MEATH PEACE GROUP TALKS
No. 42 – “North Belfast – Communities in Crisis: Challenges for the Belfast Agreement?”
Wednesday, 27th February 2002
St. Columban’s College, Dalgan Park, Navan, Co. Meath
Speakers:
Rev. Norman Hamilton (Ballysillan Presbyterian Church, North Belfast)
Cllr. Martin Morgan (SDLP, North Belfast)
Roy Garland (Irish News columnist, Co-chair, Guild of Uriel)
Fr. Aidan Troy, C.P. (P.P., Holy Cross, Ardoyne, North Belfast)
Chaired by Brendan O’Brien
(Senior Reporter, RTE)
Contents:
Introduction (Brendan O’Brien)
Speakers’ addresses
Questions and comments (summaries only)
Appendix: “The Makings of a Young Militant” (Rev. Robert Beckett – letter to editor, Nov. 2001)
Biographical notes on speakers
Maps: North Belfast ; Ardoyne area [not reproduced here]
©Meath Peace Group
Introduction – Brendan O’Brien:
“Good evening …I would just like to make one simple observation – as you know I work with RTE, current affairs programme, and at the moment I am in the middle of a major documentary on the Middle East – the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians – and people out there continually ask me how it is in Ireland, and they continually think the Irish situation is worse than theirs, despite the fact that theirs is really at a crux time… I remember being at a seminar something like this in the Glencree reconciliation centre … and the South African Ambassador to Ireland was chairing the meeting, and somebody asked him a question – “what is the difference between the apartheid problem you saw in South Africa and the conflict in Ireland?” and he said, much to everybody’s surprise, that the Irish situation was worse. He saw more hatred in the Irish situation than he did there, which I found very hard to understand…
“The topic of tonight’s discussion is “ North Belfast – Communities in Crisis: Challenges for the Belfast Agreement”. It doesn’t have to be said that North Belfast has come into the forefront of our living rooms in recent times for a variety of reasons, some of them negative reasons. It comes with a legacy of a part of Northern Ireland which has had more people dead than any other area – something like a third of all deaths in the conflict were from North Belfast. So there is a really deep and bitter legacy.
“The first speaker is Rev. Norman Hamilton…. Essentially he comes as a committed Christian, taking to the ministry later in life, and for the last 13 years has worked his mission in the Ardoyne…
1. Rev. Norman Hamilton (Presbyterian Minister, Ballysillan):
“… This is my first sortie into a group like this in the Republic. Thank you so much for the invitation. I genuinely regard it as a real privilege to be able to come and try to articulate some of the acute dilemmas that the Unionist and Protestant people feel in North Belfast.
Background: “Maybe I should say where I am coming from, because it has been desperately important to me over the past six months to try and position myself properly in all of this. If you wanted to know what sort of Presbyterian Minister I am, I am not in the mould of Ian Paisley, I am much more in the mould of Dr. Trevor Morrow from Lucan which will mean something to quite a number of you, so if you know Trevor and you know where he is, I am sort of in that same camp I was educated at Trinity. I am an economist by background. I then became a career civil servant, and, crucially for my involvement in the Ardoyne, I was involved for some time on the political side of the Stormont Government. So I have kept an interest in the political developments over the years, I have kept my contacts and my friends in the civil service, many of whom are now senior civil servants. I have kept those contacts and friendships alive and I hope that has been of some use in the last wee while. After being a career civil servant, I did sense a real vocation to leave that, though I was having a ball, I loved it, and worked for a while in Christian work in universities and colleges in England, then came back and did my training for the Presbyterian ministry in Belfast, was posted to a very affluent church in the south side of the city and then went up the scale and was posted to the Ardoyne area of North Belfast, and have been there for the last thirteen years…
“Can I say at the outset that I do not come as a politician under any guise. This is really important. I have tried over the last six months to honour the political leaders, and I would be happy to take questions on this. I think there is rather too much community activity which undermines political leadership, but that’s a bit of a mantra of mine. I come as a Christian minister, I hope one that is politically aware, both currently and from my background. I have lots of contact with all of the political parties, and I mean all of them, over the last number of years. I speak as someone who voted “yes” for the Belfast Agreement, and so what I see my role tonight is as to try to interpret as best I can what has been happening, particularly in the Ardoyne/Glenbryn area of North Belfast, to interpret, but. I want you to understand that some of the views I will be expresssing I personally do not hold. My task is to help you folks understand why the Protestant and loyalist folks in North Belfast think and behave the way they do. So I hope that you will not necessarily tar me with the stick that you may want to tar some of them with. I want to make that really clear. Equally I do not want to distance myself from the community in which I work and serve. So there is a tension here, and I hope that over the last number of months – and perhaps Fr. Aidan would be the right person to ask – I have tried to position myself in such a way so as to identify with the community but not identify with the protest, and to work quite hard at being accepted and trusted in both communities. That is what I have aimed to do and that is where I come from tonight
Holy Cross dispute: “As far as the Holy Cross dispute is concerned, I think I’ll leave that to the question and answer session, because I do not want to try to answer questions you are not asking. So I don’t want to comment on that directly. But I do want to say that I am quite happy to do my best to address any question about the Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist involvement in the Holy Cross dispute, to address that directly in the question and answer session…..
Geography and demography: “Perhaps the simplest place to start with my comments would be with a little diagrammatic map of Belfast, showing North, South East and West Forgive me if some of this is familiar to you, but I think it would be helpful if we all had a common understanding. The east is largely Orange, Protestant and Unionist, largely. The west, which is Gerry Adams’ constituency, is largely Green and Catholic. (It also includes the Shankill Road, but forget about that for the moment). The south of the city is the university and hospital area, very mixed, thousands and thousands of transient folk in terms of students, and relatively little civil unrest. The north of the city is where the majority of the trouble happens. Essentially it is Green, but with islands of Orange communities in it, roundabout a dozen to fifteen. Smallish threatened Protestant communities who see themselves in a sea of Green. So in that sense, North Belfast, in demographic terms, is the only part of the city which has lots and lots of interfaces, where the Orange dots and the larger Green community interact. To put that in another format, a diagrammatic map [Map 1, reproduced on page 2] that was published in the local newspaper last year in the middle of August, in what was actually a very important feature. You will see that these solid areas are largely Catholic, Nationalist or Republican, depending on the political voting patterns. The few mixed areas are striped [on the map], and the plain areas are largely Protestant, Loyalist or Unionist. One of the concerns of loyalism is that with these main arterial routes going into the centre of the city, it is almost impossible for loyalist people – I use that as a shorthand, people from the Orange community – to access the centre of the city without going through a Green community.
“Now that has a number of important implications for the marching season which is coming up soon. One of the reasons why there is so much potential for conflict in North Belfast … is that if Loyalists wish to march to the city centre almost certainly they will have to go through a Green community, or along a road that is on the edge of a Green community. Then the Ardoyne itself is this area here [map 1], and the particular area in question – Holy Cross – is here, the school is about here [map], and that distance is about 400 metres. The disputed area is about 400 metres. I live in this dot here [map] and that distance is 150 metres. So, rather like Fr. Aidan, the Holy Cross dispute was on my doorstep. So what we have here is a small Protestant community surrounded by, on the south-eastern side, this large expanding and vibrant Green Ardoyne community, the Deerpark area divided and becoming increasingly greener, and this area here comprises about 1500 people. I think this area of Ardoyne is around 6, 000….
General disenchantment with the Belfast Agreement: “So over the last couple of years, since the signing of the Belfast Agreement, I think it is fair to say that the smaller Protestant communities have been a microcosm of the general disenchantment with the Belfast Agreement that is right throughout much of the province. The pressure on these small communities, whether they be here, or some of the others down towards the Lough shore, the pressure that these communities have felt under has eventually erupted into the violence that you have seen rather too much of on your TV screens.
One-sided implementation of Agreement: “Why has that violence erupted? Depending on where you are coming from, let me offer a number of factors that have led to that. The first one is – and I think the underlying one that I want to articulate tonight – that the Orange community feels that in the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement … I quote “we have lost everything so what the hell? “ That was said to me by one of the leaders of the Holy Cross protest. So what have we lost, you might ask. The underlying disquiet that erupts in these small areas, but is actually, I think, reflected across the loyalist people in Northern Ireland, is the lack of a consistent moral basis for the implementation of the Belfast Agreement – that, having started down a route of trying to get to an end goal which is set out in the Belfast Agreement, there has been a complete breakdown of a moral framework, or an ethical framework, for doing so. Now, I am well aware of the difficulties that talking about morality poses, particularly for those from the Nationalist or Republican community. I have had this debate before, so I am not coming into this unaware of the difficulties that bringing a moral dimension poses. But fundamentally the Orange community feels that the implementation of the Agreement has been so one-sided as to make them the losers in a big way and the Green side the winners in a big way.
Let me give you someexamples – Tony Blair’s handwritten pledges before the referendum. The handwriting of the Prime Minister saying “there will be no terrorists in government”. This then is overturned and we have senior members of Sinn Fein in the Northern Ireland Executive.
Prisoner releases: “When we came to the Agreement itself, the early release of prisoners – over which there was much angst. Depending on where you stood, you were saying “why is it necessary to let thugs out on the street who have terrorised the community for thirty years, why is this a good thing?”
“On balance the majority of Unionist and Protestant/Loyalist people said “we can live with that, provided the peace and the win/win situation is delivered, but we are profoundly unhappy about this happening at all”.
Policing: “To move on since then – and Martin will no doubt have a very clear view on this – the Patton Report and the move from the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the Police Service of Northern Ireland was largely seen as rubbishing the sacrifice made by ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland over the years to defend them against terrorists. They were marginalized, set aside. And then a comparison is drawn between the 150 million that the Bloody Sunday Inquiry is expected to cost versus the lack of any significant ongoing public interest in, for example, the widows of the security forces. So you have this group of 13 who were massacred in Derry and they have a 150 million inquiry to ascertain the facts, while hundreds of police officers were murdered and nobody seems to care. “We’ve lost everything – we’ve lost our police service, we’ve lost the respect for their sacrifice, the whole thing is imbalanced”.
Political manipulation: “Then more recently, the granting of offices in London to Sinn Fein, and the charade over the re-election of David Trimble and Mark Durkan to head up the Northern Ireland Executive when the Alliance Party were encouraged and indeed played ball with the Secretary of State’s wish that they redesignate themselves for one day in order to provide a Unionist majority. In the loyalist community in Ardoyne that was greeted with complete derision, and an example of the way the political situation is used to achieve an end, simply manipulating the power manipulation of the system to get to a goal. And one civil servant I know said to the Minister that they were reporting to. “Minister, sometimes you would be better to let democracy take its own route.” Interesting comment, even at that sort of level.
Amnesty: “But finally the Weston Park Agreement, and the amnesty that is apparently being offered to terrorists on the run,is seen as the absolute pits of morality. Let me read a couple of comments from the Weston Park Agreement, and a comment from a Christian group on it and I will leave it at that. The Weston Park Agreement says: “Both governments also recognise that there is an issue to be addressed, with the completion of the early release scheme, about supporters of organisations now on ceasefire against whom there are outstanding prosecutions, and in some cases extradition proceedings, for offences committed before 10th April1998. Such people would, if convicted, stand to benefit from the early release scheme. The governments accept that it would be a natural development of the scheme for such prosecutions not to be pursued and will as soon as possible, and in any event before the end of the year [2001] take such steps as are necessary to resolve this difficulty so that those concerned are no longer pursued”.
The moral problem for many people on the Unionist side is: that instead of those on the run being convicted and then released, that process is now being set aside. There is not even to be a conviction. Let me quote you from a Christian group commenting on this, which says it better than I could: “While the Weston Park document does not use the word “amnesty” what is on offer is clearly amnesty by any other name… The early release provisions of the Agreement were not offering prisoners an amnesty or a pardon. Central to the early release scheme was that they were getting neither an amnesty nor a pardon; they were being released on licence subsequent to conviction. It was on that basis, and on that basis alone, that we concluded that the early release of prisoners on licence was compatible with the biblical understanding of government and justice. We argued that the early release scheme was compatible with the Christian view of justice because those released were released from prison, but not from the judicial consequences of their actions. However it appears to us that the provisions of paragraph 20 of the Weston Park document have precisely the opposite effect. The only release is release from the judicial consequences of their actions and the just demand that they be called to account for their crimes against the community”. So, in other words, this is seen as rubbing salt in to the wounds by giving an amnesty to republican prisoners in particular.
North Belfast: “How does this play out in North Belfast? It plays out in the fact that you have small communities who feel that the Green community is getting all the goodies, the Green community apparently want to take over these smaller Protestant areas because the housing demand in the Green communities is so big, and that there is a conspiracy, a plot, a scheme to drive the Protestants out so that their areas can be used for Catholic housing. Very close to Glenbryn – Torrents, that little area here [map] – a quarter of a mile away, that area has virtually disappeared as a small Protestant group, virtually disappeared, and the Glenbryn community said “if things go on the way they are, we will go the way of Torrance, our community will reach the point where it is no longer viable. We have been saying this for the last four or five years. Nobody is listening, we have had enough and we are going to take action. We have lost everything so what the hell?” And the action that they took, you saw on your television screens. If you were to ask them was that action justified? I would think they would say yes it was, because the security people have now installed security cameras, there have been a series of measures designed to help the security of both communities, from being attacked by each other.
Hopes for the future: “Where do we go from this? I have really only one suggestion, one about which I feel passionately. Fr. Aidan may wish to comment on this, but the current state of community relations in North Belfast is the lowest I have ever known. It is complete stalemate. Nobody wants to talk to anybody else. There is singularly little political leadership to steer the communities towards sensible dialogue, and it does seem to me that we need to have a politically led programme of developing community relations. If we leave it to communities it simply won’t happen. And my hope is that in the not too distant future, the political representatives across the communities will actually decide that for the welfare of the whole community, they will lead us into a civilised engaged community relations programme. I think I’ll leave it at that, and no doubt I better put on my flak jacket for the questions later on!”
Chair: Brendan O’Brien: “Thank you very much indeed. That was very stimulating, very precise … it would concentrate the mind, because the very title of this discussion “Challenges for the Belfast Agreement” here in a Southern context, is in some ways a bit distant from the realities in the North for obvious reasons. There have been very few challenges in the South from the Belfast Agreement, because it has been more or less in tune with where people were at that time. It went through with a 95% clear “yes” vote, and the challenges really evaporated, there wasn’t even a challenge on Articles 2 and 3 in effect. And yet what we are hearing here is entirely the opposite in a place like North Belfast.
“And while there is an awful lot you can say about that on both sides… I would just make one observation which is this: I have been covering the Northern conflict for nearly 25 years, and the closer it got to a political agreement the more I wondered when there was going to be a reconciliation process – as distinct from a political agreement. The centre of the Belfast Agreement is that a line is drawn over the past, people move on. But the problem is that the past needs to be reconciled. What Rev. Hamilton is describing, it seems to me, comes from very deep roots of the past – death, policemen, people killed, conflict of all kinds. And in a way that is a major challenge for people in the Nationalist community to try to create some class of a comfort zone, because Nationalists are perceived as having done well out of the Belfast Agreement, partly because the republican movement was very adroit at moving in tune with the times, so that when the Agreement came about they could more or less fit in with it, and nearly claim it as their own, whereas they had abandoned very significant elements of their objectives in their armed campaign. And in a way the Loyalist community didn’t understand that – they didn’t see the concessions that the outer reaches of nationalism had made, for what it entailed, and you have some of the consequences in North Belfast.
“The second speaker comes from North Belfast, Martin Morgan of the SDLP, he was vice-chairman of the SDLP during the Good Friday Agreement negotiations, he has been a councillor for North Belfast for quite a number of years, he is also a child social worker, and he comes also from what we like to call the “coal face”…
2. Cllr. Martin Morgan (SDLP)
“Thank you. Just to echo what Rev. Hamilton said, I certainly appreciate the opportunity, as an SDLP councillor, but also as someone who was born and reared and still lives in North Belfast, to be here tonight to address you. I am here as a politician in North Belfast, but one of the biggest crises for everyone living in the North of the city – and Norman was quite right in pointing to the little pockets we have, probably 12 or 13 interfaces in North Belfast – one of the biggest crises that faced that part of the city was the Holy Cross dispute. I am not going to get into it.
“But if I can bring in a breath of fresh air – I was there in a political capacity, as were Sinn Fein politicians, as were Unionist and Loyalist politicians – but I think this group here, and me as well, has to pay tribute. Two central figures in giving hope to the communities, to helping those children and their families and to resolve that dispute, are sitting at either end of this table – Rev. Hamilton and Fr. Troy. [applause] Because certainly as politicians we couldn’t do what the religious leaders of those communities were able to do, even in simple terms, just listening to people, being with them, working with them and working through the problems. There is still residue but our religious leaders certainly showed great leadership – to us as politicians as well as to the people in that part of North Belfast.
Legacy of suffering in North Belfast. “It is a pity in some ways Billy Hutchinson wasn’t able to make it tonight because I was wanting to get into him in terms of talking about the Loyalist community…. It’s very easy to stand here and talk about the history. And what is the history of North Belfast? Norman has talked about it briefly. Twenty plus percentof all people murdered in what we call the “Troubles” died in that constituency. It’s not a very large area, but 20% plus, hundreds, about 800 plus people.
“We have 13 interfaces between what are described as Nationalist and Loyalist communities, more than any other area of the city put together. Sectarian violence – I am here tonight as other people from North Belfast are. We don’t know what is happening. There’s probably riots taking place as we speak here tonight, it’s a nightly event, that’s what you hear that’s what you see. And for outsiders it is certainly seen as a way of life… The conflict has broadened, as they would call it in traditional terms, because one of the things certainly I, as a politician, had hoped for was that the new generation, the children who even followed behind me, that they are the new beginning, because in the SDLP we believe we have the opportunity for a new beginning.
“But even the very children in our city are affected by this, and it is our duty, politically, at community level and at a religious level to show a leadership that can ensure that that new beginning starts today, tomorrow and on.
Fragmentation within loyalism: “If you look briefly at loyalism – and I’m no expert on it – but from a nationalist perspective, it is a fragmented community. If we look briefly at Ardoyne, there are two political parties who represent the Ardoyne area – Sinn Fein and the SDLP. But you can list five political groupings in the Glenbryn area on the Loyalist-Unionist side. When there are issues to be addressed in the Nationalist districts, I have no difficulty putting my signature to a piece of paper with a Sinn Fein councillor or politician. Because if an issue needs to be addressed, if needs have to be identified, Sinn Fein and the SDLP – whilst we are separate politically – but for the common purpose of our own distinct areas, we will work together. That has seen a confidence, it has seen a development within Nationalism and Nationalist districts that – and others can argue here – I would put ten to fifteen years ahead of development initiatives in Loyalist and Unionist districts. That is a sad fact, but it is an accurate fact, and I think that is part of the problem.
Moving forward: “Where do we move forward? Tonight it would be very very easy to say “this is what has happened to my community” and for somebody from a Unionist or Loyalist background to say, “well, this is what has happened to my community and this is why I act in a certain way”. But sure haven’t we been doing it for thirty years, and where really has it got us? We do have the Good Friday Agreement. It is the best thing yet that has happened to North Belfast and to the North of Ireland. But we still have sectarian conflict. Because in the past the conflict was defined in terms of paramilitary violence, and – from an SDLP perspective – State violence as well. Four years ago I and a number of other people were assaulted by the RUC in a peaceful demonstration, where I had a black eye, welts on the back, and welts on the legs, for standing with my hands in my pockets. But there is an important difference for some of us compared to others. And that difference is – I don’t bear hatred or anger towards those individuals, I wanted justice, but I wanted justice achieved through courts and through the due process of law.
Leadership challenge: “But the challenge today is for political, community and religious leaders – because leadership is lacking, and politicians, me included, are to blame for that. Community leaders have their own selfish interests, they’re to blame for it. And in many occasions – with due respect – religious leaders, have had what I would call the “ostrich syndrome” and ignored the issues.
“So we need a partnership, we need a partnership between the politicians, the community representatives and our church people, and together that leadership can have a great influence on our communities. Because it is very easy for me to talk for the next ten or twenty minutes about the past. We can’t be prisoners of the past – we have to move on.
“So how do we do that? I was talking to a Church of Ireland minister this morning in Belfast. He was giving me a Loyalist perspective, a Unionist perspective, of grievances, many of which Norman has outlined, where they’d look at the Good Friday Agreement, they’d look at issues such as policing and the release of prisoners – now I would argue that is a more Unionist perspective than a Loyalist perspective because Loyalists too are caught up in the policing and the prisoners issue. But what we talked about this morning was: maybe we should have the equivalent of a Good Friday Agreement for our communities in Belfast? But I have made one mistake in saying that. Because tonight is the first time in my notes I’ve stopped talking about communities and refer to community, because we are one community. I came from a family that didn’t earn much money, blocked-up houses, an area of high unemployment, low educational attainment, no training opportunities. I went to a secondary school where everybody ended up if they didn’t pass the 11 plus, and where two of us in my upper sixth class, two out of sixty, got to university. So life wasn’t going to be planned in colourful ribbons for you. But the same was in Loyalist areas – it wasn’t’ exclusive to Nationalist areas, it was exclusive to everybody. We need to redefine the situation, redefine how we can pull our community out of a state of crisis.
Common agenda: “And what I said to the minister this morning was – we need a common agenda. I don’t need an agenda from where I am a politician, if Billy Hutchinson were here, he doesn’t need an agenda for his area, because in our opinion there is far more that unites us than divides us. But people have ignored that – we look at division and not what unifies us, and that is what is needed – a common agenda with a common purpose. It can be the basics. What are the basics that people want? What I hear from the Loyalist community is: community development – non-existent or just beginning. High unemployment – we acknowledge that. Low educational attainment – we acknowledge that, poor housing – we acknowledge that. It’s the same in areas I represent. The unique difference is it is not a case of me, it is a case of us and we, and how we move that forward.
It’s a very important statement and I would have liked Billy to have been here to say “let’s be brave about it”, because the SDLP, Sinn Fein, Ulster Unionists, DUP, PUP, have operated in many ways on a narrow selfish political agenda. In the last month there were serious riots again in Ardoyne, beginning with the Holy Cross issue again. Traditionally I would have gone on the television and said: “I condemn the police, I condemn the loyalist rioters, oh my, my community is suffering”. But from where I was standing, there were Loyalists throwing petrol bombs, and when I looked over my shoulder, there were Nationalists throwing petrol bombs. And I thought “no, we can’t keep up this age-old tradition, I’ll condemn Unionism, I’ll condemn the police”. So I condemned everybody – whoever is throwing a petrol bomb here, “you’re wrong, you should be arrested, go home or be arrested”. In some ways that caused ripples in the community – how dare I criticize Nationalist rioters, how dare I?
“And that I think is part of the basis of our problem – we have to be able to share in our own common issues, create a common agenda, create a common purpose. About 3 years ago I had a conversation with someone in Dublin, and we were talking about the Tour of the North – a parade that passes every year but on alternative routes, an Orange parade and it’s controversial. So I was quite worried that it was going to lead to trouble, and the comment that was thrown back at me was “but sure it’s North Belfast, you might riot for a few days, but sure it will be over”. That disgusted me. I think Government has to take its responsibility in helping us as politicians, there’s church representatives and there’s community, and to work with us in partnership as well, because the issues are not unique, they cross the divide, and the grievances I hear as a Nationalist politician coming out of those Loyalist areas are the same issues I have. Where I represent used to be a strong Labour area. Labour doesn’t exist – we might be called the Social Democratic and Labour Party, but Labour doesn’t exist in its traditional form. But when it did exist, Catholics and Protestants voted for it, Catholics and Protestants were members, were representatives, and I think that’s the way forward.
“Today I had a request that the Loyalist Commission wants to meet the SDLP. My initial reaction was “no” – and this is the human side – because there are individuals in that who have attacked SDLP homes, have attacked SDLP politicians, have attacked Catholic homes. But isn’t that the age-old problem? Say “no”, bury your head in the sand. So we left the door open, we said we will arrange to meet you. Because what I am hearing from Loyalism is that my tradition doesn’t listen to them, I don’t listen to their grievances, I don’t listen to the issues, and the same could be said about Unionist politicians.
“So we must move away from our traditional political stance. The fragmentation in unionism may not be able to be resolved by unionism, but it may be able to be resolved by us all. The word “reconciliation” has been used by yourselves, it’s been used by us all, dialogue, trust-building, reconciliation. We will do that through a common purpose, through a common agenda, through what unites us and not what divides us.
Honesty: “And we begin by being honest. Not just standing in front of a television camera and giving a sound-bite for what will keep my voters happy, because that’s not good enough. I have lived in North Belfast all my life, and it’s no different, but I want it to be different . And I put that offer out to the politicians in other parties, to the community leaders and to the religious leaders.
Challenge to government: “Let’s move it forward, let’s identify the issues that unite us, let’s remove that fragmentation and put a challenge to government – to the Irish Government, to the British Government and to all the governments who are quite easily and happily commenting on North Belfast, a city in crisis, and the challenge is if we speak with one voice, if we start to address those issues as one body, then we should be given the respect that we deserve. Because life in North Belfast is good, people on the interfaces suffer, but they still have to in many ways get on with their lives. But what my voters want is what Billy Hutchinson’s voters want, is what Nigel Dodds’ voters want and that’s where we must move forward.
Evil of violence: “There is a great evil that exists in our society. I only got married last year. The night before I got married I was still on the Limestone Road at half-past four in the morning, my colleague Alex Attwood, who has spoken to this group, had the windows of his car smashed. We will give our commitment, we will give our time, and we expect the same of others. But there is an evil that does exist there. I may not get the source right for this, but I will leave you with a quote – “evil men prevail when good men do nothing”. The challenge is for the good people of North Belfast to begin in a new way to do something and ensure that the evil of violence no longer prevails. Thank you”.
Chair – Brendan O’Brien: “Thank you, Martin … I would just make one comment. Martin Morgan made a very strong appeal for common purpose, on the basis that there is one community. He followed Rev. Hamilton who told us his people felt they were living in a sea of Green, and their fear presumably would be that if there were one community it would be Green. So in effect there isn’t one community, there are two. And the fragmentation on the Loyalist side used to be a form of strength, because Protestantism, particularly fundamental Protestantism, believes in freedom of conscience and thought, and pragmatism inevitably grows from that, and that is a very healthy thing. Sometimes it becomes a divisive thing, because the other side is more united than you are, and you can’t get your unity together. But for many Protestants, from my observation, they like fragmentation, they don’t like unity, they see that as a Catholic thing, as a Nationalist thing, a triumphalist thing, and on their side it is free-thinking…
“Our next speaker is Roy Garland [replacing Billy Hutchinson who was unable to travel]. Roy Garland says modestly that he is a constituency worker for Michael McGimpsey. It is a very modest statement because actually Roy has lived through the Northern conflict almost from the beginning, if the beginning is around 1966, on the Loyalist side, close to the activist side on the Loyalist side. He has moved from being a very trenchant young unionist right-winger to a left-winger, progressive, in very simple terms. He has written a very fine book on Gusty Spence who within the Loyalist community was a very prime mover, a very prime mover, in moving that Loyalist paramilitary community to a position of political engagement with the other side, so to speak So Roy comes with very fine credentials and has an awful lot to say, and he is not going to have time to say it….
3. Roy Garland, member of UUP (replacing Billy Hutchinson)
“Thanks very much for having me here. Actually I didn’t know I was speaking here until I came down… Having said that, I feel very much at home here. I have worked very closely with Julitta and John and a number of people here, and enjoy that very much.
