Vol. 808 No. 2
1. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the progress made to date with the EU budget negotiations; if he will outline the way the outcome of those discussions will affect funding for various programmes here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30910/13]
On 8 February the European Council reached agreement on the European Union's multi-annual financial framework, MFF, for the period 2014 to 2020. Under the Lisbon treaty, the consent of the European Parliament is required before the MFF can be adopted by the Council. As Ireland holds the Presidency, we have had the responsibility of negotiating the text of the MFF regulation and the inter-institutional agreement, IIA, between the Council, the Commission and the Parliament. This task has been a challenging one and the outcome remains critical to our capacity to begin to address the key challenges of creating jobs and growth across the European Union. It is an urgent task.
Since February we have been engaged in intensive consultations. Informal discussions with the Parliament began soon after the February European Council, leading to several rounds of formal trilogues between the Presidency, the Parliament and the Commission. These negotiations were advanced at political level through detailed consultations on 13 May, 28 May, 4 June, 11 June and finally on 18 and 19 June. I led the Presidency negotiating team, while Mr. Alain Lamassoure, MEP, has the lead for the Parliament's team. In each case the negotiators kept their respective institutions apprised of progress. From an early stage in discussions it was clear that four main issues were critical in securing the consent of the European Parliament, namely, flexibility, a mid-term review, own resources and unity of the budget. Throughout the iterative process we worked through our respective positions on each of these core concerns and substantial progress was made.
On 19 June Mr Lamassoure and I concluded negotiations and agreed a core package, comprising the MFF regulation and an inter-institutional agreement. We agreed to recommend the package to our respective institutions and are now in the process of discussing the elements of the package with both the Council and the Parliament. I remain hopeful that it will offer the basis for the final outcome on this important file. I am also optimistic that the process will conclude under the Irish Presidency.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
An additional but important aspect of concluding the MFF relates to the amending budget for 2013. The linkage between the MFF and the 2013 draft amending budget 2, DAB 2, was established by the Parliament and recognised in the MFF negotiations as a political reality. The issue which is one of significant sensitivity was addressed at a summit meeting of the Presidents of the Parliament, the Commission and the rotating Presidency on 6 May. At the 14 May ECOFIN Council it was agreed that of the requested €11.2 billion, the Council would approve a first tranche of €7.3 billion, subject to agreement on the MFF. This issue will have to be addressed before final adoption of the MFF and I am confident we can find a workable arrangement.
Both the Council and the Parliament are now considering the outcome of the MFF negotiations. That outcome provides extensive flexibility in payment appropriations for the first time, as well as improved arrangements for the special flexibility instruments and a provision for the limited carryover of commitment appropriations. In addition, there will be a meaningful mid-term review, provisions on the unity of the budget and a detailed roadmap for future work on reform of own resources. All of this represents a significant step forward. The agreement of the Parliament and the Council would allow us to move ahead with rapid delivery of the spending programmes citizens need and expect. It is about real money for real people and real jobs at a time when they have never been more needed in Europe, particularly by the very many affected by the crisis of youth unemployment. The MFF deal will put in place a robust €960 billion budget for investment that will enable the European economy to grow, create jobs and begin to address youth employment. It is a matter of some urgency across Europe that this major investment is implemented without delay.
Ireland will benefit, in particular, from a strong and well-funded Common Agricultural Policy and increased funding for competitiveness and jobs. This includes the special allocation of €6 billion for youth unemployment, in respect of which we have given our support to a front-loading beginning in 2014. We will also benefit from a number of specific and tailored resource instruments, including a special allocation of €100 million for rural development and another of the same size for the Border, midlands and western, BMW, region. I am especially satisfied to have been instrumental in ensuring a special allocation of €150 million for the PEACE programme.
I look forward to moving beyond the detailed negotiations to address the major political challenge we share as politicians, whether at the Council or in the Parliament, which is to ensure we use every euro of EU resources to address the impact of the crisis and the blight of unemployment across our European family. We have no time to lose.
