John Bruton
Ceist:11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he intends to hold meetings with the parties in Northern Ireland. [13705/97]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Meetings with Northern Ireland Parties.
John Bruton
Ceist:12 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to meet the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, to discuss a follow-up to the Prime Minister's statement of 25 June 1997, or any other matters. [13706/97]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:13 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair. [13709/97]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:14 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the Government's policy regarding contacts with Sinn Féin in the absence of an IRA ceasefire. [13710/97]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:15 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the steps, if any, the Government is taking to ensure that the marching season in Northern Ireland passes off without violence. [13711/97]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:16 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of the approach the Government will adopt at the all-party talks in Northern Ireland; the person who will represent the Government at the talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13712/97]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:17 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the response, if any, which has been received from the British Government to the recent submission made by the previous Government regarding Bloody Sunday. [13713/97]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:18 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the Garvaghy Road and Lower Ormeau Road Residents Associations. [13715/97]
Jim O'Keeffe
Ceist:19 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach the confidence building measures, if any, in relation to Northern Ireland which were discussed by him with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, at their London meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13721/97]
Jim O'Keeffe
Ceist:20 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach the steps, if any, he proposes to take to develop a new quality in British-Irish relations as provided for in the Joint Government Action Programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13722/97]
Dick Spring
Ceist:21 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach the outcome of his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair; and the issues discussed at the meeting. [13817/97]
Dick Spring
Ceist:22 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach the way in which he proposes to advance the concerns of the relatives of the victims of Bloody Sunday to have a new full inquiry into the matter. [13818/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 to 22, inclusive, together.
I met the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr. Mo Mowlam, on Thursday last. I had earlier met the Secretary of State in Belfast on Tuesday, 1 July.
Prior to my meeting with the British Prime Minister I met representatives of the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition and the Lower Ormeau Community Council. I met them again today when I spent some time at their meeting with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I have also had contacts with representatives of the Orange Order. In all of my meetings I supported and advocated local dialogue and accommodation and expressed my support in good faith for the efforts of the Secretary of State to reach accommodation.
The parades issue figured prominently in my discussions with Prime Minister Blair last Thursday. I was concerned to avoid a repetition of the disastrous events of last year, the effects of which have remained with us all year. I had already, when in Belfast the previous Tuesday, indicated my understanding of the difficult situation confronting the Secretary of State and my support for her efforts to reach an accommodation — efforts which, I believe, were entirely genuine — but I had also advised strongly against forcing a parade through the Garvaghy Road, in the absence of an accommodation. On and since Sunday, I and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have expressed our deep disappointment and that of the Government at the decision that was taken and at the way in which it was implemented. After two years in which the parade from Drumcree went ahead, it might reasonably have been expected that this year, in the absence of agreement, the decision would have been different.
In all our contacts, the Government called for the rule of law to be upheld, a position to which the British Government has also committed itself. It was, therefore, particularly disturbing that the Chief Constable of the RUC, in explaining his decision, essentially ascribed it to a more serious threat of loss of life among Catholics. It is, however, also deplorable that there was such violence across Northern Ireland in reaction to the decision about Drumcree, violence that included shooting, bombing and arson attacks.
I take this opportunity to condemn all acts of sectarianism as well as paramilitary attacks and threats, from whatever quarter. I wish to express my sympathy to all the victims of the ongoing violence including, in particular, the two young boys from each side of the divide who were injured over the weekend. I also condemn the recent attacks on trains owned by Northern Ireland Railways and Iarnród Éireann, as a direct attack on an important link between both parts of this island.
Dialogue and accommodation remain the way forward on this issue and have to be further developed. The Government did not wish to see anyone humiliated in Portadown, nor do we wish to see this happen anywhere else in Northern Ireland. We understand and sympathise with the concerns of Northern Nationalists about the expressions or connotations of dominance and triumphalism that can attach to parades by the marching Loyal Orders in Northern Ireland. We understand and empathise with the concerns of Unionists and Orangemen who perceive that their identity and culture risk being suppressed or marginalised.
The Government will stand up for and speak for the rights of Nationalists in Northern Ireland but we have no wish to do so at the expense of the legitimate rights of Unionists. There are important issues of parity of esteem, protection of minority rights and the free practice of religion which have to be taken into account. In our view it is fundamentally wrong and contrary to all the principles of good neighbourliness, in view of all the history of conflict and trouble it has caused, to force Orange marches through Nationalist areas where they are unwelcome, without agreement or consent.