Background: “You might wonder how I got from being a hard-line right-wing young Unionist, which I was… I was born and reared in North Belfast, though I don’t live in North Belfast now. That part of North Belfast was on the Shankill (part of the Shankill is in West Belfast, and part in North Belfast). I also had very close contacts with the experience of North Belfast in that I had three uncles and a granny who lived in the Oldpark Road. The Oldpark Road was divided then, the left hand side going up was Catholic, the right-hand side was Protestant, and I remember saying once to my granny “isn’t that where the “fenians” live over there?” And my granny said “don’t say that, they just think they’re right and we think we’re right”.
“There’s a lot of wisdom in that, and my granny was less educated than I was. That was a profound thought, perhaps that is part of the thing that changed me…
Radical working-class unionism: “Strangely enough, my uncles – one claimed to be a socialist, one claimed to be a communist and was a shop steward in Shortts, and the other one claimed to be a Connolly socialist. These were people from the Unionist community! Outside of their small circle they probably didn’t talk too much about that in those days. But there was a sprinkling of radical thinking within the working-class Unionist community. Because of the trouble in the streets they moved to Ballynure Street. And in 1974 during the UWC strike, I remember them saying to me, “do you know who delivered the milk? – it was the Official IRA”. Trouble broke out again and my uncles moved again to Manor Street. They were not involved in the violence. They had more in common with their Nationalist neighbours, than with their Unionist neighbours, and they drank in Nationalist areas, including the Falls area. But underneath their socialism and communism there was a unionist streak which came out on at least two occasions. My uncle James, the socialist, a very intelligent man, very aware of Irish history, on one occasion he was in a Falls Road pub drinking, and a political discussion came up and the Ulster Covenant was mentioned in a degrading way, and my uncle said “my father signed the Covenant and I won’t hear a bad word about it”. He came out shaking from head to foot. But he was a socialist all his life. The communist ended up working in Oxford sharing the same flat with a Republican, and the Republican made some comment about this place and the Republican got a hiding because he got into a fight, and my uncle got a hiding, he was a communist who underneath had a sort of unionism… There is a Unionism there that is represented to some extent by Loyalists. David Ervine’s father was very left-wing in his views. There is a lot of that influence there.
“Cold house”: “We’re really talking about a “cold house” for some people. In my experience, for me personally, and for some Loyalists, it’s not so cold. In my early days, I remember going to the Falls baths, because they had better baths than we had in the Shankill. And when you went you were conscious from when you left to when you came back that you were in “enemy territory”, that’s the way you felt. Gusty Spence did the same thing. He had a Union Jack tattooed on his arm and when he went to the Falls baths he had it covered up with a plaster, and he had a friend from the Falls Road who had a Tricolour and he went to Petershill baths some times and he had it covered with a plaster…That’s the world that I grew up in. I can remember going into Ardoyne … and fearing for my life. In fact a friend of mine was attacked, because he lived in the Ardoyne. A lot of the Ardoyne was Unionist then. Areas shouldn’t be like this, but that is the reality… I remember as a young child being asked was I a Protestant or a Catholic – that’s the worst thing you could be asked in those days, because if you gave the wrong answer you were given a kicking. In fact these stories were passed on from generation to generation. My uncle Jamesy, the socialist, told of in the twenties being stopped by a crowd of Catholics and they asked him was he a Protestant or a Catholic, and he said he was a Catholic, which he wasn’t of course. And they asked him to repeat the “Hail Mary”, and he started to make a stab at it, and as he was talking he saw a tram going by and he just took to his heels and jumped on the tram and got away. That gives some idea of the feel of the situation in Belfast.
Change: “There’s always been these ghettoes, and I feel, for me personally, and for some Loyalists, and for some Unionists, I can go almost everywhere now. I was up with friends in the Falls Road recently. I drive up with no fear. In 1995 I was invited by Republicans – and they were shocked when I said “yes” – to speak in Conway Mill. Albert Reynolds was there, and Martin McGuinness was there, and I decided to go, and some Orangemen came with you. It was a room like this, bigger than this, every space was filled, and the welcome we received from the Republicans was absolutely electrifying. And I felt something dramatic happened in there, certainly for me personally. I felt, why have Unionists never done this before? In my view Unionists are not just here to look after Unionist people, but they’re here to look after all people. That’s the unionism I’ve developed. I didn’t always appreciate that view. But it was that sort of thing that broke that.
The South: “Coming down here, when I first came down here as a right-wing unionist – in fact I was a member of a paramilitary organisation. I remember taking part in a parade in Rockcurry in Co. Monaghan. When we came across the border, it was like going into the Falls Road, I felt I was in enemy territory, and felt around every corner we were going to get caught, the IRA was going to get us. That was the reality of how I felt. The big thing that changed it … one of the things that really opened things up for me was actually meeting people on a human level. I met Republicans, I met Nationalists, I met ordinary people down here, and seeing the humanity right across the board, and the welcome we received, changed things. ….
“My family actually comes from Co. Monaghan, almost two hundred years ago, and we have kept contact with the family who still live there….. It is my feeling that there are many Unionists down here, some of them Unionists, some with a British identity, down here, and my perception is – and certainly some of them would have told me this – that they feel that their position is not recognised down here. I think this has a play-off in the North. What can people do down here to help the situation up here in which people think it is a “cold house”? I don’t actually share that view, in fact I think Unionists need to be more confident in themselves, or it is like digging themselves into a hole. But the South has something to do to show that Britishness is acceptable, not just Protestantism, and I’ve met friends down here who seem almost frightened to stand up and be what they are. What can be done? I am in contact with a group called “Reform” in Dublin, and they want some sort of public acceptance of the British identity of a minority in the South. They want that reflected in changes in the Constitution, and even in the national anthem, and that sort of thing. The South has done a lot, you’ve done a lot to make Protestants and Unionists look to the South, and things are opening up. I’m involved in groups down here, we’re bringing Unionists, Nationalists and Republicans down here. It’s opening up a new world, and I think we have got to reach out to each other and do what you’re doing tonight, and what has been done for many years now. Once people cross that border – there was a man came down last week, he had spent years in the security forces, as a policeman, and he had gone through some absolutely horrendous experiences and is living to this day under threat from Republicans in West Tyrone. He came down here, and among the places he walked was the Battle of the Boyne site… and he told a friend of mine he felt he was walking on air. This is a man who hadn’t been down here since he was a child, many decades ago….Meeting you people here, and sharing things, it has begun to open up things for him He’s going back into a situation in which the sense of “cold house” and even threat, is still there. I think we’ve got to dispel that, and the only way I find of doing that is actually meeting people on the human level.
Hopes for the future: “There are massive problems, and, as Martin said, many of them are common to both communities. But there is this sense of alienation. Someone said that in the Good Friday Agreement, Unionists were successful, they were victorious but they turned victory into defeat, and the Republicans did the opposite – after the ceasefire, they had a parade up the Falls Road, waving Tricolours. They turned defeat into victory because they had given up their campaign and in a sense they had accepted consent and so on. Unionists need to be authenticated and accepted, and to move along that line, but I think it is a slow process, an individual process, step by step by step. I would hold out hope for the future. I am not lacking in confidence despite those grave issues and grave concerns. Thank you…”
Chair – Brendan O’Brien: “Thank you, Roy…. Roy talked about the baths. I remember as a journalist being in West Belfast in a strong Catholic Nationalist area, there were women there telling me how oppressed they were, and I said, sure, but around the corner you have one of the best leisure centres which we can’t match in the South. There was a pause and one of the women said, “ah, but it doesn’t have a sauna!”.. There are victims on both sides and some people have thrived on victim hood. Roy has said there are a lot of good things happening, a lot of positive things, and of course he’s right. The topic tonight is “Challenges for the Belfast Agreement”. The question is, is what’s happening in North Belfast… is the Belfast Agreement capable of dealing with that? Is it a challenge for the Belfast Agreement? Because everybody else has moved on, thinking everything is fine, and working the Belfast Agreement. And on the political level, on the Loyalist side, the Democratic Unionist Party are almost entirely inside the house at this point. They’re not outside trying to wreck it, they’re in the Assembly and they’re almost in the Executive and they’re grappling with whether they will go into North-South bodies. And that is on the Loyalist side, the Democratic Unionist side. They have found, I believe, during the referendum and the elections, that there were very few votes in portraying yourself as a wrecker even if you were saying you didn’t like the Belfast Agreement. So Ian Paisley and company had to say, “we are going to represent you inside, and look after your interests, and we will certainly take our two ministries because we are entitled to them. So that was a very positive thing. And on the other side we have people who were members of the IRA, senior members of the IRA, members of the army council of the IRA, and the brigade staffs of the IRA at all levels, who are now wearing suits and getting elected and they are in the election process. Out of the Belfast Agreement those things are extremely positive. And yet we are here tonight, and you’ve all turned up which I think is terrific, to deal with one unfinished legacy of the past, and the question is, “can the Belfast Agreement deal with that?” Fr. Aidan Troy is our final speaker….
4. Fr. Aidan Troy (Holy Cross Parish, Ardoyne):
“Thanks to everyone for the invitation. This very dynamic group in Meath invited me on a number of occasions, and unfortunately because of events I wasn’t able to come along, and I thought they would have got sense and given up asking me but they didn’t, and they kept phoning me and they kept asking me, so I ended up here tonight. Or I almost ended up here tonight… I missed the turn, ended up in Dunshaughlin….. I could find the Ardoyne Road all right, and now I can’t even find Dalgan Park! So thanks very much for your patience….
Background: “At this stage of the night we have heard three very very thorough and very full presentations, it would be rather stupid of me to try and add too much more… What I would like to try and do is just to give a little perspective from a southerner, from Bray, Co. Wicklow, who came into this scene in a rather unusual way. Without giving you my whole history it might be no harm to say a word or two about it. When I was ordained a priest in 1971, I was assigned to Crossgar in Co. Down. This was September, and in that August, internment had been introduced. I remember saying to the priest who assigned me, “could you not send me anywhere else?” because that was one place I certainly didn’t want to go. I can truthfully say I spent three of the happiest years of my life there in the North of Ireland at that time, which involved quite an amount of contact with Long Kesh, various places and particularly Derry when that whole Bogside and Creggan area was a “no go” area. I just say that as a very very potted and brief history,
Holy Cross dispute: “But to bring it up to date, and to show God does have a sense of humour – I spent seven years, from 1994 until 2001 living in Rome, and when I was in my last year again I got a phone call …. They rang me up and said “will you go to Belfast?” My first remark was “you must be joking”. But I have an old principle and that is that I’ve never asked to go anywhere and I’ve never refused to go anywhere. I was still in Rome at that time, that was November 2000, and I remember on the 19th June reading in the Internet how there was trouble on the Ardoyne Road to do with Holy Cross Girls’ School, and of course very foolishly I said to myself, “thank God, that will long be over and done with before I get there”. I arrived on the 27th July, 2001, and in case you think I was some sort of a special person, I am not. People say “were you sent there for that reason?” I wasn’t sent there for that reason at all. I think that’s important to say, some people think there was a connection when there wasn’t. I was going there anyway. But when I arrived on the 27th of July, that night I saw some very serious rioting. Three nights later, the back door of the monastery was broken in and it was set on fire. I realised I had arrived in a very serious, a very critical time. And I think it is good to remember, that this is post Belfast Agreement. I had, like everybody else, thanked God and applauded this. I was so delighted with the outcome of the referenda on this, and that so many people were taking such a strong stand on this situation. Then I became chairperson of the Board of Governors of Holy Cross Girls’ School on the 6th August. And one of the things that amazed me, because there is sometimes a perception that somehow the Nationalist side is so wholly organised – in fact we weren’t that well organised at all, not because things weren’t going my way, but because there was a very serious situation facing us. And it became clear to me within a few weeks that this situation was at least going to go down to the wire for resolution. And that was when I met Norman for the first time, and Martin very kindly mentioned the two of us. I think it is very important to say, that whatever might separate us theologically in other ways, I think it has been a tremendous experience for me – and I need to say this publicly – working with Norman.
“I would go so far as to say, not that we solved anything, but I think we may have prevented death. I do believe there was the potential for children to be killed. I think this needs to be said, not because anyone in Glenbryn set out to kill a child, but because the potential for violence, and for that violence to get totally out of hand, was there. And I am not going to portray all that happened, and again, with all due respects to Roy here, I think the role of Billy Hutchinson is also very interesting, the role of Martin is interesting, the role of Alban McGuinness, Gerry Kelly. I think the political role at that level is an absolutely fascinating study. Now that is not what I am going to develop in the next few minutes. I just wanted to paint a very brief background to where I come from.
Truth and Reconciliation: “I also want to try and be as truthful as I can and yet always speak the truth in love. I do believe it is important that we tell the truth as we see it, and I accept what has been said tonight because it has been said by people of integrity and of sincerity. The one thing I think that I must add – and maybe this is not so palatable – but I must add that I can never understand how children were caught in that protest.
“If I didn’t say that I would be cowardly, and in that I am not upping the ante on anyone to pick that up. But I do think this is terribly important. I was at a lecture last night in the Waterfront, one of the Lord Reith lectures, and there was a poll taken for Radio 4 among the audience, “how many people would want something similar to a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, such as they had in South Africa?”….I had a little time in South Africa. I would have thought, and this has been raised already, that there is a tremendous need – without this “whataboutery” as John Reid says, like I say something and Norman will say the other and then we would spar off each other.
But I do think there is a need for us to be able to surface the truth with a view to reconciliation, yet at that gathering last night there was less than a third in favour of it. Now I am in favour of it, by the way. … I am not going to put that forward as a solution. But when I talk about any situation, and I do admit that I have the huge advantage of fresh eyes and all the disadvantages of not having a background just as you’ve heard. I am enormously excited about the prospect and I am enormously fearful at the same time. I truthfully believe that in many ways – and I regret saying this – North Belfast, if it is not dealt with in some of the ways we have heard, is almost like an x-ray of what can happen still, even with the Good Friday Agreement. What I would think is this, I think there is an illusion – and I would be one of the ones who suffered from this illusion – there can be an illusion that if you make the Good Friday Agreement, as it were, work in general where it is easy to work. For instance, if I live in an area of very high economic resources, if I have a push button on the end of my drive where you have to speak before I let you in, it doesn’t really matter who lives next door to you, it doesn’t really matter where your children go to school, it doesn’t really matter what uniform they wear. But you take where Norman and myself and Martin live, and what Roy was talking about, and when you take that at times we’re talking as near as I am to this loudspeaker, people of vastly different cultural, religious and every other view are living that close together, or should I say not together, and that’s the problem, but that’s another story. If we don’t take this enormously serious, and let me be truthful again, there is a great desire, I believe, in the North of Ireland at the moment, or Northern Ireland, to as it were push the Good Friday Agreement as a cloak in some way over the issues that remain, and let me say I believe in it totally.
“Can I say truthfully – the number of times I have been asked to keep quiet. Now you may be among the crowd that says you can’t turn on the blessed television without that guy being on saying something .I believe that the truth must be told. I have been asked at the highest level of the church not to speak, I have been asked by politicians not to speak – not Martin, not the SDLP, I am not going to name any further. There are people, I believe, who find the pain, and I believe this to be very fundamental, the pain of looking at our truth too much to take, …. and yet I believe it is terribly important that we have something – maybe it’s not the right model, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.. I believe we have to bring something up into the surface where – and again I would have to pay tribute to Norman in this – we are not united as Catholic and Presbyterian, but we are united at the level of humanity, we are united at the level of common interest which has already been spoken about, and we are united in a burning desire for peace and for reconciliation. Now, if we can’t get the politicians at that higher level to stand out in the street and say “sorry, this is not acceptable behaviour” – be that Nationalist or be that Loyalist – then I think Norman and myself can whistle till the cows come home and it will make very little difference. And there were times, and this is not, because I know the role that the Dublin Government played, I know the role that the President of Ireland played, I know the role that politicians at the level of councillors and Assembly played, there was a desperate silence at the level of the Member of Parliament in that area, but let’s say I think we are going to have to press much more vocally, much more strongly for a political action, and I think we also need to be very clear – and I know we have to be sensitive where the churches are concerned. – I think we have to be very clear that the churches, and particularly the leadership – I am enormously complimented when Norman and myself are called church leaders as you are and everybody here is in their own way,. but believe me there is a level of leadership above us that also needs to stand up and take its responsibility. Now I am not loved when I say that, but then I didn’t become a priest to be loved. We have to be very clear on that.
Conclusion: “Just to finish on a sad note but I believe a rather topical note…. I think it is very sad in the last few days that the enrolment at Holy Cross girls’ school has dropped from 34 last year to 17 this year. And I would have a feeling that the people of Glenbryn – and we haven’t touched on what makes up that community because there are some people who have come into Glenbryn who wouldn’t represent Glenbryn – I think we have to be very clear on that. Because I have been fortunate – you wouldn’t believe the number of people in Glenbryn that I now know, now they don’t agree with one word I say, well there’s few words they agree with, but the women there particularly are convinced that I am a constitutional liar, and they tell me that, but at least we’re saying it. But what I am convinced of is that if Holy Cross girls’ school comes into crisis and closes, we have all lost. And we have no intention of closing it, because that is not the issue. I think the issue is, whether we take it in terms of one community finding a way of living together, and let’s hope that the house will be warm for us all, or whether it’s two communities finding the way, I do believe that if something like Holy Cross which unfortunately has become a symbol of all that can go wrong —if it closes, then we have all lost. What I am saying tonight is this: let’s take the Good Friday Agreement out of Stormont and bring it up to the Ardoyne Road and make it work.”
Chair – Brendan O’Brien: “Courageous as always, willing to put it out there. Without naming names, I think he has named quite a few names of people who haven’t come forward and given the type of leadership that he is saying must be given….I am now going to ask for questions….
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
(summaries of main points only):
Q.1: Re speech given by Prince Charles in Glencree. Did it make any difference? “I have non-Catholic relations and friends, but I believe that the loyalist “loyalism” has never been loyal to the Crown, rather it has been loyal to the half-crown.”
Rev. Norman Hamilton: “It didn’t make the slightest difference whatsoever. He was obviously a born optimist to think that his speech would have any noticeable effect.”
Roy Garland: “Having said that, I know a unionist who was there and met him, and he was very impressed by Charles’ concern for Northern Ireland, and he said to him “bring more of your people down here to meet Nationalists”, and this fellow was influenced by it. But I am not terribly sure what Prince Charles actually said. I’m not sure it’s loyalty to the half-crown, there is a sense of loyalty to the Queen for many, but for many it is loyalty to their community and to the welfare of their community, not in any sense that we’re going to get anything out of it. If Britain were to withdraw from the North tomorrow, it wouldn’t make any difference to the sense of loyalty, and the refusal to be, as they would see it, coerced into something they do not want. That is a big motivating factor. They will not go and they feel they are being pushed. Whether they are or not is another question…”
Q.2 . “Throughout our country, North, South, East and West, we’ve absolutely loads of churches. We’re a great church-going society. Maybe instead of being so diligent about attending church, maybe we should think about the future. .. I believe that Irish society is not a great thinking society … wouldn’t it be lovely if we could introduce into our country real patriotism and real Christianity?”
Rev. Hamilton: “I am much more fearful of patriotism than I am of citizenship”.
Fr. Troy: “…I take the point you’re making, but could I also say, without making special pleading, I didn’t realise how sensitive the territory of each church is until this dispute broke out on Ardoyne Road. As an example… there was another Christian minister who is not now speaking to me. I regret this, and I pray every night that this will end. Through a very tense situation he wasn’t present at an event that got a lot of attention, and he felt that I excluded him. The fact that I did or didn’t is not what I am talking about… I think your point is well made, it is the lack of us all living the fullness of Christianity, that is the problem. I could say to you now, I’d love to say that is easily done, but it is sad to say this, it is an absolute minefield. That doesn’t mean you run for cover into the bunker … but it is so so difficult, and yet it must be done and I agree with you.”
Roy Garland: “The church I was brought up in doesn’t exist any longer. I was brought up in the Church of God on the Shankill, it was a Holiness Church of God, it doesn’t actually exist. I wonder sometimes, is the insecurity, certainly among religious Protestants, a factor of the fact that they live in such vulnerable little churches. They’re little organisations… The other point I would make is: there is an awful lot of real Christianity in Northern Ireland despite the situation in which we live. If you lived in that situation in which the people across the street were seen as your enemies, and had actually shot your people, and some of your people had shot them, you’d find it very difficult, and yet people have reached out across that divide and an amazing amount of work has been done right across the board…”
Cllr. Martin Morgan: “I don’t want to comment on Christianity, but on the other point you made – patriotism. Certainly in the part of Belfast that I live in and represent, I don’t like seeing a Tricolour painted on a footpath, I don’t like seeing a half-torn Tricolour up a lamp-post, and the same goes for Union Jacks. There has been too much flag-waving and bunting waving, and that is part of our problem. I take Norman’s point, and I share it – I prefer to look at citizenship. And citizenship whether it is North Belfast or Belfast, but I can sit in City Hall with the likes of Billy Hutchinson, or members from other Unionist political parties, and we talk about how we have a common citizenship also, in being people of Belfast and being Ulster men and women.
Questioner: “I understand patriotism as being a love of your country…”
Questions 3-5:
Q. 3: To Fr. Troy – “…You said that if the Holy Cross school were to close, you feel you would have lost something. What do you mean by lost? Do you not think it would be more appropriate for the community of North Belfast if they were to have a project school like we have created here in the South of Ireland, the “Educate Together” projects… where children – Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Moslem, can all go to school together, and they could start from scratch…. I just take exception with the word “loss” after all that has happened in the last thirty years…”
Q. 4: “I am a retired Columban priest. Over fifty years ago I was in the Philippines, I was stationed in the southern part, the island of Mindanao. A large part of the diocese was Muslim, the rest was Catholic. In one parish, the priest was shot by Moslems, in 1970… . Last September another priest was shot in the same parish… It was mentioned that people up above should be doing more. I would ask, what about those below? In that parish where the priest was shot, we have a high school, 60-70% Moslem, 30% Catholic, and it’s tremendous what is happening because of that. The parents come to meetings, sit down and talk with each other, the missionaries play no part in that, could that have happened in North Belfast?”
Q. 5: “I am a Northerner, of dual identity. I am British and also Irish…. First of all, to Fr. Troy, I found it as a Protestant, deplorable, the way in which the little children were treated. The next thing I want to say is that truth itself is not the danger, it is the ignorance. I find that after working thirty one years in Drumcree in another tradition I find that my Protestant people were left behind, they were not brought along. I am a grass-roots working-class woman.. What I noticed from the Catholics, when they got educated they came back into the community and brought their people along. My Protestant people were left floundering, they didn’t know how to express themselves, to express the anger and frustration….We have as working-class people more to unite us than to divide us. … We need to build up their self-esteem, their confidence, to know who they are. I found that being safe and secure in who I was allowed me to cross the divide, even though I was frowned on … considered a traitor for crossing the divide.. I found that the only way to find out what my neighbour was like.. to live, work, pray with them. I was sent to Coventry many years ago, by my own community, for doing that. All I wanted to do was to find out what it was that was dividing us. Our only way out of this is: we need reconciliation politically and religiously. Our political leaders have let us down by not listening to my people on the ground… as long as they were voted in, with the Orange card to keep the Green out, they excluded my people and my people now have resulted in this awful anger and if these are not addressed, take heed, we will have another civil war on our hands. The only way I see out of this is by educating my people in how to dialogue with people, talking to people to understand ….. Again I bring in the spiritual element, because without that nothing will work…”
Replies to Questions 3-5:
Brendan O’Brien: “… We have had questions about what would be lost if the Holy Cross school had to close, about people at a lower level doing more, and about alienated Protestant people feeling that they have been left behind…”
Fr. Troy: “Very briefly, I am sorry you take exception, but I have to stand where I stand in a truthful way. What I meant by “lost” was this – I felt that the Glenbryn people and the Ardoyne people would have driven a wedge between themselves that would create a legacy of bitterness if the school closed on the basis of the dispute. …If you are going a step further into the whole level of integrated education, a different way of seeing it, I couldn’t agree more that a sectarian type of education has no future, but I would still say … I have to be very careful that I don’t set up a system where I ask the children to integrate the society. I think integrated education will only become a reality when the society is more integrated. If we could have true Catholic schools, true Protestant schools, in the sense that they are open to the best in education, the best in citizenship, the best in culture, then I hope the day will come when people from Glenbryn would want to go to Holy Cross, just as I hope the day will come when Catholics from Ardoyne would want to go to Wheatfield which is as near as that door … I do take the point you are making. Certainly I am not saying that in one sense Holy Cross Girls’ School must stand almost like in a Drumcree situation “we’ll stand here, we will no other”. What I am saying is this: there’s too many good people in Glenbryn who would be very hurt if Holy Cross Girls’ School closed for that reason. Now if demographically in five years’ time or less, there are not the pupils, so be it, life moves on, that’s the only point I was trying to make…. I will just finish with one sentence – I remember one night at a meeting with Billy Hutchinson. Norman Hamilton was also there …I remember saying to Norman and Billy… “I would love to think the day would come when I would exercise a pastoral ministry in Glenbryn as much as I could exercise it in Holy Cross” – that’s the future.”
Roy Garland: “In one sense the Glenbryn people are scapegoats, because the society in which we live in in Northern Ireland is deeply divided and ghettoised. They are a remnant of a large community who feel they are being pushed out, and actually have been pushed further and further out. They’re a small enclave and there is a school within it which is a Catholic school, in this Protestant area. Now that’s regrettable, the school should be integrated, the area should be integrated, everybody should live together. But we are expecting a marginalized, scapegoated [community], feeling oppressed, feeling they are living in a “cold house” to accept this. They accepted it for years, but they feel that the school process was being used. You probably know all about that – the feeling that people are coming in with their children to spy out the community, and I think that because of the nature of the community with peace walls everywhere, to keep people out, and they do make a parallel with Drumcree and feel their people can’t walk down Garvaghy Road, but there’s a large number of people coming up into their school. And. they don’t trust the British, they don’t trust the Irish, they don’t trust their own politicians. They’re isolated, they’re uneducated, and they don’t have much of this world’s goods. And I think they need love and I don’t know how you can give it to them. I’ve condemned them for doing the terrible things they have said and done – I think it was unacceptable and deplorable and hurtful, to hear the words and the actions they took… At the same time there are two communities victimising each other and being victimised. I don’t know how you show them that love, but that’s what they need.”
Cllr. Martin Morgan: “In relation to the question on the Holy Cross school, I share the sentiments of Fr. Troy. On a personal level I am always very wary of the phrase “integrated education”. The SDLP supports integrated education where it is required and asked for, and the funding of it. My own view is, to move that on a stage further, we’re victims in some senses within the Catholic education system, the CCMS – there’s no equivalent within the Protestant school system, a very powerful body. My view is we need a national system of schools, not Catholic, not Protestant – integrated has a jaundiced view in sections of Northern Ireland society – but where we move to a process where all schools are not defined by religion, but anybody from whatever particular religion – not just Catholic or Protestant because there are other ethnic minorities in Belfast and further afield – that they can attend a non-identified school but still have access to culture, to citizenship and religion
“In terms of what this lady was saying, that’s part of what I was touching on earlier, about the community you came from. Brendan picked me up on the point I made about the fracture of political life within loyalist communities. I can only talk about the people I talk to, and they don’t see that as a healthy thing. They do look at the Catholic community. You were nodding when I was talking about community development initiatives, the Good Friday Agreement was only signed in 1998, community development initiatives in Catholic areas began in the late 1980s, years beforehand. But I think that if you are in a party which is either Nationalist or Republican, the best thing you can do.. Nigel Dodds was referred to by Fr. Troy, I think it is a disgrace, he shows no political leadership as the most senior politician, as M.P. The SDLP and other parties have gone to the senior man like Dodds, and have asked for meetings, asked ..”what can we do to help you if its in terms of using our experience, our knowledge, our education …[tape unclear] what can we do?” We’ve never had a meeting, we’ve asked five times for meetings with Loyalist and Unionist politicians. We might have nothing to offer, but if you’re not there, and you don’t meet face to face…
“But I have to make one point, on public record, whatever the fears, grievances – and they’re legitimate – and aspirations are within Loyalism, violence can never be the excuse for expressing those, and that is what is happening in North Belfast. The violence being manifested on our streets … whoever was the spin-doctor on this has used the very legitimate grievances that exist within Loyalism to justify violence.”