I thank the Tánaiste for his reply. Last weekend he was accused by certain Members of the European Parliament from both major groupings, the European People's Party and the socialist group, of "objectionable manipulation" in respect of his pronouncements on the multi-annual financial framework. Today he is talking about a "core package" rather than a done deal, the latter being what we understood from his public comments had been achieved following the conclusion of talks at the end of last week. Will he update us on what is happening within the major groups in the European Parliament? Have they been given a particular timeline in which to reach agreement and go to a plenary session of the Parliament? Is there any indication that major obstacles remain in turning the core package to which the Tánaiste referred into a done deal on the future financing of the European Union up to 2020?
As I indicated, the Parliament rejected the multi-annual financial framework agreed to by the Council in February, with more than 500 Members voting against it. We have since been engaged in discussions with it to establish a basis for the taking of a further vote. A plenary session will take place next week and it is our objective that a vote will be taken at that stage. The negotiations concluded last week and both Mr. Lamassoure and I agreed to recommend what we had agreed to the Council in my case and the Parliament in his. There are indications from the Parliament that the package negotiated will not be deemed acceptable when it is put to a vote next week. In that context, we have indicated a willingness to engage in further discussions with the Parliament on additional adjustments to the package. There are several issues which, although not central to the MFF negotiations, are relevant as a consequence of the Parliament's decision to make a link between acceptance of the MFF and the draft amending budget for 2013. We have suggested a way of progressing matters might be for Mr. Lamassoure and me to meet the four Presidents tomorrow.
Has the issue of the deficit for the 2012-13 budget been resolved? The Tánaiste has indicated that the Parliament discussed the securing of additional funding by way of own resources. Have particular sources of revenue been identified in this regard? The financial transaction tax which is not acceptable to us is probably the one with the most potential. Are other areas being considered by the Commission, the Council or the Parliament?
There was concern following the Council's agreement last February in respect of continued regional development funding for the BMW region. Has that matter been resolved?
Is there likely to be a substantial cut in the budget for research and innovation development which comes within the remit of the Irish Commissioner, Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn? If we are to address the long-term employment issues within Europe, surely it makes no sense to cut funding for research and innovation. That funding is essential if we are to acquire the knowledge and know-how to create much needed employment on the island and throughout the other 27 member states from 1 July.
Agreement was reached yesterday on Horizon 2020, the plan for the research and innovation budget. The overall European Union budget for the period in question is a very substantial €960 billion for the period up to 2020. That funding is critical for the programmes it will underpin.
The issue of own resources was one of those raised by the Parliament and agreement in that regard was not achieved at European Council level, including on the question of a financial transaction tax. The package agreed to by Mr. Lamassoure and me proposes that there be a declaration which would provide for a discussion over the lifetime of the MFF on the issue of own resources. That discussion would involve the Parliament, the Commission and the Council, make provision for the involvement of national parliaments and provide for reportage at six monthly intervals.
2. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the conditions under which a person (details supplied) is currently being held in Belmarsh Prison; and if he will raise directly with the British Government the concern that this arrest and imprisonment is a breach of the commitments made at Weston Park, and assurances given by the PSNI and British Police Services. [31019/13]
This individual was arrested on 20 May under the Counter-Terrorism Act while transiting through Gatwick Airport. On 22 May he was charged in connection with terrorist offences committed in 1982. He is being held in HM Prison Belmarsh in south-east London where he has been designated as a category A high security prisoner. The Irish Embassy in London is providing consular support and assistance for the individual and in regular contact with the prison authorities. An official of the embassy visited the individual on 29 May and a further consular visit is due to take place this week.
As the case is now before the courts, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific aspects of the case, even if all of the relevant facts were known to me. I would say, however, that from the outset of the peace process, the need for an accommodation with the past has been recognised. The Good Friday Agreement underlined the importance of acknowledging and addressing the suffering of the victims of violence. It also committed both Governments to providing for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners convicted of scheduled or similar offences.