As the Prime Minister has emphasised, the principle of consent should be a two-way process. Governments all over the world will, sensibly, do everything to avoid a situation where a group marches through an area densely populated by people of a different tradition, where there is a history of communal antagonism. Widespread public disorder is the almost inevitable consequence.
In a situation of competing rights, the exercise of rights has to take place on a basis of proportionality and mutual respect for the dignity of the other person and, therefore, in a context of dialogue and accommodation. I salute the considerable efforts made by the Garvaghy Road residents to have direct dialogue. I very much regret that this did not happen. I acknowledge the efforts made by people in the leadership of the Orange Order but I would call upon them in regard to parades planned for the future to take that extra crucial step towards dialogue.
I appeal to all in Northern Ireland to pursue such dialogue and accommodation in the days and weeks ahead and, above all, to turn away from violence and confrontation. Beyond that it is essential that the opportunity is taken, in formulating and enacting the promised legislation on parades, for a far-reaching review of the whole parades issue so that it does not continue to overshadow the efforts to promote peace and harmony in Northern Ireland. Our overriding priority must be to tackle seriously the wider political issue in Northern Ireland and to secure agreement, if at all possible on a fully inclusive basis, on a fair and balanced settlement, within which all the issues can be dealt with. Last Thursday the Prime Minister and I agreed we have to keep the focus on this and aim to get an agreement within the timeframe already outlined by the British Government. This timeframe may be ambitious, but the events of the weekend again underline the urgency of bringing about a settlement that will command the widest possible support.
In this perspective, the Prime Minister and I discussed the talks process and the current situation there. We agreed the joint paper on decommissioning recently tabled by the two Governments forms a good basis on which all parties should feel able to deal with this issue and to move forward to substantive negotiations in the three strands.
In the course of discussions on a range of issues relating to building confidence, we welcomed the commitments made by the new Government in Britain to building such confidence in Northern Ireland and encouraged progress on these issues. We stressed the enormous contribution to confidence building that could be made by taking appropriate action on Bloody Sunday and the importance of progress on issues relating to prisoners, an issue of concern on both sides of the political divide, as well as our concerns about the use of plastic bullets.
I met the relatives of the victims of Bloody Sunday on Wednesday last. I stressed my support for the relatives and their campaign. The assessment recently submitted to the British Government is a compelling document and the Widgery report must be repudiated. The truth of Bloody Sunday must be told and acknowledged.
Concerning Irish-British relations, Irish Governments have always fostered the development of close and friendly relations across the Irish Sea. They bring mutual benefit to both countries. The previous Government also took some initiatives which, it was agreed last Thursday, should be pursued. I am committed to enhancing efforts in this area. East-West is of course one of the three strands for the talks process and we will need to take it forward in that framework with the other strands, where we will be anxious to develop the North-South strand along the lines set out in the Joint Framework Document.
Regarding meetings with the parties in Northern Ireland, my Government has already had bilateral meetings with a number of them in this framework. We will continue to meet parties and I will respond positively to requests for meetings from parties exclusively committed to democratic and non-violent principles.
The Government delegation to the talks at political level will comprise the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Ray Burke, the Minister for Justice, Deputy O'Donoghue and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell. In line with the arrangements made generally on Northern Ireland matters, the Minister for Defence will act as alternate for the Minister for Foreign Affairs from time to time, at my request.
The Government is willing to go to great lengths to secure peace and to this end regards the maintenance of some channel of communication, direct or indirect, to all sections of the community as important. The Government believes there is genuine potential to achieve an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire and that it is crucial to realise this potential within a short-term perspective. The Government believes that while genuine requests for clarification, whether from the British or Irish Governments, should be met, the essential basis is now in existence, in line with any reasonable expectations that may have been there prior to the calling of the 1994 ceasefire, and that it is now time for the Republican movement to decide definitively to embrace exclusively democratic and peaceful methods and to declare an unequivocal restoration of the August 1994 ceasefire.
Does the Taoiseach accept that in terms of political credibility it became more difficult for the Orangemen in Portadown to voluntarily abstain from the use of a right to march once a ban on the march in question had been called for by the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs? Would he also accept that a public call by the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs for a particular approach to be taken to a march also made it more difficult for the Secretary of State to take that line of advice because the advice was offered publicly in advance of a decision?
