(Clare): asked the Minister for Defence whether there is any truth in newspaper reports that the Irish Defence Forces are to participate in this year's War Commemoration Ceremonies in St. Patrick's Cathedral organised by the British Legion; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Remembrance Ceremonies.
32.
Arrangements have been made for representation by the Defence Forces at an Ecumenical Service of Remembrance to be held in St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, on Sunday, 13 November 1983, in commemoration of all who gave their lives in the cause of peace.
The standard parties will be led by a serving non-commissioned officer of the Defence Forces carrying a United Nations flag. Representatives of the Defence Forces will attend and a lesson will be read by an Army chaplain.
(Clare): I understand from the Minister's answer that arrangements have been made. By whom and at what level were these arrangements made? Were they specifically by military personnel with former officers of the British Legion?
These arrangements were made by officers of the Defence Forces, with my knowledge and consent, with the persons who organised the Commemoration Services in St. Patrick's Cathedral.
(Clare): They sought the Minister's consent, I gather, before they discussed the matter with the British Legion?
The Deputy can take it that I was aware at all times of the discussions taking place and that I approved of them.
(Clare): In view of the present situation, particularly in another part of our country, would the Minister agree that this is a most unwise decision?
No, I would not agree with that. It is an entirely commendable development that soldiers should commemorate their dead comrades. It is because of the situation in another part of our country that it is particularly appropriate that it would be seen as a gesture of reconciliation and conciliation between conflicting traditions. I am most disappointed with the attitude of the party on the opposite side who worship annually at the shrine of Wolfe Tone.
We do not want a lecture.
They seem totally incapable of comprehending the term United Irishmen.
(Clare): Is there any necessity to make these arrangements at this time? Was there any pressure from any quarter other than, possibly, the British Legion? Would the Minister agree that it was totally unnecessary?
I am afraid that I cannot understand the use by the Deputy of the word "unnecessary" in relation to a religious service to commemorate the Irish dead. Would he like to rephrase his question?
(Clare): Since we are discussing the matter——
The Chair is not prepared to enter into a discussion.
(Clare):——in the context of a religious service to pray for the dead of World Wars I and II——
For all who died in the cause of peace.
(Clare):——was any thought given to the possibility of inviting other participants in those wars, such as a French presence, which could easily be obtained in this country because there are such, or a United States presence? If we are really intent on putting out the hand of friendship and reconciliation to those in the middle, was any thought given to inviting a representation of the German people? If we are so ecumenical in our approach to praying for the dead of World Wars I and II, surely this should have been considered? Why does it happen to be just something between ourselves and Great Britain when we are commemorating, basically, the dead of World Wars I and II?
I can see nothing wrong in other nationalities being represented, but that is a matter for those who organise the services. The Deputy may have forgotten that there has been representation over the years at the services which were specifically stated to be in commemoration for the dead of the two World Wars. This year it is not merely for those but for all who died for peace. At the earlier commemorations there was a military presence, with the consent and approval of the various Ministers for Defence, including Deputies Barrett and Molloy. In 1980, Deputy Barrett was represented by his Minister of State, Deputy Moore, who officially participated on his behalf in the service of commemoration.
I must say that the reaction of the Members on the opposite side was an act of opportunism in response to a bigoted reaction of a coterie of retired officers.
That is unfair.
That is most uncalled for. The Minister should be asked to withdraw that remark. It is an insult to those who served this country well.
I have no intention of withdrawing it.
It is an insult to officers who served this country well while the Minister and I sat back in our soft chairs at the fireside.
(Clare): Would the Minister not agree that there is no comparison between what happened in previous years and what happened on this occasion, because there was only a presence in previous years? Surely the Minister must realise that this means that senior officers of our Defence Forces will be officially on parade side by side with units of the British Legion carrying an Army standard? There is no comparison between what happened before and what is happening this year.
What will happen this year is that the parade will be led by a serving non-commissioned officer of the Defence Forces carrying a United Nations flag and that will be followed by a standard of one of our UNIFIL Battalions together with standards borne by men and women of the British Legion. This is the only parade that will take place prior to the religious ecumenical service. I cannot see any objection to that. It is entirely natural, sensible and totally commendable.
Could I ask if the Minister has withdrawn his inadvertent remark?
I have not withdrawn the remark.
It is a gross insult to the men who served the country well.
I said that it was a reaction from a bigoted coterie of retired officers.
That is an outrageous insult.
I consider it a gross insult to men who have served this country well. I am surprised that the Minister should make a comment of that kind. If a ceremony is to be held to commemorate all those who died in the cause of peace, would the Minister not consider it much more appropriate to have a ceremony organised by the Irish Defence Forces with representations from other nations who wish to participate rather than having the Irish Army formally participating in a parade? The Minister knows the military distinction which is very clearly made. Nobody understands it better than the British authorities who have succeeded in inveigling this Government into participating in a formal military parade organised by units or ex-units of the British army. It was very insensitive of the Minister to acquiesce so easily without giving proper and due consideration to what he was walking people into. I would ask him even at this late stage to indicate that in future a more appropriate ceremony will be organised by his own Department in which British, Russians, Germans and anyone else can participate.
I must ask the Deputy to put a question.
People have sacrificed their lives to the cause of peace. I am asking the Minister would he not consider that it would have been much more appropriate to have organised a ceremony of that nature rather than the ceremony to which unfortunately the Minister has agreed.
If the Deputy wants to close his mind entirely to Irish history and to the realities on this island——
I do not have to. It cuts very close to the bone in most families.
For a long number of years services have been held in St. Patrick's. Those services have been organised by the British Legion, which is a charitable institution and dispenses a large amount of charity to a number of Irish people every year.
The Minister cannot talk his way out of it. He has walked himself right into it.
I think it is very commendable that such generosity should be reciprocated.
That is the Minister's philosophy and the philosophy of his party.
(Clare): A final supplementary.
Positively, a final supplementary.
(Clare): In view of the fact that the Minister maintains it was necessary to embark on this military exercise, I want to ask a question. Recently a memorial was unveiled to the people who fought in the Battle of Ballinamuck in 1798. The principal person at the unveiling of the plaque was the French Ambassador. The organisers sought to have a guard of honour provided.
This is not a question.
(Clare): Why was that guard of honour refused to the organisers at the unveiling of this plaque? Where is the consistency?
I was present at that ceremony and I was proud to be present at it. A guard of honour was sought by the local committee to be inspected by the French Ambassador. As a matter of protocol the Army do not provide a guard of honour for an ambassador when there is a Minister present. The Deputy may laugh at protocol but that is the protocol.
(Clare): I will not laugh at protocol. Is the Minister aware that every time an ambassador presents his credentials at Aras an Uachtaráin, a guard of honour is provided for the new ambassador in the presence of the President. Is not that a fact?
That is a separate question.
It is not an analagous situation.