At Weston Park in 2001, both Governments accepted that it would be a natural development of that programme if prosecutions were not pursued against supporters of organisations on ceasefire against whom there are outstanding prosecutions, and in some cases extradition proceedings, for offences committed before 10 April 1998. The circumstances at issue in this case, therefore, were comprehended in the discussions at Weston Park. In 2005 the British Government introduced a Bill aimed at providing a legislative basis for addressing these cases but this measure did not secure the necessary political support and was withdrawn in 2006. In the past three weeks, I have had two discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and on each occasion I have stressed that the need to find an adequate way of addressing these cases remains as important today as it was in 2001.
The G8 in Fermanagh last week was a showcase for what the peace process has achieved in Northern Ireland but pride in what has been achieved is rightly tempered by the knowledge that significant challenges remain. These can only be addressed through sustained attention and support from the British and Irish Governments as co-guarantors of the process. I believe that ongoing work to give practical effect to the commitments already undertaken must remain central to our efforts. I look forward to meeting again shortly with the Secretary of State to discuss these issues.
While the question is specifically about Mr. John Downey it also concerns another Irish citizen, Michael Burns, who was arrested in similar circumstances. The two Governments should not underestimate the anger these arrests have caused among Republicans and people across the island. The arrests were in breach of the Good Friday Agreement, Weston Park and the commitments made by the British Government at that time. John Downey and Michael Burns received confirmation letters from the NIO in 2007 stating that they were not wanted by the PSNI or any British police force for any offence and that they were therefore free to travel. Does the Tánaiste accept that arrests like these undermine the confidence placed in the police service and the justice system and reduce the value of solemn agreements made by all parties, particularly both Governments?
They are not isolated incidents. There are other vindictive and hostile cases which we have discussed in this House, involving Marian Price, Padraig Wilson, Gerry McGeough, Martin Corey and others. There are two aspects to these cases, the first of which is the political aspect in the clear breach of the Agreement. The second is that it is also having an impact on Mr. Downey's family. He has been in jail for six weeks and his family has not had access to him. His local representative, Deputy Pearse Doherty, has been refused a representational visit. A neighbouring MP, Pat Doherty, has been allowed to visit but has been told that he will not be allowed to make a similar visit in future. Clothes were sent in but it was a week before he got them. There is a lot of vindictive behaviour in this case. An Phoblacht was banned because of its Irish content despite the fact that other prisoners do not seem to have a problem receiving other foreign language newspapers. It is having an impact at the political level and the family level.
There are several aspects to this case. First, there is the strictly legal aspect and I am being careful not to stray into that. I am sure Deputy Crowe fully understands that. Second, there are the conditions under which he is being held. This has been raised by our embassy in London. Some issues relating to health matters were raised. The issues concerning visits have been raised. Since his arrest there was a consular visit on 29 May and another is scheduled for today. We have facilitated access by an elected official, Pat Doherty MP, to the prisoner and there was a request for expedited access for Deputy Pearse Doherty. The embassy in London has made representations to the prison authorities regarding his health and his medical needs including mitigating the conditions under which he is being held. It is clear that this arrest has a significant impact on others in similar circumstances and their wider circles. Both Governments have long ago agreed on the need to find a way of sensitively addressing those who had been involved in paramilitary activity. I have discussed this with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on two occasions and I hope to meet her again about it in the near future. Our officials continue to have regular discussions on these issues.
The big question people are asking is why did this happen now. The big consequence is for those other individuals who have been given similar assurances by the British Government, in the form of letters of assurance that the British police are not interested in arresting them and that there are no charges outstanding against them. These people are asking what impact this will have on their lives.
In respect of this case there is a pattern in that the authorities seem to be attacking John Downey and his family by not granting them access to the jail or legal representation. It is an unusual case but the fact that others are being arrested now too will have an impact. What message is this sending out to those who supported the peace process, including Mr. Downey? I welcome the fact that the Tánaiste is going to try to reinvigorate discussions on the on-the-runs. It is an area that has to be dealt with and yes, we do need to deal with the pattern.