I do not accept that. Anything I or the Minister for Foreign Affairs said last week would not have surprised anyone. Irish Governments have taken a similar position on this issue for a number of years. The suggestion — I know Deputy Bruton did not make it but others did — that my comments were unhelpful and might in some way have hindered the Orange Order from making a different decision is not tenable. From all the information that was available to me, and from what I heard from the Orange Order and its local lodge, we are not talking about any compromise that would mean the march on the Garvaghy Road would not take place. I believe my articulation of the Government's position was entirely appropriate at the time, particularly in the context of events which occurred in Drumcree last year and our belief that they would happen again this year. I waited until the proximity talks and the initiative, which I fully supported, were out of the way before I stated anything, and of course I had been in direct communication with the Secretary of State.
An hour ago I met the Garvaghy Road and Ormeau Road residents' associations. Then and now I have continued, in so far as it has been possible, to urge them to try to continue to work in some balanced way. All the Government wants to achieve is balance in these issues, that we try to seek dialogue and accommodation and that it is not just totally one-sided or perceived to be so. I make no apologies for expressing those sentiments.
Will the Taoiseach address his reply more specifically to Question No. 14, where I asked the Government's policy regarding contacts with Sinn Féin in the absence of an IRA ceasefire? Is it proposed that there should be meetings between officials of his Department and Sinn Féin in the absence of such an unequivocal ceasefire?
In the context of his meetings with the various groups in relation to marches, has he asked them to avoid counter demonstrations? Will he join Mr. John Hume in calling for a voluntary moratorium on marches, counter demonstrations and street politics of various kinds given the very fraught situation which exists?
It would be helpful if there was not an insistence on so many counter demonstrations because it will lead to further difficulties throughout the summer. We are trying to de-esca-late the incredible tension which has been generated. Some of the people involved directly are stating that it is worse than at any time in the past. Whether or not that is an overstatement, it seems to be the consistent view of many of the community representatives, particularly on the Nationalist side, who fear that none of their considerations or efforts to reach compromise are being taken into account.
Anything which heightens that pressure from any side is entirely unhelpful. I have no difficulty in stating again, as I said to the British Prime Minister last week, the Secretary of State and all of the community groups on all sides with whom I have had a chance to talk, that they should try to ease things as much as possible, although there are some very difficult days ahead — there is no good in anybody denying that reality.
All I seek to do, while we work through the British Government's aide memoire and other matters, is keep open some lines of communication to everybody. That will last for a period of time. Whatever the opportunities, it is now more difficult to keep the political process going but that is what we must keep doing, and that is what the British Prime Minister and I pledged last week. We will continue to try to work through the assessment of the contents of the aide memoire and the decommissioning document. Any contacts in that context will be on points of clarification and that is useful as we see if we can work through this particular period.
Does the Taoiseach accept the absolute importance of clear, agreed lines of communication between the two Governments? As Deputy Bruton said, in Belfast the Taoiseach publicly stated the Irish Government's position on Drumcree, while the UK's option paper of 20 June was apparently neither publicly nor privately communicated to the Irish Government. Does the Taoiseach accept that both these approaches are highly unsatisfactory and dangerous? What steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of this huge chasm in communications?
We are attempting to ensure that whatever the British Government does and whatever decisions it makes are communicated. Last year it was communicated that the parade on Garvaghy Road would be blocked but it was not communicated that it would be pushed through. I asked last week that, when the decision was made, it be communicated to the Irish Government in advance. It was finally communicated to me at 7.40 a.m. last Sunday and a simultaneous communication was made by the Secretary of State to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. We have asked that we be made aware of whatever developments are ongoing and I think we have established a good liaison on that.
The question arises whether that will lead to a satisfactory resolution of the difficulty at the heart of this, which is that the Nationalist community feels its considerations are not being listened to. We are still in communication with the British Government on that issue. Yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs had the opportunity to meet the Secretary of State again to restate those positions.
Under Standing Orders, I am obliged to move to Priority Questions at 3.20 p.m. However, in view of the number of Questions being taken together, I propose that each Member who tabled a Question be given the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.
As I understand it, when the Taoiseach met Garvaghy Road residents prior to his meeting with the British Prime Minister, he was specifically asked to request that the march would not be forced down the road but would be re-routed. Did the Taoiseach raise this with the British Prime Minister and did he receive a reply at that time?
The leaked document prepared for the Secretary of State is worrying and I assume the Minister for Foreign Affairs received some clarification yesterday during his meeting with her. Given the existence of that document on 20 June, and given that meetings took place subsequently between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister and between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State, does the Taoiseach accept or otherwise believe that the British Government was dealing in good faith with the Irish Government on the matter of last Sunday's march?
