but it is still operating to the extent it can.
(Dublin West): It is a lame duck.
It has already decided to reroute several parades this year, which went ahead without conflict.
A lame duck still has two legs.
I know it does not have the teeth that the legislation purported to give it——
Ducks do not have teeth.
——but it has certainly tried. It resolved numerous difficulties with parades this year. It would acknowledge itself the difficulties in its capacity to deal with some of the bigger parades. We must focus on that difficulty.
I welcome the Deputy's remarks in regard to victims of violence. A former Tánaiste, John Wilson, is to conduct a review of the services and arrangements in place in this jurisdiction to meet the needs of those who have suffered as a result of violent action associated with the conflict in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years and to identify what measures need to be taken to address the concerns of those in question, to recognise the suffering of victims and to acknowledge and sustain the support given to victims and their families in helping them cope with the immediate aftermath and continuing consequences of violence. This will include consideration of the concerns of families of members of the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces who died or sustained serious injury as a consequence of violent acts ensuing from the conflict and the services and support available to the victims and their families of major outrages, such as the Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk bombings.