I have been in contact with the Secretary of State about this case. My Department has also been in contact with officials on the British side about it. There are two principal issues here, first, the conditions under which he is being held and the category A status that has been assigned to him. We have discussed these issues with the British authorities. The second, wider, issue is the letters this man and others have received from which they concluded that they were not being sought by the police service or the legal system. The Deputy referred to these letters. This man had travelled in and out of Britain on several occasions and had not expected that anything of this kind would happen. There is a concern, which I understand, for people who have received those assurances and are now looking at this case and wondering about their own situation. We must get clarity and assurance on that. I am very conscious of that and of the impact this and the other arrests to which the Deputy referred are having on a wider circle of people. I am discussing this with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
3. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on whether Ireland should be more vocal in its condemnation of the use of drones by the United States, which threatens world peace, and is in breach of international law; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31018/13]
Ireland has consistently taken the view that combating terrorism must be conducted with full respect for international law, in particular the law of armed conflict and human rights law. In line with the UN Global Strategy on Counter Terrorism, we believe that effective counter terrorism and the protection and promotion of human rights are mutually reinforcing and not competing goals. Together with our EU partners, we have regular discussions with the US about the legal aspects of combating international terrorism, and the US is well aware of our views on these issues. Unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, commonly referred to as "drones", are used for both civilian and military purposes. Under international law, there is no prohibition on UAVs as such. Their use in armed conflict is subject to international humanitarian law. This sets specific requirements in respect of the use of force in armed conflict, including the principles of necessity, proportionality and distinction. I am deeply concerned about any indiscriminate use of UAVs, which would clearly be contrary to international law, and by instances where innocent civilians have been killed by attacks using UAVs. Outside of an armed conflict situation, international human rights law applies. We and our partners in the EU are strongly opposed to extra-judicial killings. Not only are these contrary to international human rights law, but they undermine the concept of the rule of law, which is a key element in the fight against terrorism. This applies regardless of the means used.
One of the greatest threats to world peace comes from drones. There are over 10,000 of them in service, of which 1,000 are armed, and most of these are American. Drones have killed more non-combatant civilians than were killed in the attacks of 11 September 2001. Their success seems to be measured based on body count. Neither the legality nor the ethics of drone attacks stand up to examination. If this same slaughter were carried out by troops on the ground, the troops involved would face courts-martial. Victims of drone attacks might not even know what they are accused of and would certainly have no chance to contest the charges, let alone be granted a judge and jury.
Following the murder of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut, the US President, Mr. Obama, said these tragedies must end, and to end them America must change. However, what applies to those children murdered by a sick man must also apply to the kids murdered in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia by a calculating and heartless American President. These children are equally deserving of our concern but there will be no presidential tears for them or interviews with their broken-hearted families.
Recently, in his effort to justify the drone war, Mr. Obama’s adviser on counter-terrorism, Bruce Riedel, said one has to mow the lawn all the time as the minute one stops, the grass will grow back. In less than eight years, 2,300 people have been killed by US drone attacks in Pakistan alone, of which 780 were civilians and 175 children.
Can we have a question, please?
The credibility of the US President in challenging lawless social violence in US cities is undermined when he has his own personal kill list, in violation of international law, to wipe out enemies elsewhere. Following the Newtown massacre, Mr. Obama asked, in his plea for gun control, if Americans were prepared to say that such violence visited on their children year after year was somehow the price of their freedom. It is a valid question and he should apply it to the violence he is imposing on the children of Pakistan.
Has the Government expressed its opposition to the illegal use of drones to Mr. Obama? Will the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade take up the baton on the international stage to work for a total ban on armed drones, which are causing such devastation, much in the same way as a Government in the past played a significant role in its efforts to ban land mines?