Rev. Norman Hamilton: Re Holy Cross school dispute: “Lest there be any ambiguity on this, I agree entirely about the total awfulness of what has gone on …
Re education: “On the issue of the educational system, I am a bit of an agnostic on this, because I have real fears about any society that says a State-based secular humanistic education is better than one based on Judaeo-Christian values. So I’m not buying the idea of a State system as apparently better than a religious one….”
Re identity: “On the question of identity, let me part company with many folks on this. This is part of my whole being as a Christian minister. I do believe that man does not live by politics or sociology or education alone. My own identity, my own security – and I hope you’ll not mind me saying this – lies in the fact of my relationship with Christ. I am first and foremost a Christian. Everything else flows from my citizenship, being human, and so forth But I do not want to assume that the State can provide the identity, or culture can provide the identity which satisfies people and helps them….. or, sorry, that they are the only contributors or even the major contributors to them becoming reconciled, there seems to me to be a huge spiritual dimension that has to be addressed. I do not expect the State to do that….”
Questions 6-8
Q. 6: Integrated education: “…I am not quite happy with the answers of any of the panellists. The Father at the back indicated a Muslim community and a Christian community could do wonderful things together in their own school. Fr. Troy expressed scepticism about the children having to solve the problem… I think the children would be the best instruments… If they got together they will dissipate a lot of the bitterness, a lot of the prejudices that operate… Most people’s experience, through even things like social clubs and youth clubs is that they are very wonderful instruments for bringing parents together… Martin expressed the philosophy of it being one community, well here is an opportunity: Fr. Troy said the school is down at the wire, it’s almost ready to close, and Norman says that the Loyalist community feels threatened…. So surely some kind of bullet should be bitten in relation to integrated education, even on some kind of experimental basis? …. The integrated system was, I understand, tried in the seventies and Bishop Philbin and some others threw cold water on it… I understand it fizzled out, but it should be tried. Here we have two Christian communities, very very close, and, as all the speakers expressed, when it comes down to the human level they are at idem together, so here is one wonderful opportunity… to put it back into the hands of the next generation starting off, put them together and see what happens…”
Q.7: “Congratulations on an excellent debate…. Rev. Norman outlined the grievances of the Unionists, but sadly in this country, and I think it’s on both sides, for every grievance he outlined for the Unionists, there would be similar grievances for the Nationalists… That’s something we have to put behind us if we want to move on. The young SDLP councillor said that he wanted to talk. I think that is the most important thing of all – until we all sit down at the table and talk, we’ll never have any resolution. Sadly, two or three weeks ago we heard Gerry Kelly say that Nigel Dodds wouldn’t talk to him – the two most senior politicians in your constituency and they’re not talking to each other. I was very disillusioned with that. Last Thursday, I went on a spin through the Ardoyne in the company of two Loyalist friends. They said, Norman, that you were a “decent man” and they said, Fr. Troy, that you were a “grand wee man”!. … But there are two things I still haven’t discovered ….two small questions:
-
The children have been going to that school for a long time now. … I saw the building and I hope it never closes … But what triggered that dispute? ….
-
We’ve had the sorrowful sights on TV of what happened to the children and everyone’s heart went out to them … The Taoiseach brought the children to Dublin, and I heard that two men were organising a weekend away for them – very honourable and Christian. But what I am wondering is – is there is a group of Loyalist children out there wondering what they did wrong? Is nobody addressing them? I would like to say to them come down …”
Q. 8: Ten years ago, five years ago this discussion wouldn’t have occurred. It’s much easier for us to accommodate the reasons of the people at the table, because, looking around here, it is mainly middle class. .. It seems to me that what is happening here is sadly a reflection on the lack of political ambition and will to recognise the plight of the most deprived people on this island – and there are some in the South as well… It seemed to me that every speaker at the table tonight shared one ambition, and that was to encourage the political representatives who have stepped outside and are comfortable, and like us, anaesthetised, because of the material gain that is afforded to many people in this nation, but those people, sadly, when they go into their cold homes, and enter the coldness of their hearts, and don’t have the lubrication that Roy and yourself were afforded, with an intellectual rationale that comes through debate and discussion to transcend the feelings of hurt and injustice. They don’t have it and it has to be given to them because they are, like all of us here, human beings who have the capacity to transcend, but the political representatives have to come behind you and stop paying lip-service or in some cases encouraging fear and hatred that perpetuates the hurt these people have….”
Replies to Questions 6-8:
Brendan O’Brien: “Thank you very much. The quality of the questions – as a journalist much of this seems to have gone off the agenda, and yet people is really engaged in it. Are there any on the panel who want to take up any of those points?
Rev. Norman Hamilton: Re what triggered the Holy Cross dispute: “Fundamentally, some people feeling that their territory was being taken over – a serious attempt to take over territory which resulted in a fight which resulted in a riot. Now it’s much more complicated than that, but the trigger point was a single incident about territory. Is that fair Fr. Aidan?”
Fr. Aidan Troy: “Yes, you could argue this all day and all night but I couldn’t disagree with that as a summary…”
Rev. Hamilton: Re issue of political representatives: “… It is a cliché that you get the political representatives you deserve, and I am nervous, I have to say, about putting all the responsibility onto political representatives. It does seem to me that, and we’ve already touched on this, that we do need to work together. I think it was Martin who used the phrase – a partnership between politicians, community leaders and church people. Those of us who do have some capacity to lead are charged under God with leading. And certainly it’s part of my daily routine, I have to say, to beaver away at this one. Only yesterday I was up in Stormont making this very point…”
Cllr. Martin Morgan: Re grievances: “The area I grew up in had until very recently 76% unemployed – just one statistic. It is a Nationalist/Republican area. I think the difficulty, when you were talking about the Unionist grievances, is that they haven’t really been aired before. So it’s not a case of competing.. It’s very easy for me to say “yes you may have your problems but I have mine”. That’s what I was trying to say, there’s a commonality there. Unemployment is high in Loyalist and Republican areas, educational attainment is low in both areas. I think that’s how we have to move it forward. It’s not trying to camouflage For the first time ever people are beginning to say “this is a problem in my area”.
Talking to each other: “In terms of the talking, what I left out when I was going to speak first of all – “why have we not had genuine trust-building and reconciliation?” … Firstly, the two sections of our divided community have suffered greatly. It may be a necessary starting point that Catholics and Protestants acknowledge the hurt caused to each other by each other, and this is a possible first step towards healing. It’s nearly along the lines of what Fr. Troy was saying about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa… But we have never done that …. I’m there as an SDLP councillor, maybe some day I will be up in the big white building as well, but it is very easy for me to ask somebody to engage with me. I’ve never had an army behind me, I’ve never had paramilitaries behind me. But if you look at the backgrounds of those two politicians you mentioned, I think until you can get into that process, and don’t forget the propaganda on the streets of Belfast and further afield has been a game. Parades are another issue. “Oh we’ll let that parade come down when they talk to us”. It is very easy to say that when you know fine rightly that they are never going to talk to you. It’s easy to call for talking – I’m not saying they are not genuine about it, but we’re putting the cart maybe before the horse, we’re not creating the conditions to make the likes of Gerry Kelly and Nigel Dodds talk to each other. The thing about lip-service, I agree with that man down there.. It is easy for certain people, I’m sitting here as a political representative, but, yes… people have to be brought up off their knees. And that’s where the people are in North Belfast and further afield. ..One of the things that is very lacking is that there is no proper movement to recognise the aspirations of those communities – or community – there is no proper acknowledgment about how to empower those people.”
Fr. Troy: Re integrated education: “I take the point about integrated education… In the terms of the group that is so vibrant here, it could be a very good topic, because I wouldn’t do it justice if I gave a quick comment.”
Re Loyalist children: “I just want to say to that man there, who made a fabulous observation about the children on the Loyalist side at school feeling “what did we do wrong?” I don’t think that can ever be justified, and in fact Basil Keogh, the owner of Peacock’s Hotel at Maam Cross phoned me up two or three weeks before the children went down from Holy Cross and asked what would the situation be. … It is not as easy doing that, but that is certainly the idea. There is no way that I would want to see the children of Holy Cross being rewarded in a way that made the others feel guilty, but it goes back… that there is no use in us artificially integrating until we are able to do it properly. The parents of Holy Cross would have had to pull their children out if they were going. It’s that raw at the moment. I believe it’s sad, it’s tragic, and that’s why we’re talking tonight…”
Roy Garland: Re integrated education: “There is an integrated education movement and it’s growing. And also further education, which I have taught in for over twenty years, is integrated. I taught religion to classes of all sides.”
Brendan O’Brien: “People who have been engaged in the multi-denominational drive in the South will tell you how much resistance they met by Catholic churches and other churches, and by the establishment and everything else in a time of peace and relative calm…”
Questions 9-11:
Q. 9:Re SDLP voter transfers: “Just two questions: the first is for Cllr. Morgan: seeing he has the facility of the STV system occasionally, why does he and his party transfer their second preference to a fascist bigot, instead of to a man living next door who shares his own cultural and social and political and economic points of view?”
The future: “Secondly, down the road ten years from now, it is very probable that the majority of people in Northern Ireland will be Roman Catholic. I do not necessarily assume that because they are Roman Catholic they will vote themselves out of the UK, but they very well might and if they do, it will mean there’s a hard core, maybe 48%, in the North-East, around the Belfast area, who will not want to go, just as they didn’t want to in 1912. And they will resist, and they will fight, and even if they were pushed by the British Government or by any other medium, you’ll have a tiger by the tail. It’s just not possible. How are you going to resolve that? And that’ll mean the Belfast Agreement will mean nothing any more.”
Q. 10: Re integrated education: “I’m glad, Mr. Chairman, that you mentioned that in the South there has been quite a lot of resistance to integrated education…It would be true to say that in the North there is substantial resistance in the churches to integrated education? I see it as a way forward to get children together, and to put religion, not at the very centre, but having it as a subject in school…I was at Glencree recently and we were talking about this subject, and interestingly, Unionists felt threatened by integrated education and they said it would take away from their culture. I just wanted a comment from the panel on that. They felt that integrated education in the North at the moment is predominantly one culture, which was, if you like, Nationalist/Gaelic culture. I don’t know if that is true…”
Q. 11: “I saw the little girls going to school, and other girls blowing whistles at them, and what concerned me was, these are the future mothers of our country, those little girls from the two communities.”
Canadian evangelical initiative: “The main question I want to ask is directed to the two gentlemen of the cloth who are here tonight. I am referring to this evangelical movement which is coming from Canada, it is cross-border.. There was to be a media blitz in February or March concerning it but due to the silly season that we are having in the South – namely the referendum and the elections – this was postponed until September. I’d like to ask the two clerical gentlemen, can the churches or the clergy feel they can use this movement?… Several people have talked about humanity and Christianity and so on. …It worked terribly well in Canada, I’m wondering what your views would be on it working in Ireland?”
Brendan O’Brien: “We are over time and all those contributions have been very valuable. I can’t take any more, I’m going to wrap it up quickly..”
Rev. Hamilton: Re the future: “What will the world be in ten years’ time? I’m afraid I have no views on what might happen in ten years. “A week in politics is a very long time”, to quote Harold Wilson. Ten years is worse than eternity.”
Re Canadian evangelical initiative: “… The major challenge is for the local church to engage properly with the local community. And it does seem to me that many outside initiatives … distract attention and energy and resources away from the really hard task of community engagement and community leadership to an agenda that has been set, for the best of reasons, outside. ….”
Re Holy Cross and Wheatfield schools: [Referring to map of North Belfast] “This is the Ardoyne Road… this is Holy Cross Church here, this is the State school to which the Protestant children of this area go… The current situation is that there is almost no contact between the teachers, twenty years of cross-community work has gone down the tubes, and there is a crisis as to how even sensible contact is going to be restored… This distance between Holy Cross and Wheatfield Primary is the width of this room.. A good thing from Canada is not going to address this issue. Fr. Aidan has to address it, I have to address it, the principals have to address it….. We need to find ways of leading this community back into constructive productive sensible community relations. And that just breaks my heart that those two schools are further apart now than they were many years ago.”
Cllr. Martin Morgan: Re voting transfers: “…. You are quite correct in saying, in one sense, that a number of SDLP voters under STV do transfer to Sinn Fein immediately after voting for the SDLP – some of us would share the view as to how they operate. But the truth of the matter is, that in the lead up to the Assembly elections in 1998 – I was one of the two vice-chairpersons of the SDLP – Sinn Fein made overtures to the SDLP to enter into an electoral pact. It took a five minute discussion for us to tell them to clear off The SDLP is engaged in an electoral war with Sinn Fein. We have our policies, we believe they are the right policies, and we do not instruct our voters to transfer to Sinn Fein. The only time the SDLP gave an instruction, or a direction, as to who to vote for after you vote for an SDLP politician, was for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections in 1998 when Seamus Mallon, who was then deputy leader, said: “after you vote for the SDLP candidates, vote for pro-Agreement candidates”. That was the SDLP line and we haven’t moved from that. We will encourage people to transfer their votes under STV to those who support the Good Friday Agreement, we won’t specify a particular party.”
The future: “On the other point you were talking about – the future, whether it’s a united Ireland or what… The SDLP has adapted its Constitution to meet that need. In the original SDLP Constitution we talked about that we believe in a united Ireland by consent…. I’m an Irishman, I believe in a united Ireland. It’s an aspiration of mine, but here’s the essential difference: it’s not a thirty-two county all-Ireland socialist republic we believe in. We believe in a new agreed Ireland, and that’s so important. If there is ever going to be a closer relationship that’s developing between the northern and the southern parts of this island, we’ll do it by agreement, not through coercion. Because you’re quite right – all we’ll have is the reverse of the penny…So it’s through agreement, and a new Ireland in non-coercive ways.”
Roy Garland: Re the future: “… There are Unionists, quite a number of them, and Republicans, who believe a united Ireland is inevitable. Demographic change has been going on for a long time. It instigates a lot of insecurity among Unionists as well. In fact, in the very early days of the Troubles, the idea that Protestants were in decline, and Unionists were in decline and on the way out, was used to stimulate paramilitary activity and all the rest of it, because they felt they were being manipulated out. And I don’t think it is actually very helpful to talk about a united Ireland, that is a united territorial Ireland. I think it is more helpful for us to talk about a united people and try to understand each other and try to reach out to each other, and develop good relations North-South, East and West as well Of course that’s positive down here as well, with England, the more the whole islands are integrated the better for everyone.”
Re integrated education: “On the question – are Unionists threatened by integrated education? – Many of them are, and that is why Ian Paisley has set up his own church education system. But it is also true, I think, that the Catholic Church also feels threatened by integrated education. In the early days of the State it is my understanding that the Unionist Government was going to introduce a secular system. Now I actually would support a secular system in which religious education was taught, and people were educated in their religion. They wanted to introduce that sort of educational system but the Catholic Church and, I understand, the Orange Order and some elements within Unionism, opposed an integrated secular system of education. It’s not the sole answer to the problem, because the problem is multi-faceted, there are so many problems. If people can’t live together, it’s hard to see how they can go to school together, but at the same time you have to start somewhere. And bringing children together obviously would help to break down a lot of myths about the other community. The more we know about each other the better, and some people are knowing less and less while others are reaching out.”
Fr. Troy: “I’m only getting into my stride now, but we have a good chairman and he won’t let me go on too long. It’s most stimulating …Very briefly, I won’t say anything about a united Ireland, I think the comments expressed cover a very good point of view.
Integrated education: “I would love to be able to deal with integrated education a little bit better than I have, I still would hold out that it is not the answer. It has a place. I did a programme on BBC Radio Scotland at Queen’s University recently … Not that I know much about it, but I did have to read about it. I have gone into the study of the philosophy and the values of Catholic education. I am still convinced, but I’m not opposed to integrated education…. I want that to be very very clear. I would go to the wall for Catholic education. I believe it is essential to the solution, it’s not part of the problem, but I do believe there is a place for integrated education. Yesterday there was Confirmation in the parish I serve in – some of the children were from an integrated school. Thanks be to God they can now come to the Confirmation. I am not going to defend the time when they had to be confirmed on their own. I am not going to defend the sins of the past, but I am saying that we need a much bigger discussion.
“For instance, within the Catholic family there is this whole question of should we still be subsidising grammar schools with an iniquitous eleven-plus system? I say “no”. It is equal opportunity and we must revolutionise education. But I think it is a soft option. One very small example I saw the other day which was tragic. I think Martin mentioned the Limestone Road… I saw children coming home from an integrated school – and this is not a hit at integrated schools, it is a fact that I am very sad about – one group went off to one end of the road, and the other group went off to the other end of the road, and they joined in riots on opposite sides, in the same school uniform! Now please don’t say that I am having a cheap shot – I do believe you’re onto something crucial, and I do believe that the best of integrated education, the best of Catholic education, have all got a part to play in a new system.
Re Canadian evangelical initiative: “I don’t know an awful lot about the Canadian situation, but there is one thing I’ve learned because I belong to an international order and I have had a few experiences around the world – and that is if we don’t inculturate, never import. It has to become an Irish version of the Canadian experience.”
Brendan O’Brien: “Thank you very much for coming. I only want to say that your contributions here were terrific, your presence here was very valuable, the speakers from the table here were very stimulating because they all came from the reality, the coalface so to speak. The only last thought that I want to leave you with before you go is that I hope everybody listened – and I’m not being patronising – to what was being said on the Loyalist side of things, as well as obviously from the Nationalist/Catholic side of things. But we are in the South and some people have come the journey here, and it’s important to acknowledge that they did come the journey. And I heard words like “crisis”, “there will be a civil war”, people wondering if their Britishness is really accepted, all about territory, “sea of Green”. …I would just make a simple point that I hope that is heard. But I do think also – and I started with a reference to the Middle East – that people who feel as strongly as that also have to acknowledge that on the other side there is very deep hurt, and people come to a sense of confidence having travelled a very long road to get there with reasonable good will I think that does exist on the Nationalist side, sometimes accompanied by blindness, I think, about how the other side feels. And I would make a very small point – talk about “cold houses”, if you walk into the Dail, and you were a Loyalist or a Unionist, what you see in the opening foyer are two big pictures – Michael Collins and Cathal Brugha – both in uniforms of the Civil War. Now I’m not denigrating the War of Independence or the Civil War, but I often wonder, has anybody even thought of that small point, in modern Ireland, to make the Ireland of the Good Friday Agreement more inclusive in all its symbols, especially here. So thank you very much for coming, thank you very much indeed to the Meath Peace Group who make these kind of meetings possible, and organise them and they are very valuable. Sorry for keeping you later than I said, and thank you to the four speakers…”
Closing words: Julitta Clancy (Meath Peace Group): “I would like to reiterate what Brendan has just said. There is a big challenge for us in meeting the commitment to reconciliation that was in the Agreement but which seems to have often been left behind. Somebody said at the beginning that we weren’t challenged down here. We took the easy route – we aren’t actually challenging ourselves, we’re not actually looking and we’re not listening enough. In private and public meetings over the last few years we have heard the pain and the hurt of many in the Unionist community, and we have worried about it and made representations about it. … Also we need to face up to the hurts of the past, and I wonder often if we had done that at the very beginning of the Agreement, if we had looked more deeply at the hurts of the past and not tried to brush them aside, would things have gone better? I think that the Republican community particularly has to start facing up to that. But we all have to do it. Roy mentioned the group of victims – retired members of the security forces – that we brought around Meath and Louth last week. It was harrowing to hear their stories – as it was in listening to all victims. But they had the added problem of intimidation which they were suffering from Republicans still. And they have fears that – though they had voted “yes” for the Agreement – maybe the Agreement had left them behind. We need to face up to this and maybe now is the time, before we go on any further.
Meath Peace Group talk, April 2002. Compiled and edited by Julitta Clancy, from tapes recorded by Anne Nolan and Oliver Ward and notes compiled by John Keaveney. The Meath Peace Group is a totally voluntary group founded in April 1993 to promote peace and understanding and foster dialogue, trust and co-operation between people North and South.
ENDS
APPENDIX: “The Makings of a Young Militant” by Rev. Dr. Robert Beckett, Newtownabbey [extract from letter to newspapers, 14 Nov. 2001, and part of address to Guild of Uriel meeting, Drogheda, 24 November 2001]
“Glen Branagh grew up in the Mountcollyer district of North Belfast, bordering Tiger’s Bay and I have known him from childhood. He was a highly intelligent lad, full of fun and energy and not aggressive by nature. He attended Sunday School and several different church-based youth clubs where he was regularly warned of the evils of violence and the need to live at peace with his neighbour. Yet he died last Sunday afternoon as the result of a blast bomb explosion as he engaged in the defence of his neighbourhood against an attack by several hundred nationalists.
“What were the factors which led to his death? I believe they are likely to be these:
-
“He heard the older members of his district tell how they had once lived peacefully with their Catholic neighbours in the New Lodge area but had been intimidated out of their homes by IRA threats in the 1970s. He remembered how the shops on the loyalist side of Duncairn Gardens had been forced to close and the streets behind them, after years of vicious attack, had been bulldozed down to provide an industrial buffer zone which had seemed to promise a peaceful future. He had watched the mobs of nationalists youths, orchestrated by older men, streaming out from Newington Street onto the Limestone Road to attack the homes of his friends on the other side of Tiger’s Bay and establish a new flashpoint. He knew they were being taxied in from other parts of Belfast and heard their taunts that they would soon take over his district.
-
“He had seen many times the security forces watch from the safety of their armoured landrovers as mobs of nationalists attacked the homes of his friends, only emerging as reinforcements arrived simultaneously with the men of the district. They then proceeded to engage in battle with the residents and the nationalists retreated unhindered. He noted that the same assailants appeared regularly and very little effort had been made to arrest them.
-
“He watched a friend being seriously wounded in his own area with three bullets from a pistol fired by what must have been a highly trained marksman. He listened with disbelief as the Divisional Police Commander stated that this and at least 5 other recent shootings in the area with automatic weapons could not be attributed to the IRA. He waited for several weeks for the result of a police investigation into the shootings to be made known – none was forthcoming.
-
“On the day his friend was almost killed, he was appalled by the failure of the media to give it adequate coverage, preferring to focus on the discomfort of two little girls shocked by a “supposedly loyalist” pipe bomb. He knew loyalists had not thrown this bomb and that police on the ground had confirmed this to be true. He was incensed by public statements on the same day by both the police sub-divisional commander and the Secretary of State castigating as “scum” the loyalists of Tiger’s Bay who dared to defend their homes from attack.
-
“He was aware that press reports of the disturbances in his area were failing repeatedly to give an accurate picture of the “turf-war” nature of events and suspected that censorship was being exercised by someone other than the reporters who covered the stories.
-
“He believed the police were being used in a cynical way by Westminster and Dublin politicians to pulverise loyalist paramilitaries who were opposed to a united Ireland. Sinn Fein/IRA was creating the operational conditions for this to take place.
-
“He was convinced, young as he was, that he could and must make a contribution to the defence of his neighbourhood, his home and his friends. His innate sense of justice told him he was justified in doing so and he became involved in the conflict.
“I do not agree with all of the assessments and decisions that Glen took but I can understand the forces which moulded him and contributed to his untimely death. The result is that we in the churches lost the battle to keep him out of trouble and his family and community lost a very talented young man. Relationships between the loyalist community, police and the nationalist community have reached an “all-time low”. Sinn Fein is one step closer to its goal of defeating the loyalist community and driving them out of their homes. Even more importantly, the cause of peace, justice and open and accountable government and policing is trampled deeper in the mud of duplicitous politics. Sadly, we can expect more young men to follow in Glen’s footsteps.”
“Where should we go from here to work for peace?
-
“Both the Secretary of State and the sub-divisional police commander should apologise for the unwarranted derogatory remarks made about people who were defending their homes against attack.
-
“The Chief Constable has had several weeks to investigate the history of the different automatic weapons used in at least six attacks from nationalists upon both the loyalist community and his own officers. The results of these investigations should immediately be made known, as well as the sources from which the gunmen emanated.
-
“Greater efforts should be made by the security forces to confront and arrest the instigators and perpetrators of the attacks upon both Catholic and Protestant homes.
-
“The junction of Newington Street with the Limestone Road should be sealed with an impassable barrier to safeguard the welfare of decent peace-loving citizens on both sides.
-
“Sinn Fein/IRA must stop organising attacks upon the loyalist community. Their own people have also been suffering the consequences and there is a distinct likelihood that the next young person to die will be one of the youths they are cynically exploiting.
-
“People on both sides of the community must marginalize the troublemakers, pray and redouble their efforts to bring the two communities together again in peace.”
[Rev. Dr. Robert C. Beckett, Newtownabbey]
MPG talk 42: Biographical Notes on speakers:
Roy Garland: Belfast teacher, Irish News columnist, and member of the Ulster Unionist Party, Roy is currently working as a researcher for Michael McGimpsey, MLA, Minister for Culture in the N.I. Executive. He is a founder member and co-chair (with Julitta Clancy) of the Louth-based reconciliation group, “The Guild of Ancient Uriel” whose members come from North and South. Since 1995 the Guild has been involved in dialogue with a wide variety of groups and individuals from all sides of the traditional divide in Northern Ireland, and from the Republic.
Rev. Norman Hamilton(Presbyterian Minister, Ballysillan). A graduate of Trinity College Dublin, Norman Hamilton became a career civil servant in Northern Ireland, and spent some time on the political side. Feeling a sense of vocation to the Christian Ministry, he worked for several years in England in Christian ministry in universities and colleges, before becoming a Presbyterian minister in 1980. He has served in several ministries in Belfast and has been ministering in the Ardoyne area for 13 years. Contact address: 564 Crumlin Road, Belfast BT14 7GL.
Cllr. Martin Morgan(SDLP) is a childcare social worker andhas been a member of the SDLP for fifteen years. A graduate of Queen’s University, Belfast, he was a member of the Executive of the SDLP for 6 years and was Vice-Chairperson of the party during the Good Friday negotiations 1997-98. He was the SDLP youth representative to ECOSY (Party of European Socialists) 1992-93, and has been a member of Belfast City Council, representing the Oldpark area from 1993 to the present. He was Leader and Deputy Leader of the SDLP in the Council, and was John Hume’s appointee to the Academy of Leadership, Washington DC, in 1997. Contact address: SDLP offices, 228 Antrim Road, Belfast 15. Telephone (from south): (048) 90 220520
Brendan O’Brien: A senior reporter with RTE current affairs, Brendan worked on Seven Days, Today Tonight and Prime Time. He won a Jacob’s Award for investigative journalism, notably for his work in the areas of drugs and serious crime. He has reported on all aspects of the Northern Ireland conflict since 1974 and is the author of two books on the IRA: The Long War and A Pocket History of the IRA. He has recently completed a major documentary on the Middle East conflict.