I raised the concerns of Garvaghy Road residents, publicly and otherwise. It seemed, not from anything I read but from all the communications available to me — of which there are many, as Deputy Spring knows — that the likely security advice would be to push the march through. I expressed our strong concerns about that, the ramifications which would arise from it and the difficulties it would pose for the other marches. The Prime Minister replied that the matters were still under consideration and that he would inform us as soon as a final decision was made. As I said, that final decision was communicated to me at 7.40 a.m. on Sunday, almost four hours after the British Army and RUC had moved into their positions.
As to the document, yesterday the Secretary of State told the Minister for Foreign Affairs that these were scenarios and positions that were being looked at. I think Deputy Spring and the House can take it that the intentions of the security forces, but not necessarily those of the Secretary of State, were to take this option, and this was the case for some considerable time. In my view, the Secretary of State genuinely tried to get dialogue and believed she might succeed in doing so through the proximity talks. As soon as that failed, the document and the aspirations of the security forces came into play.
Before I can allow other Deputies speak, I must get the approval of the House to extend debate on the questions until 3.30 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Taoiseach suggested the views of the Nationalist community were not being heeded in Northern Ireland. Is he saying the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the British Prime Minister are not listening to the views of the Nationalist community?
Does the Taoiseach agree if there is to be a settlement in Northern Ireland both communities, Nationalist and Unionist, and both sets of political leaders will have to ask their supporters and followers to accept unpalatable compromises? Does he agree that is made more difficult if the Irish Government avowedly takes the side of one section of Irish people against the interests of another section of Irish people?
The Orange card.
It is necessary to give equal respect and dignity to the identity and rights of both Nationalists and Unionists. The Irish Government will argue for that continuously. There is also an absolute need to stick to the fundamental principles of democracy, which are non-violence and the advancement of political objectives through peaceful means.
However, in trying to seek accommodation and dialogue on the march which has just taken place and the one due to take place in the immediate future, the strong feeling of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland and its elected leaders is that its concerns and the arguments put forward are not being listened to by the British Government. In fairness to the British Government, I do not believe it or anybody else was happy with the reasons given by the head of the RUC for pushing the marches through.
Any Government must protect and balance people's equal rights. I asked the other day if it was reasonable to allow people to march down Garvaghy Road from a church while penning other people in for ten hours and preventing them from going to their church. That issue has been put forward. As Deputy Bruton knows, under international law the right to assemble and march is restricted. Restrictions have been put on that right in Northern Ireland over the years. The Nationalists are not looking for victories; they understand there has to be compromise. All we, as a Government, ask for is a balanced consideration of these issues. That is the request we have put to the British Government.
Will the Taoiseach impress once again on the Northern Ireland Office, the RUC and the Orange Order the net effect of the decision in regard to the Garvaghy Road? The effect was to sideline not only the leaders of the Nationalist community but also the peaceful community workers, whom Patricia McKenna MEP and I met. They felt they had been used as a decoy and, as such, were redundant to the people who are more given to violence. Could he use his influence in international fora to ban the use of plastic bullets which have been fired at people's heads in contravention of international law? They are not the only way to contain violence.
The Deputy should not make comments; he must ask a question.
Will the Taoiseach do as I requested?
The use of plastic bullets and the other issues which have arisen over recent days have already been raised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs with the Secretary of State.
Given the primary and fundamental importance of the relationship between the British and Irish Governments in seeking a solution to the conflicts in Northern Ireland, and also given the disastrous decision made at the weekend, does the Taoiseach accept the good faith of the British Prime Minister and the Secretary of State in their dealings with him and the Minister for Foreign Affairs?
I do accept their good faith. The British Prime Minister said to me that, at the end of the day, he had to take a decision based on security considerations. It was regrettable that some other alternatives available to him were not used but I do not believe he was involved in anything other than spelling out the position as it was.
I am committed to working with him on the bigger question of moving the overall process on, which I believe is still possible. The good work done on the decommissioning document and the aide memoire, two very substantial documents, form the basis of most of the objectives being sought by the conflicting parties. Leaving aside the difficulties of the marching issues, those documents seem to address the aspirations of the republican movement and afford it an opportunity to make up its mind once and for all whether in favour of peace or a continuance of violence. Those issues must be addressed. Notwithstanding the difficulties of the marching season, acting with the British Government in total good faith I shall continue in the weeks immediately ahead to work on that crucial agenda.