Our view is very clear. Any of the measures used to combat terrorism must comply with international law, particularly the laws on armed conflict and human rights. Our view on this is well-known to the United States, among others.
On the possible banning of drones, I draw the Deputy’s attention to a recent statement by the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which stated:
Under international humanitarian law ... drones are not expressly prohibited, nor are they considered to be inherently indiscriminate or perfidious. In this respect, they are no different from weapons launched from manned aircraft such as helicopters or other combat aircraft.
While attention has tended to focus on the use of armed drones for combat operations, there are a considerable number of other military and civilian uses for UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles. Many military UAVs are not equipped with weapons and are used for reconnaissance purposes. I do not see a prospect of an agreement to ban the use of UAVs in their totality or for specifically military purposes.
Does the Tánaiste agree with the Red Cross statement on drones? I asked about armed drones rather than drones in general, as many of them are used for surveillance, as I read in The Guardian recently. Many international bodies claim the use of armed drones is illegal. Bombing a family in the middle of the night in Pakistan because it is believed a so-called terrorist is in the same building does not comply with any international law.
Of the 2,500 drone contractors providing multiple products to the US military, one is a company called Green Hills Software, owned by a Dan O’Dowd, who is of Irish descent. Is it possible the State has also purchased products from this company? If so, I would have serious reservations about dealing with a company that was facilitating the murder and slaughter of children in other countries who did not even know the bombs were coming.
What the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross stated was the provision of current humanitarian law, not his opinion.
We have always led on the issue of disarmament. We want to reduce the use of weapons and the killing of people. This approach is very well known across the world. I do not see a prospect of an agreement to ban the use of UAVs. I want to see a reduction in the military use of drones, which is in line with our position in favour of disarmament and the protection of civilians.
4. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the outcome of the most recent discussions at European Union Foreign Affairs Council in relation to Syria; if there is a possibility of a common European position to deal with this ongoing and escalating conflict; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30911/13]
The ongoing conflict in Syria was a key item on the agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council, which I attended in Luxembourg on Monday, 24 June. The Council had a thorough exchange of views on recent developments on the ground against the background of mounting casualties, with the death toll now estimated by the UN at more than 93,000, and the catastrophic humanitarian situation unfolding in Syria and in neighbouring countries. Our discussions also demonstrated the strong support and broad agreement within the Council on the urgent need to de-escalate the crisis and work to promote a political settlement.
The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy articulated the strong concern within the Council to press ahead and offer our full support to the US-Russia initiative to convene an international peace conference on Syria - Geneva II - in the near future. We all recognise that this represents the only credible opportunity at the moment to try to stop the violence and fashion a comprehensive political solution to the crisis.
The Council reiterated its collective commitment to increase EU support to the international humanitarian efforts following the recent call by the UN for an additional $5.2 billion to cover requirements to the end of 2013. The EU and its member states have so far contributed over €1.25 billion in emergency funding to address the humanitarian crisis, including an additional €400 million announced on 24 June as a response to the deteriorating situation. Ireland is playing its full part in this international effort, having contributed €9.8 million in assistance to date, including an additional €1.65 million which I announced on 19 June. Together with its EU partners, Ireland will continue its efforts to promote a peaceful resolution that finally brings about a civil, democratic and pluralistic Syria.
I thank the Tánaiste for his reply and welcome the additional funding provided under our overseas development budget for the humanitarian crisis in Syria.
Barbarity is too mild a word to describe what has been happening there. Some Members met representatives of the Syrian opposition groups recently. Their descriptions of the treatment of individuals and the murder and mayhem that is taking place there were horrendous. There have been more than 93,000 deaths and a catastrophic humanitarian situation is unfolding there and in neighbouring countries such as Lebanon. Another disturbing development there is the employment of mass rape as a weapon of war. It is an extremely serious issue for the Syrian people, as is the spillover of refugees into many neighbouring countries.