Fr. Aidan Troy: Born in 1945 in Bray, Co. Wicklow, Fr. Troy is a graduate of University College Dublin and Clonliffe College, Dublin. He was ordained a Passionist priest in 1970 and has ministered in Europe, Africa and America. He recently completed a Degree in Theology in Rome and was appointed parish priest of Holy Cross, Ardoyne, Belfast, in August 2001. Contact address: Holy Cross Retreat, 432 Crumlin Road, Belfast BT14 7GE.
Meath Peace Group Committee 2002 (all in Co. Meath): Julitta and John Clancy, Parsonstown, Batterstown; Pauline Ryan, Woodlands, Navan; Fr. Michael Kane, An Tobar, Ardbraccan, Navan; Rev. John Clarke, Boyne Road, Navan; John Keaveney, Fairyhouse Road, Ratoath; Anne Nolan, Gernonstown, Slane; Philomena Boylan-Stewart, Longwood; Olive Kelly, Garlow Cross, Lismullen, Navan; Leona Rennicks, Ardbraccan, Navan
© Meath Peace Group April 2002
Meath Peace Group Public Talks
No. 40 – “Teaching our Shared History”
Monday,12th February 2001
St. Columban’s College, Dalgan Park, Navan, Co. Meath
Speakers
Dr. Michael Farry (Historian, Teacher, ICT Advisor at Education Centre, Navan)
John Lowry (Workers Party)
Dr. Kenneth Milne (Former Head of Church of Ireland College of Education; Chairman, Irish Society for Archives)
Ruairi Quinn, T.D. (Leader of the Labour Party)
Chaired by
David Robertson (Teacher of History, Wilson’s Hospital School
Former Head of History, Portora Royal School, Enniskillen)
Contents:
Introduction – David Robertson
Speakers’ addresses
Questions and comments (summary only)
Appendix: Draft Leaving Certificate History Syllabus John Dredge, Education Officer, N.C.C.A.
Biographical notes on speakers
©Meath Peace Group 2001
“TEACHING OUR SHARED HISTORY”
Introduction:
David Robertson (Teacher of History at Wilson’s Hospital School):
“Good evening ladies and gentlemen, and thank you very much indeed for inviting me to chair this meeting [introduces speakers – see biographical notes at end of report]
The subject of tonight’s talk is “Teaching our Shared History”, and with Ruairi Quinn’s permission I will quote from Bertie Ahern as I start. Launching the Dunbrodie – thereplica Famine ship in New Ross yesterday – he said: “As a country with a sometimes bitter experience of emigration it seems very important that we remember the hardships and prejudices we faced in the past while we promote equality and tolerance and reject racism and prejudice wherever we find it”.
“The subject of tonight’s talk is very much on that theme. Teaching is a noble profession – those who engage in it have a privileged life, to cultivate, to nurture young minds, to bring them on, is indeed a privilege, and hopefully at times a joy. History is a part of Ireland, and you’re listening to one who believes that it should indeed be a part of our curriculum. It has been said that a penalty of forgetting our past is being condemned to repeat it. Ladies and gentlemen, what I hope our speakers will address tonight is the question as to whether in our schools, North and South, we are doing justice to our shared history, that we are teaching our shared history, and if we are leading our children together in partnership and integration into the future…
Our first speaker tonight is Dr. Michael Farry.
1. Dr. Michael Farry (historian, primary teacher, ICT Advisor at the Education Centre, Navan). “First of all, I’d like to begin by thanking the Meath Peace Group for the invitation to speak here tonight.
“My interest in the teaching of history in Irish primary schools comes from my being a primary teacher and a historian. I intend firstly to offer a few general thoughts on history and teaching, then I will briefly look at the way history has been taught in Irish primary schools since the foundation of the state and finally deal with some of the issues which arise from that overview.
Problem of history: “What is history? The simple answer is that it is the study of the past. There the simplicity ends. History is based on evidence from the past and the interpretation of that evidence. The lack of evidence, sometimes even the vast amount of evidence, the variety of the sources, the difficulty in comprehending the evidence and the difficulty in assimilating the evidence all lead to what we could call the problem of history. The interpretation then is often of necessity based on partial evidence. History written in the past is often superseded by more modern examinations not necessarily because of any fault or bias on the part of the historian but purely because more sources have become available.
Science of history: “It is true that a historian’s preconceptions can and often do colour his/her historical writings. Many indeed would doubt that there can be such a thing as a politically neutral history of any country. Can there be a kind of scientific, objective, value-free examination of the past of any country not to mind Ireland? Paul Bew, the Northern historian says: “I am tempted by the idea that there is such a thing as the science of history. A scientific history book does not settle a question for all time but opens up debates and initiates new discussions. That is actually the way science evolves”. What he is saying is that history does not provide us with definitive answers, rather it provides us with a mechanism with which we can continually interrogate and reinterpret the past.
Revisionism: “In recent times there has been a general re-examination of the history of the relationship between Britain and Ireland – our shared history – especially in the early part of the twentieth century. This is called revisionism by some who dislike the questioning of well-established and comfortable beliefs and myths – this is in the main no more that the continual examination of the past in the light of the availability of new evidence. The work of writers such as David Fitzpatrick, Peter Hart, Eunan O’Halpin, Tom Garvin has given us new insights into the history of those times. My own work on the civil war, I hope, has shed some new light on that episode and challenged some long held beliefs.
History as myth – Civil War period. “A Dublin historian has stated: “History cannot be ignored and so we choose either to respect it as a source of explanation or exploit it as a source of ammunition”. Exploiting history as a source of ammunition is not confined to Ireland. It has always been common among political and military leaders and is usually concerned with justifying current actions. Myths are created, usually based on half-truths, half-remembered truths or fully remembered untruths. These myths are then used to further current political aims.
“During my own research for my book on the Civil War in Sligo [The Aftermath of Revolution: Sligo 1921-23] I was struck by how quickly such myths can be created. During the Truce period the IRA in Sligo sought to gain the upper hand in the county over what they termed “mere politicians” even though those politicians were Sinn Feiners and were on the same side. The IRA propaganda asserted that they had defeated the might of the British during the War of Independence. It is probable that the “politicians” in the county and indeed in the country as a whole had done more than the IRA military actions to undermine the British control of the country, but these “politicians” were sidelined as the newly emerged IRA took control. Then when the Treaty was signed the anti-Treaty people could take refuge in the myth that the British had been defeated, the Republic had been established and that the Treaty therefore was to be opposed.
Interestingly the IRA were not the only myth makers. At a meeting in favour of the Treaty the Protestants of Sligo heard one of their own leading industrialists and politicians praise the way they had been treated during the War of Independence in Co. Sligo and say that no Protestant had been killed during that war in Co. Sligo. This was not true. A seventy-year-old Protestant process server had been murdered in North Sligo. The Protestants of course were mindful of their precarious position in the new Ireland and it was in their interests not to remember unpleasant and uncomfortable truths.
Teaching of history in primary schools: “Given that history deals with complex situations and real people with all that entails, you can imagine the difficulty at Primary level in school when one is dealing with children of twelve years of age or under. They watch programmes with cardboard characters, black and white, good and bad can easily be identified. Children are also used to quick-fire computer games where good and evil are clearly delineated. History deals with real people, real situations. It takes a lot of understanding to empathise with historical characters rather than decide who is bad and who is good and start rooting for the “good” like your favourite soccer team.
Post Independence Primary History. “In the decades after the establishing of the Irish Free State the education system was seen as an instrument for the achievement of a Gaelic society. The First National Programme for Primary Schools was adopted by the Government in April 1922 and issued to primary schools. The role of history was to foster a sense of national identity, pride and self-respect. This was to be done by demonstrating that the Irish race had fulfilled a great mission in the advancement of civilisation. The state had been founded in bloodshed and civil strife and many, within the state and without, did not recognise its legitimacy. History was to be used to legitimising the state.
“In fifth and sixth classes there was to be an outline chronological treatment of Irish history from the earliest times to the Treaty of 1921. In 1926 it was recommended that “the period after the Act of Union was to be seen as the story of the Irish people struggling on several fronts – political, religious, linguistic and economic – and eventually coming into its heritage with the establishment of native government”.
“This view of Irish history was biased against seeing the value or possibility of peaceful change through political action. It emphasised the centuries long struggle against England and described a succession of uprisings against British rule even if some of these were small and unimportant. British rule was always seen as anti-Irish. This supposed attitude of the English towards Ireland was used as an excuse for the backward state of the country. There was little social history and no emphasis on local history.
“The style of the textbooks which were produced to implement this curriculum was factual, presenting history as a series of condensed truths. Events had their causes, course and outcomes. One thing led to another in a logical progression which imposed a rational framework on what was in reality often a glorious amalgam of chaos.
“As an aside I should say that it is very easy for us, at the beginning of the twenty first century to feel smugly superior and criticise these attempts at myth-making. It is easy for an historian to understand how the new state, insecure and precarious with internal and external enemies felt a need to invent its own mythology. What are our current myths? When future generations of historians look back at us what will they see?
1971 Primary Curriculum: “In 1971 a new primary curriculum was introduced and this represented a significant landmark in Irish education advocating as it did a child-centred philosophy of education.
“The History Aims and Approaches in the Teachers’ Handbook of 1971 signalled a number of key shifts in Department of Education’s thinking on history teaching in primary schools:
-
It noted that those in senior classes “are not sufficiently mature to benefit fully from an extensive History course treated in a strict chronological manner.”
-
“The child should benefit as much from the processes of exploration and discovery as from the actual information derived through these processes.
-
It stressed local history and social history.
-
“Care should also be taken that in the presentation of facts there is no distortion or suppression of any truth which might seem to hurt national pride” and “It should represent fairly the contribution of all creeds and classes to the evolution of modern Ireland.”
“These aims, worthy as they were, were never fully realised, partly because of a failure to provide any realistic in-service for teachers in the implementation of the new curriculum and partly because the class textbooks remained the main source of history teaching.
“The textbooks which were produced as a result of the new curriculum showed some improvements on previous series: more illustrations, more pupils’ activities, a greater emphasis on social history, a toning down of the treatment of some of the more confrontational episodes in Irish history, a greater emphasis on the non-violent Irish political tradition – Parnell & O’Connell for instance got greater prominence and there was also some emphasis on the contributions of outside influences on Irish history like the Vikings and the Normans. Books for middle classes showed a shift towards more non-Irish history and some social history but in the books for senior classes the emphasis was still on post 1800 politics and battles.
1980 Revised Guidelines: “In 1980 the Department issued revised guidelines to History textbook publishers recognising that this was one way of having the aims and objectives of the curriculum furthered. These guidelines stressed the use of the thematic rather than the chronological approach. They also stressed, as the Curriculum had not, the use of source material and the use of the methodology of the historian. The text books produced in response to the new guidelines were different. They contained much more source material and were of a broader scope. They stressed different and conflicting points of views, they included local, national and international history and they were freed from providing a cause and effect study of Irish history. It is very noticeable in the textbooks produced in the early 1980s that these changes did take place.
“But these books were not uniformly welcomed by teachers. Some publishers later, particularly in the early nineties, produced history workbooks which contained factual narratives on topics followed by a series of questions involving recall of factual information. These were produced, the publishers claimed, in response to a demand from teachers. Typically these would contain, especially for fifth and sixth classes, a chronological treatment of the history of Ireland from the Act of Union until the Treaty, or sometimes until the declaration of the Republic.
The place of History in the New Primary Curriculum.
“There is at present a new primary curriculum being introduced.The history document states that “An important aim of this programme is that children will acquire a balanced understanding of family, local, national and international history”. It goes on to say that: “At times history has concentrated on political developments and the lives of “famous people”, often “famous men”. Some elements of political history have a place in the historical education of older primary pupils, but this curriculum places an emphasis on the study of the “everyday lives” of what may be termed “ordinary people”. “The curriculum provides for the development of a growing range of historical skills and concepts as children study the lives of people in the past.”
Importance of evidence: “The new curriculum stresses the importance of evidence: “By realising that the evidence of the past may be interpreted in a number of ways, children will come to appreciate that historical judgements are always provisional – a bad choice of words, I would suggest – and may have to change in the light of new evidence”.
“The sixth class curriculum is laid out now in seven strands:
Local Studies
Story
Early People and Ancient Societies
Life, Society, Work and Culture in the Past
Eras of change and Conflict
Politics, Conflict and Society
Continuity and change over time.
One or two of the suggested strand units to be taken each year.
Skills and concepts to be developed in 5th and 6th classes:
Time and chronology.
Change and continuity.
Cause and effect.
Using evidence.
Synthesis and communication.
Empathy.
“A strict adherence to a chronological treatment of strand units should be avoided”. The approach of the new curriculum is to be welcomed. However there are some potential pitfalls.
Continuing education for teachers: “This curriculum is to be implemented by teachers who are not trained historians and whose knowledge and experience of history may be limited. They will also have to implement all the other subjects of the curriculum. Relevant and continuing in-service education is vital for these teachers.
Proper materials must be provided for the teaching of history. An exercise in a textbook which reads: Do a study of a local workhouse, or Do a project on living conditions during famine times in Ireland may sound very exciting but without access to suitable material it will prove impossible to undertake.
Local studies: “Thankfully more and more local studies have been published and these can be a valuable resource for the teacher. Just recently I note that local histories dealing with Kiltale and Kilcloone, Co. Meath have been published. Local historical journals are important in this respect also and I note that the current issue of Ríocht na Mídhe [Journal of the Meath Archaeological and Historical Society] is being launched tomorrow evening.
Internet: “With the use of the Internet it should be possible to make available many more collections of primary documents which can be easily accessed by teachers and pupils. Use of the Internet also means that historical research undertaken by pupils can be available on school websites, and can be available to others. This can provide a different point of view on an historical event or movement.
Different points of view: “The presentation of different points of view is important and should be used to give a balanced view of events. This also helps to open the pupils’ minds to the possibility of disagreement about historical events. Such disagreement is not new and is not necessarily destructive. We are not trying to arrive at a commonly agreed sanitised version of our shared history. Rather we are trying to open the debate up to seeing points of view and re-examining commonly held views. We are trying to challenge bias and received points of view about Irish history.
Warnings: “However a warning here. Presenting points of view must not be allowed to become mere caricature. The reality is that there are a whole range of opinions, corresponding to the range of participants, on each historical event. Take the War of Independence for example. To allude to an “Irish point of view” and an “English or British point of view” would be a serious distortion of the reality. There were a whole range of views -those of the Northern Unionists and Southern Unionists for instance as well as British politicians of different parties.
“Another warning: any attempt to use history as a tool to forward narrow political or social goals however worthy must be frowned upon because it is in itself not a worthy aim. What teachers and historians seek is the truth not cosy half-truths that appeal to our present needs. Teachers will look with alarm on another attempt to create the ideal state or society by education or rather by schooling. We have had campaigns such as anti-smoking, anti-drugs, anti-litter, anti-fatty eating, and anti-laziness, thrown at primary schools with arguably little result.
Primary education: North-South and East-West contacts. “It should also be pointed out that experiencing our common present is important in dealing with our common past. As a result of membership of the European Union and programmes such as the Socrates programme contacts between member countries have increased enormously. Our pupils (and teachers) in Trim (where I taught until recently) have met teachers from Denmark, Norway, France, Portugal, Germany, Nepal, Britain and have had exchanges with pupils from Portugal, England and Denmark. As part of a Socrates programme one of our classes together with a class from an English school developed a peace project. Each class separately and together discussed the England/Ireland problem and wrote poems as a result of the process. Impressive peace ceremonies were held in each school. The ceremony in Trim was attended by the Taoiseach of the time, Mr. Bruton and the British Ambassador. A book of peace poems written by the pupils was published. There are also North-South contacts working in a similar way. Some schools in north Meath are involved in the Warrington project and have developed contacts with schools in Warrington and in Northern Ireland.
Unconscious ignorance: “In the end of course what we are trying to achieve in history teaching is not the amassing and retention of a vast amount of historical information. We are all ignorant to a greater or lesser degree as regards history. Do you want me to ask you the questions at the end of this sixth class history book? There are however two kinds of ignorance as regards history. If we are consciously ignorant we realise the extent of our lack of knowledge and we are prepared to learn. The dangerous ignorance is the unconscious ignorance where people think they know the ultimate truths about history. It is I believe this unconscious ignorance which has done so much damage in these countries and it is this unconscious ignorance which education must seek to change into conscious ignorance. Thank you.”
Chair (David Robertson): “Thank you very much indeed, Dr. Farry, for that trenchant introduction and analysis of teaching in the primary curriculum…. Our second speaker tonight is John Lowry. When I see the words “former teacher” introducing someone, I am not sure whether I am envious of this status, or this is a tribute to the tribulations which he underwent years ago?
2). John Lowry (former teacher; member of the Workers Party, Belfast): “Thank you. It’s been quite a few years since I taught in a school, although as the chairperson alluded to, I don’t think that once you’ve been a teacher that it ever leaves you – you always think in a certain way, I suppose.
Political impact of teaching of history: “But my comments tonight are not so much related to the academic aspects of the teaching of history but more to do with the political impact that the teaching of history does have within our schools and more generally within society Because, as Dr. Farry alluded to, …the problem of history is one which surfaces all the time at political meetings, and meetings of groups like this, people who are concerned about peace and reconciliation, and particularly at this time, since the time of the Good Friday Agreement when we are looking to build a new future, we wonder is it possible to build that future at all, or do the myths of the past continuously come back to haunt us and impede and hold back the process of reconciliation and the establishment of a peaceful future?
Perpetuation of myths: “There can be little doubt that for many people history is not so much a study of the past, an attempt to analyse and understand the past, an attempt to look at the past so that we don’t make the mistakes of the past, but all too often, particularly in Northern Ireland, but also throughout the whole country – perhaps not so strongly now in this part of the country, but certainly strongly in Northern Ireland – the past is all too often used to justify the present. And the entrenched – in my view – tribal and sectarian political positions which were adopted both on the extreme nationalist side and on the extreme unionist side in Northern Ireland, all too often those positions are given a veneer of legitimacy and validity by referring to the past. I think Dr. Farry mentioned that in place of the study of history far too often we have the perpetuation of myths. And I think it is that which does great damage to the search for reconciliation at the present.
“Dr. Farry was also absolutely correct when he said that from the foundation of this State the teaching of history was directed in a particular way – in order to justify and vindicate the dominant Gaelic nationalist ethos of that time. And it wasn’t just to give justification to that particular political perspective, but also very damagingly it excluded any other viewpoint or any other contribution which people have made, or groups of people within our society had made at that particular historical time. Therefore it was a very exclusive process which again continues to perpetuate the myths, or at the very least to exclude other people.
Can we teach our shared history? “I think certainly it would be almost impossible to have an agreed version of history, even to look from the most benign perspective, even coming from a perspective where one is not seeking in a damaging way to create a history to justify some extreme political position of the present. I think it is perfectly legitimate and true that very many historians of very high academic standing do not agree about particular events – and that shows the complexity of history at the same time.
Inclusiveness: “Therefore when we ask the question about a shared history, I think we have to appreciate that there is no one single version of history which is acceptable to us all. I don’t think we should fear that. I think the real problem we must overcome is to ensure that other viewpoints – other possible interpretations of history – are not excluded. That is probably the challenge for the school curriculum and that is the challenge facing government as it implements its policy in relation to the school curriculum – to ensure that no other viewpoint – no other possible interpretation – is excluded, that we don’t have an exclusive and very one-dimensional approach to history
“So therefore I think that we have to end this mythology, we have to end the history of the victor and we have to ensure that the history curriculum is inclusive. I think that that is very important at this point in time as we go forward in the search for reconciliation and the building of a new future.
Change of direction needed: “Dr Farry mentioned various initiatives towards the end of his contribution, such as the Warrington Project, the project at Trim, and so on. If we are to build on those sorts of developments, that requires a massive and mammoth change of direction from us all. And I just wonder, particularly over the last year or so, the difficulties which we have for example in relation to the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and the almost political paralysis we are experiencing at the moment in Northern Ireland are not unrelated to these things we are discussing. Because, at the time of the Good Friday Agreement and certainly during our deliberations in Dublin Castle at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, we did look in many ways at, for example, the obstacles to peace and reconciliation in the Republic, probably some of the things that are alluded to in this report Peacebuilding in the Republic.[Irish Peace and Reconciliation Platform, 2001]. I think there was a very honest and open appraisal of our past and the mistakes which nationalist Ireland had made towards the unionist community, and the mistakes which were made between North and South, and an acceptance that partition, for example, couldn’t be reduced to a very simplistic notion of British evil intent towards the country – that there were real social, political and economic bases to all of these things.
“And central to all that was an understanding that there was more to Irishness than simply an “Ireland united Gaelic and free”. I think that was what Dr. Farry alluded to as well in his opening comments – that there was a very one-dimensional approach to our understanding of our past and the perpetuation of that over many years – that a new direction had to be undertaken. Therefore things like the Warrington Project and the Trim project were good but unfortunately they remain the exceptions and they are not the accepted norm.
New understanding and openness: “So when I think about teaching our shared history, it demands a leap of faith, it demands an acceptance of a new understanding of what we mean by Irishness, of what we mean by our own identity, and how we understand the course of Irish history. And unless we have that sort of openness, unless we have that sort of acceptance that there are other viewpoints, I don’t think we are ever going to progress on the teaching of our shared history. From that point of view the prospects of achieving any sort of success in this area must be very dim indeed. Because, as Dr. Farry said, we need to move away from the “unconscious ignorance”, and that is really the biggest obstacle we have towards the question of our shared history of teaching.
“At the very least what we must strive for is an inclusive curriculum, one that includes other viewpoints and interpretations. But how can we ever hope to achieve that without the leap of faith I am talking about, when, from my own experiences, as someone who trained in a Catholic teacher training college in Belfast, never mind the prospects for a shared teaching in the schools, we had little or no contact with the State Protestant teacher training college at Stranmillis. In fact there was an almost hostility, if the truth were told, between the two institutions. And any attempts to create any sort of integration, any co-operation even on a limited basis, even on an academic basis, was certainly not encouraged. And opportunities which existed there for co-operation on a common history curriculum were certainly discouraged. That is an indication of the serious task which confronts us.
Education for Mutual Understanding (EMU): “There have been some small but significant advances within Northern Ireland on this front, I have to say. The Department of Education in Northern Ireland did introduce a scheme known as “Education for Mutual Understanding” where schools across the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland were encouraged to develop relationships on a school to school basis. Whereas that has had some limited success – it has very much focussed more on personal relationships between the children and between the schools, rather than any attempt to come to a common understanding of the past, or a common approach to the teaching of history, or even an agreement that certain topics could be co-operated on on a collaborative basis. Because the curriculum in the State schools and the curriculum in the maintained Catholic schools in the North are very exclusive indeed.
No acceptable agreed version of history: “The difficulty which confronts us is that what has passed for history in recent years has merely been the perpetuation of myths – has all too often been used as a means to justify the present. I think we also have to accept that there is no acceptable agreed version of history. It can be tempting, at gatherings like this, and it has happened at political meetings that I have attended, that we look and say, right, “the problem is history – if we could crack this nut we would have it all solved, and we would be well on our way to a better future”.
“We can perhaps be well on our way to a better future, but I don’t think we should build up our hopes so high to thinking that it is just a problem of the versions of history. We must accept that there is no agreed version of history – that differing interpretations of history are very valid. I think the objective for us must be to ensure that no interpretation or viewpoint is excluded from the curriculum, which has happened and which has led to the very damaging effects which we are now experiencing and which present themselves now as difficulties to reconciliation.
Building on the positive: “I think if we look for the positive – the positive is that we do live in a world that is growing increasingly smaller, we do have more experience now, more contact through the European Union, there is a growing awareness that our sense of Irishness and identity is broader than the very narrow understandings that we have had in the past. It is in that direction we must look – we must look to build upon that. And I think the manner in which we can have a shared teaching of our history is only when we make the political leap of faith ourselves – begin with ourselves and recognise that our understandings of the past have been erroneous, that they have been used to perpetuate myths, and once we accept that I think we may be well on our way to turning history around from being a thing which has kept us all prisoners of the past to something which can open up better understanding and relationships between the different sections of our communities. Thank you”
Chair (David Robertson): “Thank you very much indeed, John Lowry. Our opening two speakers I think are agreed on much of what should be done in the teaching of history – that it should be de-mythologised, that the past must not be used to justify the present. I’m sure we would all agree with that. But I would like to suggest from the Chair to our two remaining speakers that there might be a credibility gap between aspiration and implementation. For example, if I were to plonk down on the table a Junior Certificate history book widely used throughout the Irish Republic today, there are yawning gaps in it, appalling yawning gaps. For example we have a huge series of chapters in it on the part of Irish history which goes from 1890 to 1923, but left out in the middle completely, except for three lines – three lines are devoted to the 200, 000 soldiers from Ireland who went to fight in the Great War, of whom 35,000 lost their lives. They get three lines. There are yawning gaps. There is a great gap between what we hope we are teaching and what we are teaching. May I suggest secondly to our remaining speakers – are we training our teachers properly? Even if we had a magnificent text book would the teachers actually be teaching it in the way in which the first two speakers have asked them to do so?
“I am a pragmatist – I looked at the last year’s Leaving Certificate History papers both at Ordinary level and at Honours level: it would be perfectly possible for a candidate to gain a grade A1 in that paper without having to make a single reference whatever to any minority tradition within the Republic of Ireland or even to the existence of unionism anywhere in Ireland at any time. in Irish history.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pleasure that I call upon Dr. Kenneth Milne to address you
3). Dr. Kenneth Milne (former head of Church of Ireland College of Education, and Chairman of the Irish Society for Archives)
“Mr. Chairman, anyone who has been involved however marginally with attempting to promote reconciliation on this island is only too well aware of the difficulties it presents. You can’t just say to people “be reconciled” – there’s much more to it than that. And similarly, if you look at the teaching of history in schools, at whatever level, and seek to promote “empathy” – a word now employed in connection with new approaches to teaching history – well, empathy isn’t something that grows on trees. Developing it is easier said than done.
History teaching North and South: “Whatever the difficulties of implementing new approaches to the teaching of history, there is a welcomechange in the environment in which the schools are working. As we’ve heard, in the early years of this State, history was taught at primary level in order to convince children of the value of the Gaelic tradition. The teaching of history was a handmaid to the teaching of the Irish language and other attempts to make Ireland not only free but Gaelic, through the schools. …. Whereas in Northern Ireland, in the early years of that State, history was expected to pinpoint the contribution made by Northern Ireland to the development of the British Empire.
“There was a difference, however, between how things operated north and south. In the maintained, largely Catholic, system in the North, history continued to be taught as it had traditionally been with Ireland at the centre, whereas in the State schools it was in fact the imperial tradition that got attention. In the South, while there were not two systems as in the North, the State, while making few concessions to the minority where the language itself was concerned, was sensitive to the fact that Protestant schools might wish to have their own textbooks (approved by the Department), and the General Synod of the Church of Ireland stepped into the breach by commissioning a two-volume History of Ireland by a Miss Casserley, a Dublin secondary teacher of impeccable Church of Ireland credentials while also very Irish in her sympathies. …. So it was that Church of Ireland children in the South became acquainted, at least in outline, with the history of their country. Large numbers of people of the Unionist tradition in Northern Ireland have been taught very little Irish history. This, it seems to me, puts them at a distinct disadvantage and can also mean that when faced with tendentious interpretations of the Irish past, they are ill-equipped to confront them.History used to promote patriotism: “So in both parts of the island, history was used to promote patriotism. And this was not a unique Irish weakness at all. At the time you had a Boys’ Own Paper attitude to British history in England and you had continental countries where the moral purpose of history-teaching was interpreted as the inculcation of a certain kind of nationalistic patriotism. Indeed history was seen as little more than propaganda in the totalitarian states then emerging in Europe.