The Tánaiste has rightly argued for disarmament and the continuation of the arms embargo, but, unfortunately, there is not a unified European Union stance on that issue. Some of the opposition groups argue about the non-provision of assistance in that form for the rebel groups, while some countries such as Russia and others are arming the Assad regime. Arms are also being provided for the rebel groups by other groups. I know that Iran, the Hezbollah and the United States are providing arms. Does the Tánaiste envisage the European Union offering a united response? Will it implore Russia and the United States to hold the Geneva II talks immediately? We have heard that Senator Kerry met the Russian Foreign Minister some time ago and that they agreed to talks to try to reach a political solution. Unfortunately, more and more people are suffering and losing their lives. Was there an indication at the European Union Council meeting that the Geneva talks would take place sooner rather than later in view of the escalating crisis, the desperate humanitarian situation in which millions of people find themselves and the mass murder taking place in the country?
First, it is important to state there is a unified European Union position that we have to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in Syria. Second, there is a unified European Union position that it put its money where its mouth is. On the provision of humanitarian assistance, the European Union has provided €1.25 billion to date, with €400 million having been allocated on Monday. A good deal of that money is being used to address the refugee problem in surrounding countries. When I visited Turkey I saw at first hand the huge problem with the numbers of refugees and the necessity for facilities to be provided for them.
The only show in town right now is the prospect of Geneva II talks. The European Union supports this and has encouraged both the United States and Russia in that direction. On the question of when they will happen, that is unclear because there is still a large degree of uncertainty about the participation of all sides in the conference. If the Syrian authorities have indicated their agreement in principle to attend, the opposition has not yet formally taken a position, despite having formulated repeated demands for excluding the top echelons of the Assad regime from any political process. Furthermore, the presence of Iran at the conference has turned into a fractious issue. On the one hand, Russia insists on Iranian attendance, while, on the other, France and Saudi Arabia, supported by the United States, object to such participation.
Has consideration being given by the Council of Foreign Ministers to urging the United Nations to impose a no-fly zone, or is there certain merit in that proposal? We know that, apart from the European Union, the international community made major commitments at the commencement of the year that it has not honoured about assisting to try to deal with the humanitarian crisis. Have the European Union, the Tánaiste as President of the Council of Ministers, or the Government in terms of Ireland holding the Presidency been in a position to indicate to other major trading partners and powers that commitments to provide substantial humanitarian aid are not adequate enough without actual delivery to those millions of deprived people?
Yes, we have. We have drawn attention to the fact that there are countries that have made commitments to provide humanitarian aid and that these commitments have not been delivered on. We have delivered on our commitments and the European Union is also delivering. We support the holding of the Geneva II talks. A special preparatory meeting took place under Special Envoy Brahimi in early June. However, it did not lead to much progress and there was a further preparatory meeting yesterday. It is a matter for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to issue formal invitations. At this stage it does not seem that the conference will begin next month as planned, in part because Ramadan is due to start on 9 July.
Regarding the calls made for the establishment of a no-fly zone, this would obviously necessitate broad international agreement and could only be authorised through a UN Security Council resolution specifically mandating such a step. Given that the Security Council has not been able to agree to any resolution on Syria since the conflict erupted in March 2011, it appears most unlikely that there is the political will within the Council to reach agreement on such a proposal.
5. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he has informed himself of the topics discussed during cross community talks which where hosted by the PSNI in Cardiff, to discuss contentious parade disputes before the marching season, and relations between communities and the PSNI; and if he supports this initiative. [30776/13]
I fully support the talks which were held in Cardiff on 18 and 19 May about the challenges facing policing in Belfast. The talks were organised by the PSNI, with representation from community leaders in the city. I was greatly encouraged by the cross-community nature of the meeting and the fact that the attendees included all of the main political parties, the Policing Board, community and church representatives. I understand the meeting was assisted by academics from Stanford University and Ulster University.