New environment: “Today we work in a different environment. In the North you have Education for Mutual Understanding – though there are elements in the community there who are less than enthusiastic about that part of the curriculum. In the Republic you have an emphasis on the part that an understanding of history can play in cultivating “empathy”. This was made clear by the Government in the White Paper which preceded the Education Act of 1998, and can be seen in the proposals for new first and second level history courses.
Revisionism: “Of course, with talk of new approaches, comes the spectre of “revisionism” that alarms some people, who fear that the historical baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. Indeed the very word “revisionist” is frequently used in a pejorative sense. And perhaps some revisionists have trailed their coats. But it has to be faced that there are newly discovered facts, there are new interpretations, and there are new insights, all of which must be brought to bear on the teaching of history, if, like other subjects, it is to be a developing one. We do, however, have to guard against one particular danger. We have to take care not to use what we would like to regard as our more enlightened attitudes in the same political sense that we criticise past generations for adopting.
Prejudice: “Those who question the moral purpose of teaching history, as in fact now we do, wonder can you possibly be objective? And I don’t think you can. I was taught by one of the greatest revisionists and Irish historians, T.W. Moody, who himself was a disciple of a great Belfast historian, Todd. In fact the new history in Ireland came from Belfast, came from Queen’s. And people like Moody would say to us: “there will be bias, and there will be colour, what you don’t want is prejudice” and prejudice is where you distort things. But bias is a legitimate thing, it may sound very unfashionable to say so but in fact it is.
Empathy: “Which brings me back to that word “empathy”. Attempting to enable pupils to see situations from other points of view, not just their own. In this, we are very often trying to reconcile folk memories, which all of us have. And if anyone in the 26 counties thinks that we don’t have folk memories that at times are tinged with sectarianism then they haven’t been actually listening and watching the society they live in. So therefore there is in fact a complicated task ahead of us in that we are trying to shift our perception and this is very different from the world I grew up in. Like most Dublin youngsters I went to the local fleapit on Saturday afternoons, to see the serial that was on, and we cheered for the cowboys and we booed for the Indians, but I was taught at school that the people who took your land were the baddies, and those who lost their land were the goodies, but we never seemed to see it that way. Nor I think in the teaching of European history have Irish schools shown any particular empathy with the Incas and people like that.
Developing the skills of the historian: “So we have a long way to go … but I really do believe that youngsters today are inclined to be more critical than my generation was, and this is something history can help to develop. It’s not a question I think, altogether, of letting them see two points of view – that will emerge.
You are trying to help children to develop the skills of the historian .. to show them what the evidence is for something and then to help them to draw conclusions from it. Those are the skills. In other words, what we’re trying to do is make them critical, and that is the important thing. Critical young minds: “You often hear it said that the ancienregime in Northern Ireland was destroyed because the minority were educated, and there’s a lot of truth in that – People’s Democracy and all that kind of movement. People don’t seem also to understand that the ancien regime here is being undermined by education. A lot of the criticism in society that we have today is because young people are being educated to a very high level… this is one of the wonderful things about our education as it is developing: that there are very critical young minds who wouldn’t stand for the kind of things that we had to stand for when we were growing up: the idea that you couldn’t have jazz on Radio Eireann – just try something like that! And I can think of things more sensitive than that…..
Empathy: understanding the past: “… The Siege of Derry evokes a response in some circles, whereas the Siege of Limerick does not. And vice versa. If only we can get both perspectives to see what was at stake in each case. Not so easy to archive, where the communities of our own day may still see themselves as at risk in a continuum of the dangers and pressures under which their ancestors of past centuries lived. Which is why we just can’t draw a line under the past and forget it. It is critical to our self-understanding today.”
There has been a great deal of talk in recent years about apologising for the past – I honestly don’t see the point of it. .. But what is important is to understand the past, to understand why people see you the way they see you.
Teaching: Sometimes I wonder whether, in one respect at least, we are falling into the same mistake that we attribute to our forebears: expecting the school to remedy all the ills of society. Teaching history along the lines that is recommended today calls for skills. The text-books may be fine, but how do you teach the kind of skills that are talked about so much nowadays? Which is why teachers need so much support of one kind or another in doing all this. I think there is a recognition of this in official circles, and at primary level the introduction of the new school curriculum is receiving a great deal of thought and practical help, much more than ever happened in the past.
Coming to terms with our history: “The Church of Ireland, to which I belong, has had to do a great deal of heart searching – not before time – in recent years, brought to a head by the Drumcree situation, where at the moment there is in fact a group working to examine to what extent the church accommodates sectarianism. Some hard things have already been said and have to be said. I grew up believing – not really believing, but being told – that my own church had indeed a raw deal in history, whereas down the road, in the Christian Brothers school, people were being told rather differently. The problem is that other people perceive us, and we perceive others in different ways – why is that so? Because that is what determines their attitude towards us. I think just as in recent decades my own church has had to have a good hard look at itself, I think it has come to terms with its history, in a way it never did before … I think it might be just as useful if Irish nationalism did the same exercise of looking into its heart, because the whole point of the Belfast Agreement is to do away with exclusivity. Thank you.”
Chair (David Robertson): “Thank you very much indeed, Dr. Milne. I hope you will forgive me, ladies and gentlemen, if I treat you to a minor anecdote before calling upon our last speaker. As Dr Milne has said, one of the tasks of the teacher is to make certain that both points of view are presented so that the pupil can make up his or her own mind on the issue, based upon the evidence rather than through indoctrination. “Having taught on both sides of the border, about 15 years on each side, I find myself North of the border obliged quite trenchantly to a nationalist viewpoint, to get it across, and vice versa. So when I was in the North, teaching in Enniskillen, I founded a society which included all the schools in Enniskillen, and we met four times a year, and like this we invited guest speakers. That was from 1968-1983 – I’m glad to say it continued after I left. And we had any number of speakers. But I started off quite deliberately by inviting to Enniskillen speakers from south of the border. This led a member of the Board of Governors to complain at a meeting that I was trying to seduce the pupils of Portora into the perils of republicanism! The speaker in question whom I had invited was Dr. Conor Cruise O’Brien!
“Three years ago, when I was trying to teach the period of Irish history known as the Home Rule crisis, I was trying to explain a unionist perspective and I was getting absolutely nowhere. So I launched into a Carson-type oratory, and I beat the air with my fists, and I thumped the table as hard as I could. And all the time I was being watched by a boy in the front row, very closely. His eyes began to narrow, he fixed me with a steely gaze, then he half-rose out of his seat, looking me straight – eyeball to eyeball – and he said “Mr Robertson, are you a unionist?” I felt at that time, ladies and gentlemen, that the wheel had come full circle! When all is over and forgotten, the people of course who can be blamed for our predicament are the politicians. Who better then to answer for the politicians but Ruairi Quinn, leader of the Labour Party…who, I’m sure you will have noticed, was described recently in a quite objective article by his present deputy as the man “best suited to become Taoiseach”
4). Ruairi Quinn. T.D. (Leader of the Labour Party): “Thank you very much, and thanks for the invitation to be with you. We have had three excellent speakers and I hope I can maintain the standard. I want to speak briefly to allow some time for debate and discussion, so please treat my comments not as being simplistic if they are delivered fairly quickly or in a shortened version…
Prejudices: “First let us declare our own prejudices. I believe as a politician from the left, that history should be taught, and that education should be delivered in a particular way – not just to reveal facts as such but also to instil values. I don’t believe that education should be necessarily neutral in that particular sense. So I’m coming with a healthy set of prejudices, hopefully not bigotry, but certainly prejudices.
Unlearning some of our prejudices: “I’ve had to unlearn some of the prejudices that I received. For example – as I said to the Friendly Sons of St Patrick in Washington some years ago at a great big gala dinner – that St Patrick wasn’t an Irishman, that in fact he didn’t even come here voluntarily. He came as a slave, captured by Celtic raiders who abused him for quite some time before he escaped, and that it was only through his own vocation that he came back as a missionary. This was absolute heresy! As far as the Americans were concerned, St Patrick was the quintessential Irishman, and yet they knew the truth of my story once it was told.
Growing up in a house where my father had to leave Northern Ireland in 1939, having got 24 hours notice to get out otherwise he would have been interned (having fought previously in the War of Independence and the subsequent Civil War), I grew up being told that my father’s brother, my uncle John, a hero in our house, was killed by the British. Until slowly, talking to different members of the family, coming of age in the precocious age that you are around 12 or 13, when you’re beginning to tread on the edge of adulthood, hearing my father answer my younger brother’s question, “how did Uncle John die?” My father said the same thing – “he was killed by the British”. I said “daddy that’s not really true” – he was actually shot in the Civil War by an Irish person on the Free State side, and he died of neglect in a hospital from wounds, and my father looked at me with annoyance and said “well it’s the same thing, they started it”.
Colonial tradition: “Another myth that we have to re-examine, and I’m very delighted that somebody referred to it earlier on, this myth that we have in the context of politics, in the context of neutrality, and in the context of our relationship with the Third World – that as a neutral state we have no colonial past. The Irish were willing and enthusiastic builders of the empire, both North and South. Indeed one could very well argue, from a western perspective, that this very building [St. Columban’s College] is a component of the ideological colonial tradition of western Europe in the sense of maintaining a form of missionary activity. We have had missionary orders who in some cases were part and parcel of the colonial administration, and in other cases, we have had certainly on the lay side many many people who didn’t just fight in the British Army per se, but who actively participated in the administration in India and in Africa. The idea that we have no colonial past is simply not true and I think it has to be put in the context of how it happened. The fact that we changed with independence in 1922 are things that need to be recognised.
Concerns about teaching of history: “There are two aspects of the teaching of history that concern me. We’ve had a lot tonight about the teaching of the history of the nation, the national history, and various versions of national history and political development and struggle. While Dr. Farry’s excellent paper talked about the requirements in modern curricula to broaden out the subject matter of teaching history to socio-economic components, I have the impression that the dominant history still is one of the national struggle, and the political struggle. There is no teaching of the history of the Irish working class in our society – it doesn’t exist in any real sense. There is no sense that 1913 was as important if not more important than 1916, from the point of view of where we are today. The absolute reluctance that people have about passing a picket, in the year 2001, to this very day… the strength of conviction that informs that cultural phenomenon goes right back to the strike of 1913 – one of the first seminal all-out strikes in terms of solidarity with other workers.
“There is nowhere in my experience, and this is a prejudice coming from the leader of the Labour Party, there is no attempted Marxist socio-economic analysis as to why Ireland was the way it was… There has always been substantial wealth in this country. The myth was perpetrated certainly on my generation going to school, that we had no natural resources, and that we had no real wealth in the country – we’ve far more wealth now than we had before, but the idea that we had no wealth and that we were a sort of classless society was a total myth.
Official ruralism: “You can go to virtually any county in this country and you will find a rural history museum, you’ll find places showing how rural Ireland was. We have in our National Museum devoted a considerable amount of resources to the folk tradition of Ireland. That is what I have described elsewhere as the official ruralism that dominated the culture of Ireland after 1922 – W.B. Yeats, the Nobel Prizewinner, who in his celebrated poem, “The Lake Isle of Innisfree”, inspired from looking in a window in the middle of London, wrote a poem which was a great hymn to ruralism and to the rural idea. On the other hand you had James Joyce who wrote Ulysses – an ode to cosmopolitan urban living, capturing one day in 1904, the 16th June, in a relatively tiny city – less than 350,000 at the time – the full richness of cosmopolitan urban life was contained in the book of Ulysses. Yet the official ruralism that dominated the 1920s, and led to such things as trying to keep all the family farms on the land, and all of that, excluded with it the history of working-class exploitation and the working-class struggle in this country. I don’t think you can properly understand our history today unless that is put right.
“One of the things I hope to see in the Collins Barracks Museum is a proper exposition of the history of urban Ireland.and the history of working-class struggle, because it simply cannot be found anywhere. In many other countries in Europe you can find histories of the working-class and their particular struggle. It is no less or no more valid than any of the other struggles in our collective history but it simply hasn’t been told, because for too many generations it was denied.
East-West: “I want to turn briefly to another point that I wish to make – that is dealing with the Celtic/Rangers phenomenon which I suppose is topical given the events that have taken place over the last weekend. There is in the context of the Good Friday Agreement not just a necessity on a North/South basis to understand each other’s histories, but on an east-west basis as well.
“One of the most interesting revisionist pieces of history that I have read recently is Norman Davis’ book A History of the Isles. For those of you who may not be familiar with it, it basically takes the conventional traditional history that we have of Britain and Ireland – and it is written as much for a British audience as for an Irish audience – and reconstitutes and relocates a lot of facts and puts them and presents them in a slightly different way. Certainly if you were a Euro-sceptic Conservative supporter of William Hague, you would be horrified to learn that the vernacular language – the mother tongue – of King James was in fact French, and that when he became the first King James of England (having already been King of Scotland) he proposed in 1607 a Union of Scotland and England, and he actually went so far as to design the flag. And it was called the Union Jack, because he signed his name Jacques. He never spoke English with any degree of fluency, and his successors spoke German. So when Hugh Gaitskell and William Hague and John Major talked about defending a 1,000 years of British history, they’re speaking absolute bunkum. It only existed for about 200 years!
“Now just as the British part of these islands has to understand that history in the context of the facts as they are, I believe that there is a great opportunity and a great necessity for the five administrations on these islands, North and South, and the three administrations in Britain – Scotland, Wales and Westminster – to start to create a range of history books, and history texts, and history teaching aids that will remove the experience we have had whereby my history is a series of victories, and the victories are, if you turn them around, a history of your defeats, and vice versa. And that history has to be taught not in a narrow nationalistic sense, but also I believe from a socio-economic point of view. In some of the more extreme comments made during the 150th anniversary of the Famine, there was a perception – and this is certainly running right through the pages of Tim Pat Coogan’s book Wherever Green was Worn – that in some way or other the Famine was an act of conscious genocide perpetrated by the English on the Irish. It simply was not, and we know that from our own knowledge. But what happened in the Famine, for narrow liberal economic reasons, the clearances in Scotland was a similar socio-economic experience which has to be understood, but some of the extreme nationalist thinking in Scotland presents the clearances in Scotland.as some kind of nationalist act by the English against the Scots.
“So there is a need to understand one another’s national histories in a complementary way so that we don’t perpetrate the Celtic/Rangers animosity which is undoubtedly there, because our histories are interwoven so inextricably with that of Scotland, England and Wales. I think we need to look at it on a more widespread and collective basis, including the socio-economic factors as well as the nationalistic factors.
Resources for teachers: “The last point I want to make is this. All of those things, that I have said, however desirable they may be – and we could argue about the content and the form – none of them will be realised unless we actually devote considerable resources to helping the teachers to move in this direction. One point Dr Farry made, and I would fully agree with him, is that we are overloading our primary education system and our classroom to try and do an awful lot of things, at a time when we are not giving the sort of resources that the education system needs. So simply proclaiming a new curriculum or calling into being a whole raft of new textbooks, which I would welcome, is of little value unless we actually devote the resources to the teachers themselves. We are not going to achieve the objective we would like to achieve no matter how very desirable it may appear. Thank you very much.”
Chair (David Robertson): “Thank you very much indeed…. Ruairi Quinn spoke particularly about the period of 1913, how inadequately that was treated in our textbooks, and other speakers have mentioned what they feel should be done about the methodology of the teaching of history, and there is clearly much common ground among the four speakers, but I wonder if anyone of us on the platform has perhaps omitted to notice one thing – the baby is rapidly going out with the bath water.
“Our speakers have referred to overloading of the curriculum – indeed it is, schools are now expected to teach everything, absolutely everything. One consequence is that history is not compulsory at junior certificate level, and at Leaving Certificate level it is now a minor subject. Something like 12% of Leaving Certificate students take history. In the North it is compulsory at GCSE level but it is not compulsory beyond that. And as I have indicated to you, in both jurisdictions it would be quite possible for the teacher to go through the two or three-year course without having to make a single reference to minority traditions.
I now propose to open up the matter to questions from the floor.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS (Summaries only)
Questions 1-4:
Q.1. John Keaveney [Kilbride teacher]: Whether history teaching was responsible for attitudes during the civil rights movement and the violence afterwards: “When the civil rights movement changed into the violence of the 1970s did our history teaching not almost prepare for that? I think it was inevitable given the history teaching taught in the forties, fifties and sixties. It was very hard for a young male republican educated Irishman not to get involved in violence… Would the panel think of teaching peace studies as a means of unifying history – a method of getting away from a one-sided history?
Q. 2. [Navan teacher]: Re declining importance of history in schools: “The problem in schools is that the amount of time being dedicated to the teaching of history is too short. Up to Junior Cert, there are only three classes per week, each one lasting for 35-40 minutes, and the course is extremely long, the books are very inaccurate. How do we reconcile the importance of the whole topic of teaching history, understanding our past and preparing for our future, and trying to bring about reconciliation, in relation to this downplay of the subject by the education system?
Q.3 Re teaching of Irish language: “What is the panel’s view of the fact that the Irish state spends £350 million a year on teaching the Irish language, essentially to placate a certain branch of the southern Irish establishment?”
Re Leaving Cert examination: “if you take Irish history for the Leaving Certificate, you are expected to write 5 essays in a two-hour period. How can you expect to teach anybody anything at all if they are expected to reproduce it all in a two-hour exam?”
Chair – David Robertson: “Just a point of information here, I’m sure you are all aware that the present Leaving Certificate history course is in its death throes and will be examined for the last time in 2002. We are awaiting with bated breath the new syllabus which will involve documents to study and research [Editor’s note: see draft syllabus reproduced in Appendix of this report].
Q. 4. Role of cultural institutions: “Just a question in relation to an exhibition running at the Ulster Museum, looking at identity…. Are the panel aware of this exhibition? And what role do our cultural institutions have in the teaching of our shared history?”
Replies to questions 1-4:
Dr. Michael Farry: Re: Q. 1 – “When you look at the way the history of the War of Independence in Ireland is treated, in that you have the 1918 election, you have the beginnings of, if you like, peaceful resistance, and then on the very day that the Dail meets you have Dan Breen and his men killing a couple of policemen for some sticks of gelignite in Co. Tipperary, and from that the received wisdom is that the violence spread, and that it was the violence that eventually forced the British to the table. Now I would contend with that. If you examine what actually happened during the War of Independence – for example, the activities of the Dail Local Government Department which took over almost completely from the British Local Government Department, and caused enormous difficulties for the British in collecting taxes, rates and all that kind of thing, that probably impacted a lot more than the killing of those policemen. But the received wisdom was that a peaceful resistance to Britain changed into a violent resistance which was successful in bringing them to the table and getting, as people would say, the limited amount of self-government, and so on. So I think that many people would say the very same happened in the North of Ireland, in that a peaceful civil rights movement inevitably, they would say, turned into violence. Now to say that history teaching made this inevitable is probably going a little bit too far, but certainly could be justified on those grounds … what people had learned about the War of Independence. The whole way history was taught, especially in primary schools, was that the resistance to Britain was violent over all those seven centuries of violent reaction against Britain, and in the end it was successful.
Re peace studies – “The questioner mentioned “one-sided history”. That isn’t history – the teaching of history as against one-sided history can only do good.
Re the Irish language: “I think inevitably that money is going to be reduced. Without doubt it has failed. Without doubt teachers have felt and have felt for quite a long time that unrealistic expectations have been put on them from the foundation of the State, and from the beginning of this policy of restoring the Irish language originally, and then the policy of bilingualism, that too much reliance reliance was placed on schools. We in primary schools in particular have seen so many different programmes brought in, we’ve been brought to in-service days, we’ve been told “this is the way we’re going to teach Irish, this is the way we’re going to be successful”. And of course it isn’t successful, and it doesn’t matter what method you use, the method is not the point. At the moment it is impossible. Having said that, if you look at surveys – and you know how important surveys are in politics, as a certain Meath man found out quite recently – you see that quite a number of Irish people are still vaguely in favour of the restoration of the Irish language, and the teaching of Irish. It doesn’t impinge on them, it does on teachers and on pupils but not on them.”
Dr. Kenneth Milne: Re history teaching and events in N. Ireland – “There was a recognition in this State that the way in which 1916 was marked in 1966 was perhaps conducive to a certain amount of “glorification” of violence. People would take from that point in time the growing questioning among educationalists as to how we taught Irish history. I have to say at the same time that Northern Ireland at that time was a society very ripe for reform. When unionists – and I know many of them – at the time would say “What is wrong with our society? There’s no need for reform”. And then there came a whole string of reforms, and a whole string of reports, the Cameron Report, this, that and the other. So that I think it was almost inevitable that things would break out into something more than passive resistance. But to blame the violent people for the violence is of itself not the complete picture.
Decline in teaching of history: “I lament as much as anybody the decline in the teaching of history especially at a time when the quality of what is available is so high, and I hope the new Leaving Certificate course will prove that to be the case. But what can you do?
Irish language: “It’s yourselves, it’s public opinion – it is a democracy. I was head of a College of Education. I know better than most people here the part that Irish plays in the State, the part it doesn’t play in the State. But you have the strange situation that In England and Wales the only compulsory subject in the school curriculum really until they brought in this national curriculum, was religion, and the only compulsory subject here is Irish, and those two subjects haven’t particularly benefited from State support! Parents are partners now in education, and public opinion is nervous… It’s astonishing, but public opinion in England would still say “we rather like religion in the schools” so long as nobody asks them to go to church! And here we say “it’s nice to have Irish so long as you don’t expect us to speak it!” There’s a similarity there.
Cultural institutions: “I think they have made great strides. I think, for example, the City Museum in Waterford is a most marvellously balanced account of medieval and early modern Ireland… Monaghan, which is a tremendous local museum, had a very elaborate exhibition on the Orange Order a couple of years ago. So there is a lot happening. And it’s interesting that cultural institutions tend to be in the hands of younger people. Major political decisions very often are made by older people who haven’t had the benefit of modern approaches to the teaching of history!”
Ruairi Quinn. T.D. Re drift into violence: “I don’t think that the drift into violence was inevitable from the civil rights – I think it was provoked. There is clear evidence of repressive actions taken by the R.U.C. – you’ve seen the famous Derry riots….the attacks on the People’s Democracy march… But the response to violence and its justification, I certainly wouldn’t have gone along with. I hold to Seamus Mallon’s view that the Good Friday Agreement is really Sunningdale for slow learners. The position that people have arrived at after that long period is not a million miles away from Sunningdale. It’s a much more sophisticated and integrated agreement but the components are there, it’s about power-sharing and reconciliation… I don’t think that you can say that the teaching of our history as such inevitably gave way to the violence that we saw.
Decline in importance of teaching of history: “I am concerned about the time in school for teaching of history. I personally see a great interface between peace studies, civic society, preparing people to be citizens, and the teaching of history, in the context of the European Union and in the context of these islands…. But I think we neglect at our peril civic formation in our society if we are simply producing graduates for the labour market at the behest of the IDA, or the IT firms who love our education system because it produces people they can employ very readily. The teaching of history is central to our education system.
Irish language: “The Irish language is a serious problem. I think there is a certain “emperor has no clothes” issue about this. If you have read the book by Declan Kiberd called Inventing Ireland – and he writes from the perspective of the Gaeilgeoir – he effectively asserts that the Irish didn’t lose their language, or it wasn’t taken from them by the British, as in the old myth. His assertion is that the Irish consciously gave up speaking Irish. And aren’t we very lucky that we did? We would be like the Finns, or the Estonians, or the Hungarians today, if we were speaking Gaelic, in terms of our relative position economically. In Brian Friel’s play Translations there is that scene where the young girl needs to learn English to go across to America, because Irish would be no use to her there.
English-speaking as economic asset: “One of the main factors for our economic position today, and you’ll never see it cited in any government history or government explanation … but one of the main reasons why we have so much American investment here is because we speak English. It is a major economic asset, and it is not properly recognised.
Time spent teaching Irish in schools: “I think the time factor spent on speaking Irish, particularly in primary schools, is going to have to be reviewed. It requires courage politically to query it, or maybe to replace the teaching of Irish with an Irish cultural component – including things that young people are really interested in. But certainly the cost of it and the opportunity cost that it represents – we are the only country in Europe that doesn’t require the teaching of a foreign language in primary schools. The Spanish Ambassador has told me that he has been trying to engage the Irish Dept. of Education in the teaching of Spanish in primary schools. They have a massive programme in terms of support, finance and so on. Some 30 million people in the United States have Spanish as their primary language. It’s significant that George Bush speaks Spanish, coming from Texas. After Chinese, Spanish is a much more widely spoken language than French for example…
Re cultural institutions: “I think they can do far more to present history, and to present our identity ….. There has been a wonderful increase due to the Structural Funds that we receive from the European Commission, with local interpretative centres, and historical and cultural places that exist – a network of such facilities that simply would have been inconceivable twenty or twenty five years ago…
John Lowry: Re: question 1 – drift into violence: “I found the question about the civil rights movement and the inevitability of violence a very interesting one, and a very pertinent one, to the sort of discussions we are having here tonight. Because that is perhaps one of the most misunderstood periods of our most recent Irish history. The reality is that the civil rights movement was not a republican movement, it was not a nationalist movement for the re-unification of the country, it was actually composed of liberal unionists, the tiny Communist Party that existed in Northern Ireland, it was generally a reformist campaign for very limited democratisation of the Northern Ireland state. It actually achieved a great deal – and I would agree with Ruairi. When you look at the achievements of the civil rights movement they are enormous, compared to what we have today. The B Specials were disbanded, the R.U.C. were disarmed, there was a total reorganisation of local government which had been the primary source of discrimination particularly in the allocation of housing. We had the formation of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive .. which has done tremendous work over the past twenty five years, improving housing standards in Northern Ireland. We had the introduction of one-man one-vote, we had the introduction of proportional representation for elections. We had enormous achievements. What set all of that back was the campaign of violence by paramilitaries. And it wasn’t directed at Britain, it wasn’t directed against the British Army, because there were very few British troops even there. In many respects it wasn’t even directed against the R.U.C. If you take Bloody Friday, in 1972, when nine car bombs went off killing numerous people throughout the city of Belfast – they were in bus stations, they were in public houses, they were all over the place. So it’s one of the most misunderstood periods of Irish history.
“There is a small relevance to this here for the current situation, in terms of the Good Friday Agreement. Danny Morrison himself, for example, is on public record as admitting that the Provisional movement is actually a phenomenon of 1969 – the vast majority of them were never in the republican movement. I think this is one of the reasons why Gerry Adams at the moment has been successful in carrying much of the Sinn Fein movement with him, in Northern Ireland, around his ideological U-turns on things like abstentionism for example, taking part in the Stormont Assembly. Because what motivates most Sinn Fein people in Northern Ireland is not a lofty sense of 1798 republicanism but a naked sectarianism, an anti-Protestantism, an anti-Unionism, and I think that this is the reason why that has happened. I don’t think the teaching of history made that inevitable at all.
Re peace studies: “I think we could benefit from peace studies, from civic studies, as a means of improving our situation. Ruairi is quite correct in that.
Reduction in time available for history teaching: “That is connected with the very worrying reduction in the time available for the teaching of history. Because no matter how critical we might be about the teaching of history, I think that history is something we should value and encourage in our schools. It is about ultimately producing good citizens, and raising the level of citizenship within our society, North and South. Probably one of the reasons why subjects like history are being relegated within the school timetable is this crude economic view that we simply produce robots to take part in the manufacturing or the IT technology.. That is a very narrow blinkered view of our society. It is one that leads to a crude individualism, a level of greed and disrespect for others in society which we can relate to many of the social problems which we have. There was a major study recently which revealed that among all the young people going through university.. that survey found that for many of those young people their simple concerns were getting the exams done and getting out and getting jobs. Very few of them ever read books, or had any concern about what was going on in society. And I think that is directly related to the worrying trends and the reduction of time given to history teaching. History has to be encouraged as does the study of civic studies and others.
Irish language: “If the present system is failing, then another system ought to be looked at. I think the Irish language is still a worthy cause to hang on to. I wouldn’t have a fetish about it. I’m not saying that we try to turn the whole country into an Irish language speaking country in a set period of time. But I think that educationally it would be wrong to abandon the Irish language wholesale, and if the present methods are not being successful in at least maintaining the level of the language that we have, than we should really look at other methods.
Cultural institutions: “I haven’t been to the exhibition at the Ulster Museum. It is the latest in a whole series of exhibitions which have been going on at the Ulster Museum in particular which have not received the sort of attention they deserve. If we had more such activity from places like that it would do a lot to improve the sort of things we have been talking about here tonight.”
Chair (David Robertson): “May I just add one comment – I’m looking forward to seeing the exhibition in the Ulster Museum at half-term… but perhaps there should be more interchange of exhibitions. The one at the Ulster Museum ideally should come down to the museum at Collins Barracks, and I don’t know how many people here have been to the Somme Heritage Museum between Newtownards and Bangor which is a wonderful tribute to Irishmen from the four provinces of Ireland who served in the Great War. These are gems in our history and they should be shared…
Questions 5-8
Q. 5 [Duleek resident]. Re name of State: “There are two Irelands – the geographic Ireland, which in the context of these islands is called “Great Britain and Ireland” … and the political Ireland, which is known as the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” and “Ireland” There is an entity known as “Ireland” which has an international boundary with N. Ireland, an international boundary with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is a fact that most people seem to miss… Mr. Chairman you made a slight mistake yourself – you referred to Ireland as the “Irish Republic” – that is repugnant to the people of this country. This is not the Irish Republic, this is Ireland … I find it very unfortunate that people from London …always refer to it as the “Irish Republic”, and people from N. Ireland refer to it as “Eire”, which is simply the Gaelic word for the whole island. On the other side you have Gerry Adams referring to N. Ireland as the “Six Counties”, and RTE referring to N. Ireland as “the North”…. When someone refers to my country as other than its proper name I assume they are speaking from ignorance, and I’m not offended. But when someone refers to it by these terms deliberately to be offensive, then I am offended. And I expect our friends in N. Ireland, when they hear Northern Ireland referred to as the “Six Counties” or as “The North” presumably have the same attitude. …
Q. 6. Re working-class history: “As someone who is not a nationalist and someone who is not a unionist, but a socialist, I would just like to ask: the people who draw up our history, do they purposely omit the working class struggle, particularly in Ireland?
Q. 7. [Drogheda primary school teacher] “I found much of what I heard tonight to be very aspirational – developing empathy, understanding and respecting different traditions, working towards inclusivity, looking to teach pupils the skills of the historian, developing skills to interpret evidence, the emphasis on process, ensuring that history is not used to justify the present. I just wonder if there are any suggestions by way of a practical sense as to how teachers can be taught, for example, changing the way they teach history … or that monies would be put into teaching teachers to teach history in the new way… Also my ability to empathise was tested when I heard the earlier speaker refer to the Irish language in such pejorative terms. There was a Romanian priest in our house last week who spoke 10 languages. I felt the mere 3 languages in our household were a reflection on our education system. …
Q. 8. [Navan resident] Re Irish identity : Irish identity has been seen in terms of victimisation – how does the panel think we should redefine our Irishness in terms of the new Irish within our country at the moment? I’m looking at the many nationalities who have decided to come into this country .. our immigrants, and in particular one section of the community that has never heard of their history, which has resulted in much prejudice and contempt – the travelling community. As someone who works with travellers, there is a lot of ignorance being thrown around, a lot of arrogance, that feeds into the whole prejudice of society…..
Replies to questions 5-8:
John Lowry: Re describing the State: “In relation to the first question, in terms of how people describe the country and parts of the country, it’s very hard to separate that out from the political question because in many respects the choice of language, the description which people apply when they’re speaking about the country, very often reflects a particular political position. And therefore, for example, very many nationalists refuse to use the term “Northern Ireland”, because, quite frankly, they don’t recognise the legitimacy of Northern Ireland..
Questioner – “What about the Belfast Agreement?”
John Lowry: “This is one of the challenges.. ..some people are only now realising the implications of the Belfast Agreement. I think Ruairi was right when he said it was a more sophisticated agreement than Sunningdale. But, yes, the principle of consent implicitly within the Belfast Agreement means there is an acceptance of two states within the island of Ireland. We may have agreed a mechanism whereby that situation may change, but the reality is that the Belfast Agreement has recognised the legitimacy of the two states on the island of Ireland. The use of the term “the North of Ireland” is an even more erroneous one…. at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, Neil Blaney took great exceptions to the use of the word “the North of Ireland” because he said “I know you are not talking about me in Donegal!” … The “six Counties” is another terms loaded with political baggage, so it’s very hard to separate out.
Re history of working-class: “… yes, as Ruairi has said, the established historians, the dominant ethos has omitted the role of the working-class, but indeed also the role of working-class organisations and working-class people even in the struggle for independence, has been written out. I’ve seen at very many meetings … strong nationalists, who would describe themselves as republicans, singing the praises of James Connolly, and if someone told them afterwards that he was a Marxist, they almost had a heart attack…
Re discussion being too aspirational: “that’s a fair criticism, but we have to recognise what the problem is, before we can change it. But I think, in fairness, Dr Farry and others did also make the point that no matter how good our textbooks were … a lot depends on the teachers themselves, and that’s not a reflection on teachers….
“What we do require is a revolution in the universities and the teacher training colleges, and a recognition there at the outset that the thinking behind this whole new approach to the teaching of history is firmly rooted within the teacher training colleges and the universities themselves and with that a degree of in-service training for teachers.
Re changing sense of Irish identity: “this was something implicit in the thinking behind the Belfast Agreement as well, and certainly it came out at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. There is a recognition now that Irishness is not the old nationalist “Ireland united Gaelic and free” – that there are hugely different aspects of our Irishness, for all sorts of reasons.
“I think the working through of that has not yet happened, but there is a slow but growing recognition that implications of that both socially and politically are enormous. Like the omission of the working-class, the treatment of the Travelling Community is also an example of how we can turn the other eye. We like to have this romantic notion of Irish people to be very wholesome and without prejudice, but in fact … the growth of racism within the country as well is an alarming development and should alert us to the fact that we do carry a lot of baggage ourselves and that within ourselves as a nation there is a lot of prejudice, a lot of racism, a lot of bias, that we are not one homogenous happy family….
Ruairi Quinn: Re descriptions of the State: “Since the Good Friday Agreement, and even before that, the political reality has changed. I certainly describe myself as someone coming from the Republic of Ireland – I use the phrase “Republic of Ireland”. I also use “Northern Ireland”.. I’m conscious that words like the “Free State” and “the Six Counties” are intended to be pejorative. There is a problem also for the British… there is frequently a lack of clarity. A lot of people confuse Englishness with Britishness. I certainly think that following the Good Friday Agreement and the ending of the national question – the national question has been resolved as far as I’m concerned, in the sense that the Good Friday Agreement accepts the position as it is, but, no more than any other generation, we can’t lock the future and prevent change and evolution, but we have set down the basis as to what way that change can take place, and it will take place on a non-violent and democratic basis. So I consciously describe myself as someone coming from the Republic of Ireland
Questioner: “Would you recognise that the word “Ireland” is the word recognised by the EU and the UN?
Ruairi Quinn: “I accept that that is the case, and I accept in the context of telling people where I am from, I am rather proud of the fact that it is a Republic, and I like the word “republic”. It also clarifies what part of Ireland you come from…..
Re working class struggle: “any of you who saw the “Seven Ages” programme on RTE – it was an excellent programme … but the entire labour movement was written out of it entirely. Stalin couldn’t have done a better job in terms of revisionism! It just didn’t exist. … It wasn’t that Sean O Mordha was as such biased – he was reflecting the history as he understood it himself… But it is a considerable problem..
Re Irish language: “Whatever about people’s attitudes to the Irish language, for or against, we would have to say after seventy years the policy of teaching it as a second language has not been successful, and I think has to be looked at… It simply is not achieving the objectives which were set for it. It’s probably the most spectacular failure in our education system going back over 70 years, in terms of what was set out to be achieved and what is actually there. If it was any other policy in our society it would come under great scrutiny, but there’s a certain sense of the sacred cow about it, you simply cannot ask questions without being immediately accused of not being properly Irish, or not being nationalistic… I say this as someone who has a particular gra for the Irish language.. and see it as an integral part of a multicultural Ireland, but certainly we have to look at how it is being taught at the present time….And for those people who refer to the multiplicity of gaelscoileanna – there are quite a number of them around the country – the reasons for that are quite different. The pupil/teacher ratios in gaelscoileanna are much more favourable in many cases, not all but certainly in the urban areas in my experience …. and secondly, the parents perceive the teachers to be far more enthusiastic and far more committed than primary teachers in the main schools… That may not be a pleasant thing to say, I’m simply recounting the perception of parents…
Re changing our identity: “I think this country’s identity is rapidly changing. I regard myself as a European of Irish nationality. If we have … 350,000 extra people coming to this country, half of whom will be returning Irish people, the other half coming from many different parts of Europe and from outside, then that change is going to occur. And we do have problems of racism – we’re no better or no worse than anybody else, it’s just that we never had to deal with this ourselves. But when you look at the Irish in America for example, and the Irish-Americans… I’ve done a test recently, a humorous sort of test. If you ask an Irish-American who you would regard as the most famous Irish-American singer or actor, or comedy actor, you get names like Bing Crosby etc., and you say “what about Ella Fitzgerald?” They say, “she’s black, she’s not Irish”. Or Eddie Murphy the black actor – there is no such thing as a black Irish-American! … So I think we have to learn from other European countries and not repeat their mistakes… but it’s going to change in a world that’s changing anyway because of globalisation, and because of modern communications.”
Dr. Kenneth Milne: Re descriptions of the State: “I get mad when I hear people talk about the “Eire Government” – the Belfast Newsletter used to be very strong on that … but you have to admit it’s what we have on our stamps, and our coins, and you couldn’t really blame a foreigner .. The Constitution is a little bit ambiguous about the word Eire actually. Mr. Quinn mentioned how Yeats had represented a certain class maybe, and in another way so did Joyce. Could I put in a word for O’Casey? I was told once that O’Casey immortalised the plain people of Dublin, so somebody has done them justice.
Re aspirational nature of discussion: “Certainly everything we said was aspirational…. I recognise this. That is why I was hesitant in many of the things I said. But the programme of induction for the new curriculum, which is going to be a very slow business as teachers know only too well – I think it will be trying to see how do you translate these aspirations into classroom practice, and there will be meetings and there will be opportunities. We heard earlier how the 1971 curriculum really failed – it was totally aspirational, and there was no work for teachers in it. But it is very much hoped that this new curriculum will receive adequate support in that sense.
Re identity: “the best thing we can do is to enable people who wish to be both Irish and British to be that. We have been very exclusive, we made it very difficult. I know members of my own family living in the North who when I was very young called themselves Irish but who wouldn’t dream of it now. We made Irish consonant with a particular kind of Irishness… but there are people who, like the Welsh and the Scottish, want to be British as well. … Nobody suspects all this subversion that there is in that Agreement!”
Dr. Michael Farry: Re descriptions of the State: “… Today in my work, something went wrong with a computer, and I rang a support line which happened to be at Harrogate in England, and when I was giving my address, I said “Ireland” and he said “which part of Ireland, is that Southern Ireland?” So I said the “Republic of Ireland” – that is how I would usually call my country when dealing with people from outside.
Re socialism and the working-class: “James Connolly is obviously a good example. Another good example would be Michael Davitt, where detailed discussion of his life is given up to the time of the Land War, but after that he is completely forgotten, his great involvement with the Labour Party in Ireland and of course in Britain is completely forgotten. One of the reasons obviously is because the great biography of him by Moody also ends around the same time. Another reason is of course this whole business of “Labour must wait” during the War of Independence – Labour were asked, if you like, to hold on until we get independence and then in this wonderful ideal Ireland which will rise from the ashes, labour and the working-class will get everything it’s owed. So that’s another reason. I hope my book on the Civil War laid to rest one false myth and that is the myth that the working-class supported the republicans during the Civil War, this has been one of the myths going around. I did very detailed study on Co. Sligo, the working class and the poorer parts of the county. I went through, say, people who joined the Free State Army, people who were interned on the other side, to see if one of them came from the lower socio-economic groups, and they did not. In fact if anything it was the other way around. The Free State Army was composed of more lower socio-economic status people and those who were interned contained more from the middle and upper socio-economic status people. That I hope lays to rest that myth.
Ruairi Quinn: “Including Countess Markievicz”
Dr. Farry: “Right. And I think one of the problems is that over the years the republican movement has tried to drag in the labour movement, and to say our aims are the same, when obviously they were not.”
Re criticism that discussion aspirational: “I wonder. When I went to school,l the Battle of Clontarf and the Vikings – they were all the nasties. That great poem about Brian Boru “standing out for Erin’s glory”… that is all changed. I came across a textbook recently which was published about 20 years ago which dealt with the Vikings in a very different way. It gives extracts from manuscripts …Irish and French manuscripts saying much the same thing, describing the rape and pillage of course. It also gave extracts from sagas from the Viking lands which painted a completely different picture of the Vikings. And it said “well, why would they say this, why would they say that?” It didn’t say “make up your mind, you have to decide on one side or the other”. The thing is that different people have different perspectives. And of course Vikings are safely a long time ago, but the same thing could be done about the Treaty, about the War of Independence, the Troubles in the North. You can look at more sides than one, and it’s a matter of being able to provide those source materials – extracts from writings, extracts from speeches and so on……….
Re our own identity: “it’s a myth that there is an Irish identity – it always was a myth. It arose from the rise of the nation-states, whenever they arose, the French Revolution, that time – you had to make people believe they belonged to France, instead of, say, belonging to Brittany. I have a friend, he’s a Breton, he belongs to Brittany, he doesn’t belong to France – Normandy, Brittany belong to France but in a sense it is not a real identity. And the same with Ireland. In the past it was more homogenous … and it’s changing now with people coming in from abroad, but even in the past there was never a single Irish identity. This is a myth, and history, the history that I spoke about, the history that was being taught post 1922 helped to try to make the ideal person, you know, the farmer who spoke Irish, dances at the crossroads and so on. There was also this terrible thing about the national costumes – that always made me feel very very strange. The Spanish National Costume – Irish National Costume – I have never seen anyone dressed in Irish national costume except at Irish dancing, so in a sense history, and especially the more modern way of looking at history, should explore all that.
There are many many Irish identities, and it’s not just working-class, there’s feminism, and even within republicanism, within the history of women in Ireland, there are all different strands. There are many different strands even within the working-class – rural working-class and urban working-class. There’s a myriad of different identities all coming together. In a sense it doesn’t make an Irish identity. You’ll probably find that a rural worker in Ireland may have more in common with a rural worker in England, and so on. That’s what shared history is about – the history of Ireland is the shared history of all those different strands.”
Chair (David Robertson): “Ladies and gentlemen, before I close the meeting, I thought you might like to end on an optimistic note with an insight into the new Leaving Certificate history syllabus. Just two sentences from it which I think sum up the best of what our speakers have said tonight. “History should provide our children with an insight into other ways of life and into other ways of thinking and it should enable our students to make their own judgments based upon the evidence which they have studied.”
Closing words and thanks: Rev. Canon John Clarke, Rector of Navan: “On behalf of the Meath Peace Group, it is my great pleasure and privilege to thank the Chairman and our speakers this evening, for their wonderful presentations which have been most open and frank as well as enlightening. … As one who would claim that anyone who has any sense of spirituality is a theologian, I expect anyone with any sense of history is a historian as well, but due to the complexity of this evening I obviously feel I should stick with being a theologian! But it’s been a great evening and thank you very much indeed… “. [Rev. Clarke also thanked the audience for coming, especially those who travelled long distances and he thanked the Columban fathers for their generous hospitality.
Meath Peace Group Report, March 2001. Transcribed and edited by Julitta Clancy. Taped by Felicity Cuthbert and Anne Nolan. © Meath Peace Group 2001
——————————————————–
Appendix: THE DRAFT LEAVING CERTIFICATE HISTORY SYLLABUS
By John Dredge, Education Officer,National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.Reproduced by kind permission of the N.C.C.A.
“A new Leaving Certificate History syllabus is at the final stages of preparation. It differs in many respects from the current syllabus: there is an introductory module on the nature of history and the work of the historian, a wider range of options is provided (spanning a period of 500 years) and there is a clear focus on evidence-handling and research skills. The preparation of a new syllabus occurs at a critical time for History as a Leaving Certificate subject. The numbers are declining; between junior and senior cycle History loses more students than any other subject. The current syllabus – introduced in 1969 – is widely considered to be instrumental in this. Offering a choice between a course in “Renaissance Civilisation” and one in “Contemporary Civilisation”, the level of specification of content is poor. There is no listing of topics to be covered, merely start and finish dates and a brief description of aspects to be covered. This makes the examination somewhat of a lottery given the extensive range of topics on which examiners may set questions. The examination itself requires prodigious writing skills. At Higher level, candidates are required to write five essay-type answers in three hours. At Ordinary level, the requirements are even more unnerving: candidates are expected to attempt sixteen short-answer questions, four paragraph questions and four short-essay questions, also in the space of three hours. Is it any wonder that the high failure rate at Ordinary level attracted media attention in the summer of 2000?
“The new syllabus is designed to give students a more balanced and coherent experience in the learning of history. Content is carefully defined, a documents-based study is introduced for the first time at this level and all students will engage in a research study to be assessed outside the confines of the terminal examination. In the Higher level examination candidates will answer four questions rather than five; at Ordinary level the examination paper will be greatly simplified and easier to “navigate”. At both levels the pressure to reproduce historical “facts” will be lessened; the new documents-based question and the research study will require a more reflective and considered response.
“The Preface to the new syllabus asserts that history has “a unique potential to develop the student’s skills of critical thinking.” Its underlying principle is “that the study of history should be regarded as an exploration of what historians believe to have happened based on an enquiry into the available evidence.” Note the emphasis on evidence, enquiry, exploration and critical thinking.
The Aims of the syllabus include the following:
-
To promote understanding of the present through the development of a historical perspective on issues of contemporary importance
-
-
To provide students with a perspective of change in a world of change
-
-
To develop an awareness of differing interpretations of particular historical issues
-
-
To develop the ability to think critically
-
-
To develop in students an appreciation of the society in which they live and of other societies, past and present
So a student studying a course based on this syllabus should develop:
-
a historical perspective which sheds light on issues of the day
-
-
a perspective of change which teaches that all human life and human institutions are subject to a process of change
-
-
an awareness that past historical events may be interpreted in different ways (and that all interpretation must be built on a solid foundation of evidence)
-
-
an ability to look at evidence with a critical eye and an open mind
-
-
a critical appreciation of their own and other societies
None of these abilities or perspectives, of course, is developed in a vacuum. The syllabus content through which they are mainly developed includes four topics or thematic modules, each dealing with a well-defined period of Irish history or the history of Europe and the wider world. Two of the four topics relate to Irish history. The following are examples of topics in Irish history:
-
-
Reform and Reformation in Tudor Ireland, 1494-1958
-
-
The ending of the Irish kingdom and the establishment of the Union, 1770-1815
-
-
The pursuit of sovereignty and the impact of partition, 1912-1949
-
-
Politics and society in Northern Ireland, 1949-1992
Case studies: “For each topic, there are three Case Studies – in which aspects of the topic are looked at in greater depth. One Case Study relates to political matters, one to society and economy and one to culture and religion. In addressing themes from Irish history, one of the challenges is to reflect the diversity of tradition on the island. Listing the Case Studies for the topics named above may help to illustrate one of the ways in which the syllabus committee has sought to meet this challenge:
-
The Plantation of Laois / Offaly; Women & marriage under Gaelic law; The Bardic schools; The Wexford Rebellion; The rise of Belfast; Maynooth College; The Treaty negotiations; Belfast during World War II; The Eucharistic Congress, 1932; The Sunningdale Agreement & the power-sharing executive, 1973-1974; the Craigavon & Coleraine University controversies; the Apprentice Boys of Derry
“I hope it is clear from some of the above examples that the committee has not shied away from subject matter that may be deemed controversial or emotive. Indeed, it may fairly be argued that only by addressing such matters can some of the syllabus objectives be realised e.g.
-
Students should be able to look at a contentious or controversial issue from more than one point of view
-
-
Students should learn to evaluate their historical inheritance through the study of history from a variety of perspectives
“In attempting to realise these objectives, the documents-based study is clearly of key importance. The study is designed to develop students’ ability to “think critically by making judgements based on an evaluation of evidence”. Students will encounter different accounts and conflicting interpretations of particular historical events and will learn to assess the strengths and limitations of the sources under scrutiny. Their developing understanding of the nature of evidence will also inform their work on the research study.
“One would hope that a student following a course based on this syllabus would be immune to the worst excesses of propaganda and would display, instead, qualities of self-questioning and tolerance. It is salutary to remember, however, that all of us acquire part of our education in history outside of the classroom and that the subtle propaganda expressing the biases of one’s own affinity group may well be the most difficult to recognise and confront. Yet confront it we must if we are to be true to our calling as teachers and/or learners of history.
“In Denmark, history teachers are encouraged to be frank with their students as to their own political viewpoint or ideology. Is this a sincere acknowledgement that complete objectivity in history-teaching is impossible and that the best pedagogical practice is to put one’s prejudices clearly “on the table” for all to see? Whatever one’s view of such an approach, it does not obviate the need for the commitment to truth-seeking which is the mark of all genuine historical research and historical learning. The use or abuse of history to further a political agenda had many unfortunate manifestations in the history of the 20th century – from jingoistic assertions of imperial grandeur to the totalitarian indoctrination of Stalinist Russia. In eschewing labels such as “nationalistic” or “revisionist”, we need to ensure that our own mind-set does not blind us to uncomfortable or contradictory truths.
“The advice of Michael Stanford[A Companion to the Study of History, Blackwell, 1994 – P. 54 ] is worthy of reflection:
“My advice is to distrust all politicians, publicists and professional educators who attempt to shape your attitude to history. The only people to trust in this respect are those who are concerned with the past rather the present, who have no purpose to which history can be put, and who are motivated only by an open-minded search for the truth, wherever that search may lead and whatever convictions its results may overthrow. Do not, therefore, study history so that you may be more patriotic, nor that you may be a more convinced socialist or conservative, Catholic or Protestant, Muslim or Jew. Do not study it, even, in order to become wiser or more tolerant – though that may well be the result. Study it only because you want to know the truth.”
To which one might be tempted to add the Biblical injunction [St. John, Ch.8, v.32]:
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
“History can help us to learn the truth about our island’s past and to identify our own prejudices in the process. Evidence is the key that can unlock bigotry and certitude and promote tolerance and open-mindedness. While the new history syllabus will play a role in creating a sense of identity and belonging, it will also encourage students to respect evidence and acknowledge the validity of differing interpretations of evidence. In helping to shape the citizen of the future, I believe it will be on the side of peace and reconciliation.
J. Dredge, N.C.C.A. Education Officer 20th February 2001.
APPENDIX 1
DRAFT AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
AIMS
Knowledge and understanding
-
To develop knowledge and understanding of human activity in the past.
-
To promote understanding of the present through the development of a historical perspective on issues of contemporary importance.
-
To develop knowledge and understanding of Irish, European and world history.
-
To develop students’ understanding of historical concepts.
-
To provide students with a perspective of change in a world of change.
Skills of history
-
To develop an awareness of differing interpretations of particular historical issues. To develop a range of research skills essential for the study of history.
-
To develop an appreciation of the nature and variety of historical evidence.
Preparation for life and citizenship
-
To develop the ability to think critically.
-
To develop positive values associated with the study of history.
-
To develop in students an appreciation of the society in which they live and of other societies, past and present
-
To develop in students an informed and critical awareness of their historical inheritance
Subject to further revision
OBJECTIVES
Knowledge and understanding
1. Students should acquire knowledge and develop understanding of
the specific listed elements of the topics studied.
-
-
how the actions and experiences of previous generations have helped influence the world of their successors.
-
-
how elements of the Irish history topics studied fit into a broader international context. Depending on the topic in question, that context may involve consideration of such aspects as –
the British dimension
the European dimension
the global dimension
the Irish diaspora
-
human activity in the past from a variety of perspectives. In studying human activity in the past attention should be given to the experiences of women.
The main forms of activity to be studied may be categorised as follows – administrative cultural economic political religious scientific social.
2. Students should develop an understanding of and an ability to apply such concepts as are fundamental to the study and writing of history e.g.
-
Procedural concepts:Source and evidence; Fact and opinion
Bias and objectivity
-
Interpretative concepts: Change and continuity; Cause and consequence; Comparison and contrast
-
Substantive concepts: Power and authority; Conflict and reconciliation Democracy and human rights; Culture and civilisation; Economy and society; Identity and community; Space and time
Skills of history: Students should develop a range of skills associated with the study and writing of history.
-
1. A recognition of the nature of historical knowledge: Students should learn to recognise that historical knowledge is tentative and incomplete and, accordingly, subject to revision and/or reinterpretation; that historical writing must be based on reliable evidence and that the available evidence may be open to more than one valid interpretation.
-
2. Research skills Students should learn to
-
define an appropriate topic for research study
-
locate historical data from a variety of primary and/or secondary sources
-
select and record relevant data
-
evaluate data
-
collate data
-
present findings in a well-structured, logical format.
-
3. Evidence handling skills: Students should develop the ability to
-
recognise different types of historical source materials
-
extract information from source materials to answer historical questions
-
evaluate the usefulness of particular sources and their limitations
-
detect bias
-
identify propaganda.
Preparation for life and citizenship:Through their study of history students should acquire a unique combination of skill and understanding which, while contributing to their personal growth as individuals, help to prepare them for life and work in society.
-
1. Students should develop the ability to
-
think critically by making judgements based on an evaluation of evidence.
2. Students should develop positive values associated with the study of history. They should learn to:
-
be thorough in the collecting and accurate in the recording of information;
-
be aware of bias and to strive to be objective;
-
be able to look at a contentious or controversial issue from more than one point of view.
-
3. Students should learn to evaluate their historical inheritance through the study of history from a variety of perspectives.