The statement issued following the conference was thoughtful and progressive. It is welcome that all participants in Cardiff were ready to commit themselves to support the police and non-violence, support for the rule of law and ongoing dialogue throughout the summer. The recognition of the imperative for dialogue when tensions are high is a significant and welcome development.
I was particularly encouraged by the fact that the participants had also agreed to keep lines of communication open, especially during periods of tension, and that they had reaffirmed support for the PSNI, the Policing Board and the police ombudsman. I am aware that the Cardiff group has recently met again in Belfast to together look at ways to implement these commitments in a concrete manner. This is also very encouraging.
I join the First Minister, the deputy First Minister, Minister David Ford and Chief Constable Matt Baggott in their call on all political and community representatives to redouble efforts to reduce parade related tensions in the coming weeks.
There was a good deal of scepticism and prior to the Cardiff conference many people thought that they were just going through the motions. I heard reports from people who had attended the conference that it had certainly helped to ease tensions prior to the march at the weekend, the first so-called Tour of the North parade. Those who participated in the Cardiff conference heard concerns and ideas about how to resolve difficult issues and, as the Tánaiste said, they talked about keeping lines of communication open at all times. Unfortunately, there was an incident at the weekend which resulted in the arrest by the PSNI of a young man. It happened after the march, by which stage much of the tension had eased. Mr. Gerry Kelly, a local MLA, went to the area to try to ease the tension and engage in dialogue and communication, but he ended up being caught on the side of a Land Rover. The Minister, Carál Ní Chuilín, was hurt in trying to prevent him from being injured. If commitments are made at conferences, it is important that they be followed through. I do not have all the detail of what happened and presume the Tánaiste has sought a report on the matter. The way the incident was viewed in the area was that the response had been handled badly. The policing was heavy handed and the communication promised did not happen. Mr. Alban Maginness of the SDLP said it had been really dangerous and that he felt that what had happened to Mr. Gerry Kelly was over the top. Everyone believed the commitments reached at the conference had helped to ease tensions.
I am concerned that if we do not follow through on our commitments, further incidents of this nature will take us backwards instead of allowing us to move forward.
As Deputy Crowe pointed out, it is important that we move forward. The Cardiff talks are ongoing and I understand there will be further meetings in Belfast. That engagement is to be welcomed and I hope it will ensure the language used during the parade season, particularly in respect of the 12th, will be measured and supportive of the difficult tasks the PSNI must carry out during the marching season. I understand it is not intended to continue the Cardiff process beyond the current marching season. My officials are in daily contact with the communities affected by contentious parades and we work closely with the British side on issues arising. It is important that dialogue is maintained at a local level.
I am aware of the incident to which Deputy Crowe referred. It is important that we do not lose sight of the necessity of supporting the police service during this difficult and sensitive period and minimising the provocation and tension associated with these parades. This can best be done by entering into discussions with all concerned. It is also important that the parades and their aftermaths are appropriately policed.
The first march of the season lays down a marker for what happens during the remainder of the season. The tension that emerged around this incident could have been better managed. It highlights how far we have left to go with policing.
Sinn Féin held a conference this month entitled Belfast: A City of Equals which was attended by various PSNI local officers. Representatives of the Unionist community were also invited. The conference provided an opportunity, on foot of the Cardiff talks, to discuss policing, community relations and other issues affecting the Unionist community. All of us share a responsibility for this process but it was a bad beginning to the marching season and, if we learned anything from the Cardiff talks, it is that we must keep open the channels of communications. That is the message I would like to send to the Orange Order and others. We need to engage with each other's communities and step back to consider our responsibilities during the marching season.
I agree that everybody shares a responsibility to step back. The Cardiff statement contains a number of elements, the first of which is respect for the PSNI's duty to uphold the law, while at the same time holding it to account. The appropriate way to hold the PSNI to account is by means of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I encourage everybody to minimise tensions during the parading season by engaging in discussion and dialogue. Where the Parades Commission makes a determination, it should be supported and upheld.