[Subject to further revision]
APPENDIX 2: SYLLABUS FRAMEWORK
I Working with evidence |
||
|
||
II Topics for study |
||
Early Modern field of study 1492-1815
|
OR |
Later Modern field of study 1815-1992
|
Subject to further revision
APPENDIX 3
LIST OF SYLLABUS TOPICS
EARLY MODERN FIELD OF STUDY
Irish history, 1494 – 1815
1. Reform and Reformation in Tudor Ireland, 1494-1558
2. Rebellion and Conquest in Elizabethan Ireland, 1558-1603
3. The Struggle for Mastery in Ireland, 1603-1660
4. Establishing a Colonial Ascendancy, 1660-1715
5. Colony versus Kingdom – Tensions in mid-18th century Ireland, 1715-1770
6. The Ending of the Irish Kingdom and the Establishment of the Union, 1770-1815
History of Europe and the wider world, 1492 – 1815
1. Europe from Renaissance to Reformation, 1492-1567
2. Religion and Power – Politics in the Later Sixteenth Century, 1567-1609
3. The Eclipse of Old Europe, 1609-1660
4. Europe in the Age of Louis XIV, 1660-1715
5. Establishing Empires, 1715-1775
6. Empires in Revolution, 1775-1815
LATER MODERN FIELD OF STUDY
Irish history, 1815 – 1992
1. Ireland and the Union, 1815-1870
2. Movements for political and social reform, 1870-1914
3. The pursuit of sovereignty and the impact of partition, 1912-1949
4. The Irish Diaspora, 1840-1966
5. Politics and society in Northern Ireland, 1949-1992
6. Government, economy and society in the Republic of Ireland, 1949-1989
History of Europe and the wider world, 1815 – 1992
1. Nationalism and state formation in Europe, 1815-1871
2. Nation states and international tensions, 1871-1920
3. Dictatorship and democracy, 1920-1945
4. Division and realignment in Europe, 1945-1992
5. European retreat from empire and the aftermath, 1945-1990
6. The United States and the World, 1945-1989
Subject to further revision
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON SPEAKERS
Dr. Michael Farry trained as a teacher in St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra and taught at a number of schools in Meath before being appointed ICT advisor at Navan Education Centre. He has published a history of his native parish, Killoran and Coolaney (Co. Sligo), and a study of County Sligo during the 1914-1921 period, A Chronicle of Conflict (1992). He was awarded a Ph.D. in Trinity College, Dublin for his study of Sligo during the Civil War, published as The Aftermath of Revolution: Sligo 1921-23 (2000)
John Lowry – former teacher and a member of the Workers Party for 25 years. When a student at St Joseph’s Teacher Training College, Belfast, he was elected President of the Students’ Union, was active in USI and was also on the executive of the youth wing of the Workers’ Party. He is a former chair of the Belfast and Northern Ireland Regions of the Workers’ Party and has been a party candidate at local, Westminster and European elections. He led his party’s delegation at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation which sat at Dublin Castle from 1994-1996.
Dr. Kenneth Milne is a former principal of the Church of Ireland College of Education, and is currently a member of the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment as well as Chairman of the Irish Society for Archives. He wrote NewApproaches to the Teaching of History for the Historical Association (1979) and co-edited with Aine Hyland the 3-volume Irish Educational Documents. He also edited Christ Church Cathedral Dublin: A History (published in 2000).
Ruairi Quinn T.D. – Leader of the Labour Party since Nov. 1997. An architect by profession he served on Dublin City Council from 1974-1977, and was Leader of the Civic Alliance and Labour Group in the Council from 1991-1993. First elected to the Dail in 1982, he was first appointed Minister of State at the Dept. of the Environment, and has served as Minister in various departments since then, including: Labour, Public Service, Enterprise and Employment and Finance. He was Director of Elections for Mary Robinson’s election campaign in 1990, and was Deputy Leader of the Party from 1990-97
David Robertson (chairing the talk): Teacher of History and English at Wilson’s Hospital School, Multyfarnham. Born in Yorkshire and educated at Durham and Oxford universities, he was formerly Head of History at Portora Royal School, Enniskillen and Headmaster of The King’s Hospital School, Dublin. He is author of Deeds Not Words – the story of Irish soldiers, sailors and airmen in two world wars.
©Meath Peace Group 2001
No. 39 – “Cementing the Peace – The Role of the Republic’s Government and People”
Tuesday, November 28th, 2000
St. Columban’s College, Dalgan Park, Navan
Speakers
Brian Hayes, TD (Fine Gael, Spokesperson on N.I.)
Cllr. Brian Fitzgerald (Ind. Member of Meath Co. Council)
Micheal MacDonncha (Sinn Féin; Dail Secretary to Caoimhghin Ó Caoláin, TD)
Dr. Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fâil; Special Adviser to the Taoiseach)
Dr. Gerard Hogan, S.C. (Lecturer in Law, Trinity College Dublin)
Chaired by Roy Garland (Member of UUP; Irish News Columnist; Co-Chair, Guild of Uriel, Louth)
Contents:
Introduction: Roy Garland
Addresses of speakers
Concluding words
Questions and comments
Appendix A: Biographical notes on speakers
Appendix B: Principles Underlying the Good Friday Agreement and the Commitments made by the Irish Government – A Summary
INTRODUCTION
Roy Garland (Guest chair): “Good evening and thank you very much for having me here. The subject tonight is to me a very important topic. The whole image of the Republic and the contribution of the Republic is of vital importance. I must say, personally, understanding something of the difficulties and the realities on the ground, it’s sometimes difficult to see what can be changed, but I know that on the ground in the North there are great difficulties in coming to terms with the Republic. I came from a family who originated in Co. Monaghan, and before that Co. Louth, but despite that, my father seemed to have vowed from about 1930 that he would never cross that border. I grew up with that. Actually he did cross the border about 1930, and I have a picture to prove it – I came across it about a year or two ago, of my mother and father in Monaghan. But his impression of what happened was such that he determined never to cross that border, and certainly I was brought up with that. And the feeling then of coming across the border – I mean it’s quite a miracle I suppose that I’m here tonight! – was that I was coming into an alien environment which was foreign to all that I understood. When I first came across in the 1960s, till I went home, I was uneasy and there was a great sense of relief when I got back across that border. That may seem strange to you. Today I feel at home down here – there’s no sense of that at all. You might wonder how that happened but part of the reason was finding friends here, and also relatives as well .. and beginning to feel at home here. There’s something like that has to happen before we really find a new way forward. We really have to make friends with each other and respect our differences. … Now we have a lot of speakers tonight, each one with something to say of great importance. Our first speaker is Brian Hayes, TD, Fine Gael Spokesperson on Northern Ireland ..
1. Brian Hayes, TD (Fine Gael)
“Thank you Roy. I never thought I’d live to see the day when I’d be calling Roy Garland “Chairman Roy”!. I’m delighted to be here in Co. Meath this evening….. I’m delighted to have the invitation from the Meath Peace Group to speak at one of your meetings. I have to say when I was appointed party spokesperson in June, the very first group to come to see me and to give their position on the whole issue of Northern Ireland and the emerging peace process was the Meath Peace Group, and I really appreciate the contact I’ve had with the Group since then. I very much appreciate the fact that all of your meetings are recorded, and we know exactly what we have said, and we know the views of other colleagues at meetings like this. When I came into the position of party spokesperson … it provided me with a marvellous facility of reference for various different political views on the situation in Northern Ireland, and I just want to thank the Meath Peace Group for that…”
Changing people’s perspectives and breaking down years of prejudice
“..Tonight’s theme for discussion goes to the heart of what the peace process is all about, in my view. While the Good Friday Agreement maps out a new political architecture between Britain and Ireland, between North and South and crucially within Northern Ireland, the objective of the peace process is ultimately about changing people’s perspectives on one another and breaking down years of prejudice.
“The peace process is crucially a process that must involve, by its very definition, a change in attitude here in the Republic to Northern Ireland and to Britain. Too often people in this country forget their role and responsibility in cementing the peace which has been established over the past decade or so.
Guarantors of the Agreement: “I think the first responsibility for Southern society, at this difficult time in the peace process, is to demand of both governments and all political parties that the Good Friday Agreement be implemented to the letter. The joint referendum which took place in May 1998 has changed the direction of Irish history for ever. That referendum, which was so unanimously supported here in the Republic, albeit with a woefully bad electoral turnout on the day, has given a clear expression of support for the inherent compromise and agreement which was arrived at during the multi-party talks. It is the responsibility therefore of all politicians, be they in Government or in Opposition to act as constitutional guarantors for the Agreement that has been delivered.
Defence of the Agreement: “I believe the Agreement is not a stepping stone as some would see it, nor an expression of the status quo. It is in my mind, the fundamental position of this generation of Irish people in their efforts to find lasting peace and reconciliation on the island of Ireland, and between the islands of Britain and Ireland. The defence of the Agreement and the demand that it be fully implemented must become our primary responsibility as politicians and as the wider public here in the Republic.
Current impasse: “The current vacuum that has been created since the last Ulster Unionist Council meeting cannot be allowed to continue. I believe that it is imperative that a solution to the current impasse be resolved as soon as possible. Those of us who are pro-Agreement political parties either here in the Republic or in Northern Ireland have a specific responsibility to find common ground between each other and crucially to understand the inherent dilemmas that exist for each other’s party. The Good Friday Agreement is not an a la carte menu. Political parties cannot pick and choose certain parts of the Agreement to the exclusion of others. If demilitarisation is an important part of the Agreement from a Republican viewpoint so is decommissioning from a Unionist or Constitutional Nationalist perspective.
Historic shift: “Too often in recent Irish, and for that matter British, political history, policy on Northern Ireland is governed from the viewpoint of articulating the demands of one community over those of the other community. In this scenario it becomes the responsibility of the British Government to speak on behalf of Unionists and the Irish Government to speak on behalf of the Nationalists. I believe that the Good Friday Agreement has changed that orthodoxy forever. And in changing that, I believe the Good Friday Agreement now requires each government to underwrite and guarantee the demands of each community in Northern Ireland as reflected in the Agreement. That is the historic shift that has taken place, in my view.
Reconciliation: “Outside of making the Agreement work and delivering its real benefits to the people of Ireland as a whole, I believe that there are many things in the Republic that we can do to promote the twin objectives of peace and reconciliation. There are aspects of reconciliation which are difficult to deal with. There is even great difficulty in establishing an agreed version of events – and we’re seeing that at the moment in respect of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry in Derry, and there are other examples of where we cannot come to a definitive agreement as to the awful events that have occurred in Northern Ireland and here in Ireland for so long.
Victims of violence: “There is the question of how the victims of violence may be remembered. What would be a fitting memorial? Could cross-community support be reached in terms of a sharing of remembrance? I think both governments, together with the Northern Ireland Executive, should establish a representative committee in order to bring forward proposals in this specific area of remembrance. I am strongly of the opinion that the dead must be remembered so that the living may have some peace”
Exchange of State visits: “At the wider level of reconciliation between Ireland and Britain, I think the time is now right for a formal exchange of State visits between Ireland and Britain. Such an exchange of visits, properly prepared, could be very significant at the symbolic level.
Role of people: “Reconciliation of course is not just a matter for governments and for politicians. It is a matter for each and every one of us as citizens. At the most basic level of all we should all at least encourage our fellow-citizens to visit Northern Ireland on a regular basis. On my first speech in Northern Ireland, in Ballymena, to an economic conference there some months ago, I was astonished at the fact that so few people in the business community had actually made that journey to Belfast or to Ballymena or wherever. And the same is true in Northern Ireland. I think there is still a considerable amount of disconnection between Northern Ireland and the Republic which must be overcome if reconciliation can be brought about.
Trade: “I was astonished to discover …. that we have less trade from the Republic to Northern Ireland than we have, for instance, between the Republic and a country like Switzerland, which is outside the European Union and is geographically a considerable distance from Northern Ireland. Those are the kind of barriers that have to be broken down.
Cross-border links. “ We should encourage every organisation of which we are members – be they sporting, cultural, educational, professional, to make contact with equivalent groups in Northern Ireland. I think it would also be useful if national organisations and representative bodies set an example by designating one official with responsibility for developing cross-border links. Each local authority in the Republic should also be encouraged to designate an official with similar responsibilities.
Education links: “I also believe the Department of Education and Science should be encouraging a major exchange programme at second and third level. Funding should be provided for a specific post of responsibility in this area in each second-level school and a special annual allocation of funds could be provided for schools to encourage cross-border links. I recently called on the Department of Education & Science and the Department of Higher Education in N. Ireland to develop an Erasmus programme, allowing college students to spend a year or a term being educated in either jurisdiction. This happens on a regular basis with most EU countries, but it has not happened between the Republic and Northern Ireland. It should happen…
Sectarianism and the role of churches: “Sectarianism is a major factor influencing politics in Northern Ireland. The Christian churches have a deep responsiblity to eradicate sectarianism. All the Christian churches need to examine their respective positions and church practices in order to eliminate all traces of sectarianism. I think it would be useful if all the Christian churches abandoned theological language which questions the integrity and belief systems of other churches. They should witness to their own beliefs rather than defining themselves by negatively categorising others.
Changing mindsets “Advancing reconciliation on the island of Ireland and between Ireland and Britain will require a significant change in our thinking and in our approach here in the Republic. Over the years we have allowed ourselves to become alienated from the people of Northern Ireland – Unionist and Nationalist alike. We have become comfortable with ourselves, with our own way of thinking, with our own state. This has got to change if the Agreement is to be successful. If we are to advance the cause of reconciliation we need to leave our comfort zone and we need to change our mindset. If we are to help heal the divisions on this island we need to reach out to both communities in a spirit of openness and of generosity.
Diversity of Irish history: “At a deeper level, I also think we need to open up our minds to the many different stories that form part of our own history here in the Republic. Irish history is not just a single story of Catholic Nationalist oppression and a struggle for emancipation, justice and freedom. That story is certainly a major part of our history. But there are many many other stories. The Protestant churches, for example, have made a major contribution to the Irish state and to the development of this Republic. We are inclined to ignore, for example, the fact that Republicanism is a child of the radical Protestant thinking over three centuries ago.
Diversity of Irish nation: “Another major element of our history is the intermingling of the populations of Ireland and Britain and the specific links between Ulster and Scotland. Many people of Ulster, from Donegal to Belfast, feel a closer affinity with Scotland and with Glasgow and Edinburgh than they do with Dublin or with Munster.
“To illustrate this point I would just like to name some leading politicians – past and present – and ask you to reflect on the origins: John Hume, Gerry Adams, Dick Spring, Erskine Childers, Eamonn de Valera, Douglas Hyde, Ian Paisley, John Bruton, Garret Fitzgerald, David Trimble, Mary Robinson – a fine mixture of Norman, English, Scottish and even some Spanish blood. My point here is that it is the variety and difference which make up modern Irish history and the modern Irish nation. We have to celebrate that difference and that variety.
Irish in Britain: “At a different level we can contrast the great emphasis we place on Irish-America and the little attention we give to the Irish in Britain. We go to great effort to trace and celebrate the Irish origins of various American presidents. We made no such effort when James Callaghan – the Labour Prime Minister – became Prime Minister of Britain in the 1970s. When it was established that John Major had an Irish grandmother there was no response. Tony Blair’s mother was born in Ireland and he spent his childhood holidays with his mother’s people in Co. Cavan. We don’t hear the Taoiseach and Tony Blair on a Roots expedition to Ballyshannon or indulging in beery bonding sessions in pubs in Donegal!
“In particular we in the Republic of Ireland have airbrushed out of history the enthusiastic participation in British Empire culture of Protestant and Catholic alike at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. That participation can be seen in the thousands of men who fought in both World Wars.
“Let’s embrace our history in all its diversity while at the same time never being prisoners of our past. By embracing the diversity of our past we will be much better placed to welcome the diversity, ethnic and otherwise, which will certainly be the future of this island in the next hundred years. Thank you”
Chair (Roy Garland): “Thank you very much, Brian. Embracing diversity can be enjoyable as well as painful. The other night we had a meeting not too far from here, with representatives of the Independent Orange Order. It was quite painful at times – even for people like me … because they’re coming from such a diverse background – very hardline unionists, evangelical and fundamentalist. We would really have to have an open ear to hear. But in the exchange I’m convinced that people begin to hear an echo and people begin to change. So there is room for greater opening and for new developments when we listen and when we contribute. Our next speaker is Cllr. Brian Fitzgerald of the Meath Co. Council…
2. Cllr. Brian Fitzgerald (Meath Co. Council):
“Good evening everybody. I would like to welcome our guests to Co. Meath, in particular I would like to welcome Roy. When we were having difficulties some years ago in trying to get somebody from the unionist tradition to speak at the Forum [Forum for Peace and Reconciliation], it became extremely difficult, but we were put in touch with a man named Roy Garland who courageously came at the time, but many more came thereafter…
Good Friday Agreement: “I suppose I was no different to very very many in this country who for many years had aspired to having a united Ireland where we would have all of the people North and South, irrespective of what religion or none, that they would come together and work together for one on the island. Unfortunately over the years, that did not materialise. But, following the Good Friday Agreement when we all went out in our thousands and thousands to vote for it, maybe it was somewhat less than a united Ireland. But I think, in the words of Senator Maurice Hayes speaking in another context, I suppose 100% of nothing means nothing but 90% of something means a lot. I believe that that Agreement gave us some hope for the future of bringing all of the people on this island together, even if there was, and would continue to be, a territorial problem.
Complacency in the South: “However, I think we would have to ask ourselves in the South what has been our interest, and .. I would be speaking here to people here who have continuously tried to build bridges between all traditions on this island, that is the Meath Peace Group and the very many people who are here tonight that have continuously come and have involved themselves in many many projects in trying to build the peace..Unfortunately the vast majority of people in the South of Ireland don’t give a damn about the North of Ireland – and that’s the reality we have to face, and it’s a sad one. I think I’ve contested 8 elections of one sort or another since 1982. I don’t believe in all of that time that it has been mentioned 5 times on the doorsteps – the issue of Northern Ireland. If there is a certain level of violence, which goes beyond a certain level of maybe acceptable, unfortunately, violence, yes there is an initial outpouring of grief… but by and large people have become very comfortable and very complacent about the whole issue of Northern Ireland and the implications. But, if a bomb goes off in Dublin, or the threat of a bomb in Dublin, everybody gets very interested. And I think that’s something that we have to ask ourselves – why? … Because quite frankly people just don’t care in the South at the present time. Now that might be a bit provocative to say here at this meeting, but it’s a reality that we have to face and it’s something we should give great consideration to.
“I think it’s unfortunate, but there is a certain amount of complacency on many many issues. There is a certain level of violence which is continuosly accepted, and it’s being accepted here as well. I don’t believe that anybody has the right to become judge and jury – and executioner in many cases – without recourse to the law of the land. .. It’s becoming acceptable – it’s been acceptable in the North of Ireland for many years and it’s also being accepted here. I think that’s unfortunate. People are saying to themselves “I’m all right – I don’t want to know about somebody else’s problems.”
“And I think there is this element of greed about, that we only care for ourselves and not for everybody.
Contribution of Irish Government: “Notwithstanding all that, the government of today, and the governments of the last number of years, have put tremendous effort into building peace on this island. They probably have devoted far more time than has been good for themselves as a government, from a government point of view, insofar as they may have neglected other issues. But they have made enormous contributions as indeed have many of the political parties, including, and in particular, Sinn Fein, who have been extremely courageous over the last number of years in trying to bring people with them to end the continuous violence which we had become accustomed to – and long may that remain.
Decommissioning impasse: “Unfortunately we appear to be running into crisis after crisis, and this is something that we have to address. I believe that we here in the South should perhaps start setting a tone, condition thinking as to what way we should address those issues, to make it easier for people to accept. Obviously the famous “D” word – decommissioning – is going to continue to give us problems and there will be a continual crisis in the North if the Unionists are threatening to pull out unless the IRA decommission.
“I think we have to ask ourselves “will they every decommission?” Personally I don’t believe they will – that is not to say that they will ever use their arms, their guns or bomb-making material again. I sincerely hope that they don’t and I believe they won’t. But if we are continually to wait for them to decommission, and creating a crisis, everything else is being neglected. I believe it is time for a certain amount of honesty to come into the debate, and say, “sorry we are not in a position to decomission, we won’t use the arms”. So let’s manage that problem, let’s deal with that problem, and see how we can deal with it in the best interests of the whole Agreement and all of the people on the island. I think that’s something we should ask ourselves and ask the people who are involved, and ask the unionist community will they accept that, and on what conditions will they accept that, rather than continue to harp on and harp on and stumble from one crisis to another.”
If the Agreement collapses “…I have a lot of time for Trimble. I was one of the first to meet him when he was first elected leader, and I wouldn’t say I was his number one friend at that stage. I haven’t met the man since, but I have a lot of admiration for the courage shown ever since he was elected. But if the Agreement collapsed as a result of Trimble walking out of it, or being forced to walk out, where do we go from there? I’m old enough to remember what happened when Sunningdale collapsed. We had 26 or 24 years of the most horrible violence ever witnessed on this island. That’s what we had – do we want to go back to that?. And there’s not much point in us running to the Brits and asking them to sort it out at that stage, there’s not much point in us running to America, and asking Bill Clinton, who will no longer be there, to help us with our problems.
“The problems will be ours, and the only people who can resolve those problems are ourselves, and I think this is something we have got to start planning for, and I’m not so sure that we are preparing people for that…
Need for patience: “Notwithstanding all that – and maybe I have been speaking on some of the negative areas – there are a lot of good things happening. A lot of people are becoming impatient because they are not happening fast enough. But I believe they have to happen on a much slower basis, and the reason that things have to happen on a slower basis is that there is considerable hurt on all sides. Even in here, I’m sure that all of you have had some experience of where somebody has done something horrible to a friend or another person and it could be generations before the hurt leaves that family. Don’t forget we were still fighting the Civil War up to the last 20 years – the hurt that it caused. Can we honestly expect the hurt of the last 30 years – on all sides – just to disappear and for people to say it never happened.
North-South co-operation: “So we must take things a little slower, but we have plenty of opportunities, and I believe they are being availed of. I know from one area I’m involved in this county – the health area – there is tremendous cooperation going on between the North and South health authorities, in a nice quiet way, because if they were publicised too much they wouldn’t happen, but they are happening in a quiet way and people are becoming accustomed to working with one another. The same thing can happen in tourism and will, when the new tourism company forms – it will give people an opportunity. It’s happening in many areas of commerce, it’s certainly happening in the environment – we had the Minister for the Environment from Northern Ireland in our own county only a month ago – he addressed Meath County Council.
Schools: “There’s tremendous effort being made in the schools – we had a group here from Belfast only last year with the Dunboyne children. We met the Dunboyne children the other day and they told me they had been back up in Belfast. This is happening. Our colleague here from Kilbride [John Keaveney] – he has been working on that for years. That’s the type of building that must happen – but it’s slow, it cannot happen as fast as people would like.
Sporting organisations: “In the areas of sport we have to try and work with the young people on all sides. Perhaps we should start asking ourselves a few critical questions in relation to sport. What are we doing here? I think the sporting body which I have spent all my life in – the GAA – has a serious question to ask themselves over the coming months – they’ve asked themselves several times but they’ve never answered it. I don’t see why any person should be deprived from playing Gaelic games, just because they do a certain job. I could never subscribe to that – they’ve hedged on it but it’s an area that has to be dealt with.
All-Ireland teams: “We have got to look at areas where there are all-Ireland teams – where you may have people coming from both traditions playing on them. Is it right that people have a difficulty with the emblem that they have to wear – is it right that they have difficulty with the anthem they have to stand to, is it right that they have a difficulty with the flag?
“We have to look at those areas – there was an attempt to look at them. We talk about them in a Northern Ireland context, but we have to try, if we are to bring people together, we have got to look at it from a sporting point of view – and I believe it is one of the best healers we can have.
So I think there are many areas, but I believe we have got to shake ourselves out of the complacency which we have – or appear to have in this part of the island.
Conclusion: “So I would hope over the coming months that the Good Friday Agreement will get stronger, but people will have to be more patient, and we in the South will have to become more active, and try and set a tone, condition people, and try and work with people, and not be pushing too hard. I would again like to compliment the Government, and Martin Mansergh here, who has done a tremendous amount of work over the years, with different Taoisigh and different governments, in trying to build a relationship on this island, and to try and get the British Government to understand the difficulties that we have on this island, and long may he remain! … Thank you.”
Chair (Roy Garland): “Thank you very much Cllr. Fitzgerald. I suppose one of the things that strikes me is the emphasis in part of your speech that there’ll be no decommissioning – at least that’s what I took out of it. I suppose it depends on what you mean by decommissioning, because it is my understanding that Sinn Fein accepts decommissioning – that is putting out of commission – and certainly in that sense decommissioning, I understand, is acceptable. Whether it is acceptable to the Unionists or not is a different matter. But maybe our next speaker will enlighten us on that issue. Micheal MacDonncha of Sinn Fein will now speak in place of Caoimhghin O Caolain…
3. Micheál MacDonncha (Sinn Féin)
“Thank you. If I could start by thanking the Meath Peace Group for the invitation to speak here tonight. I want first to apologise on behalf of Caoimhghin Ó Caolain, T.D., who was the invited Sinn Fein speaker but he is recovering from an injury at the moment …..
Dedication: “In the spirit of what earlier speakers have been saying In relation to the diverse traditions on this island, I would just like to dedicate my remarks this evening to a friend of mine who died yesterday – Jack Bennett, formerly assistant editor of the Evening Press in Dublin. He came from Belfast, from a unionist background. In the 1940s he joined the Young Communists in Belfast. He became an Irish republican as well as a socialist and moved to Dublin. He was a founder member of the Wolfe Tone Societies in the 1960s and a founder-member of the civil rights movement. He played a major part in intellectual and political debate in the 1970s …
“For me he was someone who was formative in my political thinking. He wrote a very influential book called “Freedom the Wolfe Tone Way”…. I think it is fitting that I would remember him when I speak this evening.
Republican perspective: “The theme tonight is the role of the Republic’s Government and people in cementing the peace process. Brian referred to how perhaps people in this State had become “comfortable” with our own state here. From the republican perspective that I come from, we were never fully comfortable with this State, less so of course with the six-county State, but this State for us certainly was not the state that in our view the men and women of 1916 sought to achieve, and subsequently the War of Independence. Our independence had been limited, and the hopes of those who took part in the revolution in the early part of the century had been dashed by the Treaty and the tragic Civil War. I think it’s important that that republican perspective, which is also one of the political traditions on this island, is also taken into account.
Need for more active engagement: “I think the theme of the role of the people in this State is extremely important and I don’t think it has been sufficiently addressed right throughout the peace process. I must say since I started to work in the Dail in 1997, I was somewhat depressed by the infrequency and the quality of debate on the peace process that I found there. Apart from the few members in each party – and I include every party in that – and some of the Independents in the Dail and Seanad, with those few exceptions there seems to me to be a general lack of active engagement. Now that’s distinct from interest, of course there’s an interest, and there is a limited engagement. But I think what public representatives in this State need is a very very active engagement in the process, and unfortunately I don’t see that across the board. There is still a sense among many that the peace process is something “up there” which does not directly affect the lives of people in the 26 counties, and by extension the lives of the people who vote for elected representatives. Of course this is grossly mistaken because the success of the peace process is inextricably bound up with the future of every individual on this island.
Legacy of closed doors in the South: “I think the situation has improved vastly since the start of the peace process, but I have no doubt that the lack of full engagement with the peace process among many parliamentarians… is a legacy of what happened in this State during the conflict. Going back on some of the remarks that Brian Fitzgerald made – I don’t think it’s enough to say that people simply switched off – we need to look at the reasons for that. The role of successive governments and their attitude to Northern Ireland had a major bearing on the public mindset. I think that the political establishment in this State in effect closed its doors on the North. Successive governments here made their priority the consolidation of their own position and they avoided too great an engagement with the problem, and indeed, in extremes, they resorted to a repressive response in their own jurisdiction.
“We only have to look at the censorship laws which we had in this State for a very long period indeed. TV and radio broadcasting was directly politically censored in this State for a longer period than than it was in the North of Ireland, and in Britain. This obviously had a huge impact also, not only in not allowing people to hear the views of Sinn Fein and broader republican opinion, but in also closing the entire issue down to real debate which included all strands of opinion.
Dublin and Monaghan bombings: “I think the doors were also closed to people in this State who suffered from violence inflicted either by the British forces or loyalists. I recently read Don Mullan’s book on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. The book shows clearly how the families of the 33 victims and the injured were abandoned in an appalling fashion by successive governments in this State. In the wake of the bombing the then coalition Government of Fine Gael and Labour blamed republicans, not for the actual bombing, but they blamed them for creating the situation which led to them. They chose to close their eyes at that time to the involvement of agents of the British armed forces in this atrocity which was the biggest single atrocity in the conflict, the next being of course the dreadful Omagh bombing of a couple of years ago.
Implications for Southern State: “When you examine the evidence in the Dublin and Monaghan bombing case, it’s quite clear that the case was closed down. Reading Don Mullan’s book, which I would recommend people to do, I think the reason it was closed down by the establishment here was not because there was seen to be collusion between British forces and loyalism, because I think that is now widely accepted. I think it was closed down because of the implications within this State, because, if you read the evidence – and there is a lot of evidence which will come out, especially if there is an inquiry into this – there were within the Garda Siochana people who were working directly for British Intelligence at that time. Now we don’t know the full extent of that, and we don’t know the extent of the knowledge of governments here about what was going on at the time. But the implications were and are clearly huge. Indeed as Don Mullan himself has said, the implications for Anglo-Irish relations of the Dublin and Monaghan case are even more profound than those of Bloody Sunday. I thought it was interesting that Brian Fitzgerald said that maybe people turn off when they hear of violence in the 6 counties or in Britain but they turn on when it’s on their own doorstep in this State. But here was an example where we had a dreadful atrocity in this State and the reaction of the State itself was far from one of real concern for its own people.
Need for full inquiry: “I believe then, that one of the essential things that has to be done arising out of the peace process… is for a full cross-jurisdictional inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, and also into a number of other fatal events in this State where evidence points to the hand of British agents. That case is to go before the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality and Women’s Rights. But I believe whatever the outcome of those deliberations there needs to be an inquiry.
Offences Against the State ActsReview Group: “I was the author with others of Sinn Fein’s submission to the review of the Offences Against the State Acts. In the Good Friday Agreement – the wording is there in the handout for tonight’s meeting – the Government here gave a commitment to review and, where appropriate, to set aside this legislation. In my view, action on this aspect of the Agreement has been far too slow, there has been a lack of real public debate and public engagement on this. In fact in 1998 the Government actually strengthened the Offences Against the State Act. It has intitiated no real debate on the legal and political effects of this body of legislation which has been in force continuously in this State, with major implications for civil liberties, since 1939. Now I have no doubt that the Committee is doing pretty good work, hard work I am sure. But I think we need to see more evidence of its deliberations.
“And one thing I would like to see, for example, would be hearings on this issue around the country. Because there are a lot of people with stories to tell. And again, to add in another strand of opinion, one which doesn’t often get heard, at the time when we were putting together the Sinn Fein submission on the Offences Against the State Acts a number of people came to me, people in their sixties and seventies. They had been interned without trial in this State in the 1950s and, under the Offences Against the State Acts, were excluded from employment by the State. They were people who couldn’t get jobs in the civil service afterwards, some of them lost teaching jobs. There are a body of people such as that, people whose story again has not often been told and which needs to be factored in as part of the resolution of the outstanding issues.
British legislation: “I think the failure so far to deal with this issue of contentious legislation in this State has also hampered the ability of the Government here to deal with the failure of the British Government to repeal its own repressive legislation. I think the Government here has placed itself in the position where it cannot credibly address the issue of British legislation when it has very similar legislation on its own statute books.
Current impasse: “Now that brings me directly to the current issues that are causing huge difficulties in the peace process.
Policing: “Firstly, of course the issue of policing. In the context of the body of legislation that has been there right since the foundation of the Northern State in 1922, one of the things that we in Sinn Fein said when the Patten Report was published and when we had considered it, was that we would give this report a fair wind, that it was clearly a compromise, it was clearly not all that we in Sinn Fein wanted to see. We wanted a more comprehensive approach but it was a compromise which we were prepared to assess and prepared to work with the outcome if it was implemented in full and if, crucially, the legislation which had built up since 1922 in the North and variously amended and so on, was addressed. That hasn’t been sufficiently addressed either, and that is also part of the problem in terms of the policing issue.
North-South Ministerial Council: “We have a situation now where in effect the North-South Ministerial Council is suspended because David Trimble has refused to nominate duly elected Sinn Fein Ministers. There is, I have to say – and I would represent a body of opinion in Sinn Fein – a deep unease and a deep disappointment and scepticism about the role now of David Trimble. The question is raised: is the difference between David Trimble and Jeffrey Donaldson now merely a tactical difference in terms of ridding the situation of those parts of the Agreement which they do not wish to be associated with? I think it is unfortunate that David Trimble has allowed himself to be led, in effect, by the “No” camp in his own party. It would be my view that he hasn’t mobilised the large body of opinion that is out there within civic unionism which backed the Good Friday Agreement. In all this delaying which we have seen over the past few months in particular, the position of the unionists has been bolstered all along by the British Government, and I think in particular the role of Peter Mandelson has been very negative.
Opinion-formers: “In the context of what we’re addressing tonight, these are all points and issues which the Irish Government needs to give a lead on, because, whether we like it or not, the reality is that from the very beginning, the initiative and the drive in the peace process has come from the nationalist parties in the North, initially Sinn Fein and the SDLP. In the context of the start of the peace process – if you look back at the very start, in 1992/1993 – in terms of opinion in this State and so-called opinion-formers in this State, if you look at the villification which John Hume suffered at that time because he engaged with Sinn Fein. And the so-called opinion formers who were doing this villification – these were people who had had a huge influence on public opinion in this State in terms of the North for a long number of years. And again it points to the type of opinion-forming that had been going on, the type of stuff that people had been subjected to through a censored media for nearly two and a half decades. But as I said, the driving force throughout this has been nationalist Ireland, for want of a better term – the Irish Government, Sinn Fein and the SDLP.
“We have an Agreement now, and the Agreement contains within it many elements, and the core of the Agreement is about equality, and the difficulties, when you boil them down, are the reluctance of large sections of unionism to come to terms with the need for equality.
Decommissioning: “I think the issue of decommissioning is just a symbol of that. I would agree with Roy’s definition of decommissioning – to me it’s taking arms out of commission, it’s putting them beyond use, and ensuring that they are not used. And if you look at the past few years in terms of the ceasefires, and the fact that they have been maintained, if you look at the engagement that the IRA has had with the De Chastelain Commission and with the arms inspectors. If you put that in its historical context, I think in effect we have decommissioning, we have arms put beyond use, and I think we do have a serious intent by Republicans to continue that process and to engage in that process, and the raising of this issue continuously is not really, in my opinion, about the issue itself, it’s about reluctance to see change.
Increasing and enriching contacts: “.. I would totally agree with all the previous speakers in terms of the need to increase and enrich contacts between people in all parts of this island. I was just reading the Senate debate which was held last week on the peace process and one senator had met a loyalist leader and his partner, and she had never heard of Co. Clare! We hear examples of that all the time – the same happens in the other direction. Many people in this State are unaware of the realities in the North, they’re unaware even of the geography of their own country. I think we need to be doing as much as we can to increase contacts and to increase interchange between people in every part of this island.
“And I think the Agreement itself – the institutions established under the Agreement – have huge potential to actually achieve that if they’re worked and if they’re fully implemented. I know people involved in the Intertrade Ireland – the all-Ireland trade body – which has done a huge amount of work and which has had a roadshow going around the country in the past few months. And again that has built up and increased contacts. So I think we have huge obstacles, we have huge difficulties, but there is on the part of the vast majority a goodwill, and a willingness to engage if they’re given the opportunity. That’s why I commend the Meath Peace Group for your work over the years and for your continual work, for building on what we have achieved and helping us to continue to achieve much more. Go raibh maith agaibh.”
Chair (Roy Garland): “Thank you. I think Micheal is saying that there are many hurts to be addressed, and of course there’s hurts on both sides of the community. And unfortunately when one side express their hurts, the other side feels even more hurt. But it is important that people get together and express their hurts together. In that context, over a period of time – it’s a long long process, and maybe we’ve tried too much too soon – but certainly those of us in the unionist community who have listened to the republicans, I think have heard the hurt. I feel sometimes we are too much caught in the hurt to move on. It’s very very difficult. We need to find partners right across the board, and I think that’s what we are doing in the Meath Peace Group tonight. We’re moving on now to Dr. Martin Mansergh who has played a major role in the peace process, and I think he is increasingly appreciated for the role he has played…
4. Dr. Martin Mansergh (Special Adviser to An Taoiseach)
“I would like to thank the Meath Peace Group for this invitation. I recall a very constructive and informative debate about this time last year on the Patten Report on policing. .
Public’s interest: “The public’s interest in and expectation of progress remains an important spur to continued effort to overcome difficulties that continue to face the peace process, even though we are, all told, significantly further forward than this time last year. I do feel that a lot of the public do care and are interested, and I must say I don’t feel discouraged by indifference or apathy, I think enough people do care.
Problem-solving: “It is tempting to express frustration and impatience at this or that party or government for delays or foot-dragging, but evenings like this are an opportunity to appreciate the reasons for the difficulties, and some of them have already been spelled out. Not only are there few glib answers, but many of the plausible ways forward are on closer examination, for one reason or another, not feasible. While we must never lose sight of the moral inspiration of peace and accommodation, it has never been the case that one more political sermon would solve the problem, however good it might make the speaker and some of the listeners feel. The emphasis must be on understanding, problem-solving, and the patient defusing of potentially dangerous situations. Parties should also resist the temptation of being too self-righteous, eager to point out the defaults of others without acknowledging their own.
“Democratic Governments can, generally speaking, do what people will allow them to, and will respond to. The clarity of public opinion in the Republic on the subject of peace, and the willingness to sacrifice cherished positions in order to move forward, has been crucially important and amply demonstrated. Those who want to frustrate peace and drive us all back to war have negligible support and absolutely no mandate in this jurisdiction. But it is important not to make unrealistic demands that would drive one or other party back into the trenches.
Absolutism as a cause of conflict: “We should never lose sight of what is visible throughout history – that moral or political absolutism can be a cause of conflict. There is a Manichean strand of opinion that hates any form of constructive ambiguity, and that in many ways is more comfortable with eternal conflict that demonstrates clearly who is good and who is bad. In relation to Northern Ireland, there are few blameless parties on this island, even if people differ as to how the blame is apportioned. When the conflict of the last 30 years is finally and safely far behind us, we will have leisure to identify more of the shining knights. There is also an unfortunate style of negotiation that tends to believe that hardballing works best all of the time. If one looks at other areas, say European negotiations or social partnership ones, where a more flexible style is the norm, it can achieve better results and avoid unnecessary crises. From time to time, we have to stand back and take a strategic view of what is the best way forward, and where people’s best interests lie.
Role and contribution of Irish Government: “As a representative of the Irish Government, I want to focus mainly on its role and contribution, which I would see under three headings.
1) First of all, we are, and have been for some time, a partner of the British Government in seeking a settlement of the Northern Ireland problem within a broader framework and in upholding that settlement now that we have one.
2) A second and related role, which is sometimes disputed, is to act in the manner that was formalised in the Anglo-Irish Agreement of putting forward views and proposals on issues as they affect the interests of the minority or Nationalist community.
3) Thirdly, the Government acts on behalf of the people of this State, reflecting both their ideals and their interests, which include peace, stability and reconciliation on this island; good relations based on a mutual respect between the two islands; a closer and more structured form of North-South co-operation; and a rapprochement between the two main traditions on this island.
Recognition of role of Irish Government: “If one asks how conflict broke out in the first place, it was adherence in a divided community to a strongly majoritarian form of devolution, with no alternative or cross-community coalition and scant regard for minority rights. It was not democracy in any real sense of the term. The civil rights campaigners took to the streets, because there was no effective constitutional channel for a redress of grievances. In 1969, the UK Government did not accept that the Republic’s Government had any right to make representations, which it considered unhelpful interference in their internal affairs. Repression and revolt became mutually reinforcing, and the constitutional opposition of the SDLP, while correct, was a stony path. Only gradually did the British Government come to realise that the role of the Irish Government was essential, that unilateral initiatives did not work, and that the only way forward was partnership, without prejudice to sovereignty
“The peace process originated within Nationalist Ireland, but to come to fruition it needed to be adopted by both Governments. Persuading the Major Government to accept the approach of the Downing Street Declaration or the Framework Document was no easy task. While in theory it might have been better if the partners in the North could have agreed amongst themselves on a way forward out of major difficulties, this has rarely been a realistic expectation. The Unionists tend in the first instance to look to the British Government. The SDLP and Sinn Fein look to the Irish Government.
“But that is not the whole story. The Good Friday Agreement and subsequent developments would not have been possible unless the British Government had been able to listen to Nationalists, or, conversely, unless the Irish Government had been able to come to some important understandings with Unionists.
“Of course, the US President, Bill Clinton, and Congress, and the President’s envoy, Senator George Mitchell, have played a hugely important role as guarantors of fair play, and I am delighted that President Clinton will be paying a final visit as President to Ireland next month.
Aim of Irish Government: “Since the first meetings with Sinn Fein in 1988, the Irish Government’s aim has been to establish a democratic consensus among Nationalists and beyond, as opposed to a Pan-Nationalist Front where Nationalists would fall in line with the militant wing of the Republican Movement to force the issue, and where in the last analysis the requirement for majority consent could be overriden.
“To the extent that it was mostly members of the Unionist community who were at the receiving end of the IRA campaign, and understanding that this was deeply damaging to hopes of seeing the country gradually grow closer together, the Government and the SDLP between them helped Sinn Fein to persuade the Republican Movement to try out the political alternative and to lift a counterproductive and misconceived physical and political siege.
“Maintaining the peace, getting parties to the negotiating table, negotiating an Agreement and then implementing it have all proved arduous tasks.
“The areas in which the Irish Government have been most directly involved have generally turned out the least contentious. The constitutional accommodation, which I would argue was more symbolic than legalistic in character, was accepted and endorsed by the people. The North-South bodies have been established and are functioning well. If a problem has arisen in relation to the nomination of Northern Ministers to Council meetings, it is for reasons extraneous to their functions. The Agreement does state that participation in the Council is “one of the essential responsibilities attaching to relevant posts in the two Administrations”, and that the functioning of the different institutions is “interdependent and interlocking”. I think that all speaks for itself.
Policing: “The Irish Government is deeply committed to the new beginning in policing. We were fully supportive of the Patten Commission and its Report. We understand the strategic significance of the Patten reforms, not just for policing and the replacement of paramilitarism as a crude substitute for law and order in certain areas, but also for the stable functioning of the institutions under the Agreement. While we were not happy at certain stages of the process at what seemed to be important departures from the spirit of Patten, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen, has maintained a spirit of constructive engagement throughout in pursuit of the best possible outcome, which is, as Chris Patten put it in a statement to the Belfast Telegraph this afternoon – “the new beginning for depoliticised policing” with “the most rigorous system of independent civilian oversight of the police in the world”. But in the last analysis it is not the Irish Government but Northern Nationalists who will decide whether to join and support the police or not.
“The Secretary of State Peter Mandelson accepted last week that until the implementation plan is known it would not be reasonable to expect the SDLP or Sinn Fein to finalise their position. Support for the police will mean a dramatic break with the habits of the past, in a situation where, politically and otherwise, people’s instinct has been to watch their back. Failure to have a positive overall outcome on Patten would be a very serious development indeed, so it is very important to keep options open.
Decommissioning: “Progress is also needed on putting arms beyond use. The two arms inspections were a very important step forward, which should not be belittled. Meaningful engagement with de Chastelain is also required. The Irish Government, going back to 1993, always saw decommissioning as part of a wider process of demilitarisation. Both processes have been complicated by the activities of dissidents, and by the investment of too much emotional significance in the process of disarmament, on all sides. They are contributors to democracy and normalisation. They are not about a military victory or defeat, neither of which occurred. The legitimacy or otherwise of taking up arms is not affected either. People’s views and convictions about the violent campaign of the last 30 years are not likely to be altered one way or the other, either by decommissioning or the absence of it.
Determination of the two Governments: “The shadow of an approaching British General Election makes it more difficult for parties to take a strategic long-term view. To do any good, it is first necessary to survive politically, and, as 1996-7 showed, a pre-election period is not one where parties are naturally inclined to take big political risks. Yet the Agreement puts Unionists more in charge of their own destiny than any alternative. Nationalists need the Agreement to start building the closer relationships and the trust that they desire, which are the indispensable foundations of going further in due course. The danger is that brinkmanship, induced by internal tensions and pressures, may temporarily derail the functioning of the institutions. But no one should underestimate the strong determination of the two Governments to stick to the Agreement and see it implemented.
Attitudes to Unionism: “Before concluding, I would like to deal with criticisms that surface from time to time of attitudes in this State to Unionism. I would want to begin by stressing the positive. The rapport between the Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern, and David Trimble, has no precedent in the history of this State or this island. They may not always agree, but they try to understand each other, and co-operate for the wider good. The same goes for loyalists. Bertie Ahern was the first and only Taoiseach to receive the Rev. Ian Paisley, albeit as a Church leader, in Government Buildings. When Bertie Ahern and David Trimble meet, they represent the two main traditions in Ireland.
Cultural initiatives: A number of cultural initiatives have been undertaken on this side of the border – work on the Boyne site, also the furbishment of First World War memorials in Inchicore and at Messines in Belgium.
But it is unrealistic to expect either Government to be entirely neutral on the Union. Successive British Prime Ministers have made it clear that they value the Union. The Taoiseach is head of Government of a State that was formed as a result of the democratic desire of the Irish people over 80 years ago to govern themselves and to leave the Union. A political leader who wants to unite the people of Ireland in peace needs to know where he is coming from. The Nationalists of Northern Ireland were deprived of the opportunity to participate in the Irish State, or in an Irish State. Our state may have had many shortcomings, particularly from a Unionist point of view, but perhaps also from a Nationalist one. But today there is a new dispensation, an historic compromise, a new constitutional order or balance, which satisfies many of the basic needs of both Unionists and Nationalists. We must hold on to these gains and build on them at all costs. Thank you.”
Chair (Roy Garland): “Thank you Dr. Mansergh, you’ve given us a lot to think about, and we’ve a long way still to go. Our next speaker is Dr. Gerard Hogan….
5. Dr. Gerard Hogan, S.C.
“Thank you very much. May I say immediately it is a great pleasure to be invited once again to speak at the Meath Peace Group. .. I propose to focus on the legal and constitutional dimension of the Republic vis-a-vis the entire peace process, and to that extent, I hope Mr. Chairman you’ll forgive me if following pedantically perhaps the theme of the evening I focus pretty well on what is happening in the Republic.
“When in the 1970s we first began in this State seriously to confront the reasons for division in Ireland and our own role therein, the conventional wisdom in many quarters was that progress towards some form of unity might be possible if two conditions were established. First if there was constitutional change, and secondly, if there was significant socio-economic change in this State, and in particular if living standards in the Republic were to approach those in Northern Ireland. Now, as far as the latter is concerned, I suppose some people, perhaps many people, would say that there has been very significant socio-economic change, perhaps not as much as many people would like, but nonetheless living standards in this State are at least approaching those prevailing in Northern Ireland, and perhaps some people might argue that living standards now in the Republic are higher than those in the North. But at least there is not I think now the significant gulf between living standards, social services, tax rates and so forth, such as prevailed at the onset of conflict in Northern Ireland.
Constitutional change: “As far as the other issue, the Constitution, is concerned … the particular criticism focussed on a number of significant provisions, provisions that were thought to grate on Unionist and Protestant sensibilities, that were thought to be too unbalanced and reflective of irredentist views in this State.
“There were three provisions in particular to which many people objected. The first, lumping them together, is Articles 2 and 3. Now as we know following the Good Friday Agreement, Articles 2 and 3 were recast, and I don’t think any fair-minded Unionist could take objection to the new provisions of Articles 2 and 3.
“Secondly, there was the special position of the Catholic Church in Article 44. That was deleted as long ago as 1972, overwhelmingly – I think the percentage in favour of deletion was in or about 85%. Now, as it happens the provision in Article 44 which simply recognised the special position of the Catholic Church also acknowledged the position of other minority churches which were named – the Church of Ireland, the Jewish community and so forth. We now know, from Government records, that it was the minority churches who were far more satisfied with that particular compromise in 1937 than the Catholic Church was. It’s ironic in a way that afterwards, that that particular provision of Article 44 – which in a way was no more than constitutional window-dressing – that there were so many people who objected to it by the 1970s. But in any event because it was considered to grate on Unionist sensibilities, as a gesture I suppose, it was dropped following the referendum in 1972.
“The third provision to which I think unionists could fairly and legitimately object was the ban on divorce, and, as we know, that was changed in 1995 and came into effect, following a challenge, in 1997.
Objections Unionists might have: “If one looks beyond that, and looks at the rest of the Constitution, it’s very difficult to see what any fair-minded Unionist could reasonably object to. True it is, they might say that it is drawn up from a republican standpoint – republican in the true sense of the term – that it doesn’t have any recognition of the monarchy, it reflects the traditional Nationalist values. Well I can’t gainsay that, no more than the Constitution of the United Kingdom reflects traditional largely English-orientated values with the Crown as the symbolic Head of State. But in terms of substantive provisions, it’s hard enough to find anything in the Constitution to which fair-minded Unionists could reasonably object.
“I myself can only think of two to which perhaps some objection might be taken. The provisions of the Preamble may be said perhaps not to give sufficient credit to traditions which are other than Nationalist and Republican. It is a pity – and I’ve said this to Dr. Mansergh before – I think it is a pity that in the constitutional changes in 1998 that the opportunity was not taken, not simply to reform Articles 2 and 3, but to make a significant gesture in respect of the Preamble.
“The other provision is in relation to Article 8, dealing with the status of the two languages, Irish and English. I was a member of the Constitution Review Group in 1996 and we recommended that the two languages should have equal status, and in fact I think with hindsight there is one further change we ought to have suggested in respect of Article 8 and that is to give some recognition to the position of Ulster-Scots. I for one would gladly do that. But beyond that it’s very difficult to see what specific objection can be taken to the Constitution
Record on human rights protection: “In particular I can’t accept for a moment, and it’s a matter of some annoyance to me – as somebody who’s never voted for Fianna Fail in my life, I think I can say this – I can’t understand the frequent objections that are made from the Unionist community on the one hand, and from what I may call civil libertarians on the other in this State, to the provisions in the Constitution, and the suggestion that the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights are superior to those in the Constitution. This is a matter that one could argue about for a long time… but I do think in this State we can take justifiable pride that, outside of the United States, we are the country with the longest tradition of judicial review of legislation. In addition, we were the first country to sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights to allow individual petitions by our own citizens in this State to the European Court. We did that in 1953, and since 1953 we have lost only 6 times! I know the United Kingdom is a much bigger State than us, and we have to make due allowance for that, but it’s interesting, I checked on the European Court website before I came out, and I saw that the United Kingdom had lost 6 cases in September of this year, and the UK, along with Italy is by far the worst offender before the European Court of Human Rights.
Valuable constitutional tradition: “I don’t say that to pat us on the back and to denigrate the United Kingdom, but I do say that one has to be fair-minded about our constitutional tradition. It’s a very very valuable tradition, and I would defy anybody to point to instances where they can say that the provisions of the European Convention on Human rights are in any real respect superior to any individual provision in the Constitution. One could perhaps argue about individual clauses, but one can equally riposte by pointing to the [provision?] in the Constitution and our own constitutional tradition which are significantly superior to the provisions of the European Convention, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights.
“So I can’t for a moment accept the contention which I am beginning to see over the last few weeks that suddenly because the UK has incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law – and this came into effect in Britain from the 2nd of October last – that somehow in this State because we haven’t got around to doing that yet, that there is some major gap or lacuna in our law. Quite the reverse, I think that our tradition in that regard is equal to any member state of the Council of Europe, and our record before the European Court of Human Rights is proof positive of that.
International comparisons: “A small point, perhaps, but it’s nonetheless illustrative: most people here, I would imagine, would say that a country such as Sweden is regarded as a beacon of liberality, of fair-mindedness, of humanitarianism and social reform. But it’s interesting that the Swedes were the second country after us to sign up to the European Convention, by allowing these individual petitions, a few months after us in 1953. Admittedly they have a population of maybe twice ours, but they have lost 34 times before the European Court, and, as I say, we have lost on only 6 occasions. Now I don’t say that with a wish to pat us on the back or to be complacent but I do think, in any assessment of the constitutional protection and the protection of fundamental rights in this State, there has to be a fair-minded evaluation of the merits of the Constitution on the one hand and the European Convention on Human Rights on the other.
Foresight of 1937: “Unfortunately this debate has become politicised, and, wearing my lawyer’s hat, as someone with no particular reason to defend Mr. de Valera back in 1937, but I have to give him great credit for his enormous foresight and his enormously skilled legal team. They were way ahead of the posse in 1937 in what they drafter. And the funny thing is is that it was so sophisticated, it was so avant-garde that the Opposition who were looking for things to try and attack it, their major concern in 1937 was that somehow the President would be a Fuhrer or duce type leader, and when the referendum went to the plebiscite in July 1937, the great charge of Fine Gael was “beware of the President”, and I think we’ve learned to live with the President ever since!
“If I could move on just to two other topics. The first is a number of other commitments that this State has undertaken vis-a-vis the Good Friday Agreement.
Human Rights Commission: “One is in relation to the Human Rights Commission. Now it’s true that Northern Ireland is ahead of the game, as far as that is concerned. They have a very distinguished Human Rights Commission – it’s been up and running since early 1999 and it’s fully functional. At the moment the Government has appointed a President of our Human Rights Commission, and we’ve a Human Rignts Act, but the Commissioners have to be appointed. But again may I say, without wanting to pat the Republic on the back with a view to casting aspersions on what has been done in Northern Ireland, that in my respectful opinion the provisions in our Act are superior to that in Northern Ireland for one particular reason, in that the Human Rights Commission down here will be empowered of its own bat to take cases in court on behalf of persons where it feels their rights are being infringed in some way. That is a critical power to give to a body such as a human rights commission. We have given it, in Northern Ireland they don’t have it. I don’t want to claim brownie points for that, but, while we are a little behind what is being done in Northern Ireland, the legislation is, in my respectful opinion, somewhat superior.
Offences Against the State Act: “The third point is in relation to the review of the Offences Against the State Acts. I’m slightly compromised in that I am a member of that review group. We had expected to have our report out before Christmas, but unfortunately our Chairman, Judge Hederman, suffered an accident about a month ago and that delayed our work, but I can assure you our report is imminent, and I imagine it’s going to be published in the new year.
“Again, I’m somewhat compromised in what I can say, but there will be a thoroughgoing review of the Offences Against the State Act, in all its dimensions from first to last. While there are certainly provisions of that Act that would not survive challenge in a modern era, I think it’s also proper to point out that some of the criticisms of the Offences Against the State Act are somewhat misplaced. For example, before 1998, the Omagh bombing, the maximum power of detention under s. 30 was 48 hours. It can now be extended for another 24 hours by a District judge. In European terms, surprising as it may seem, that is not a particularly long period with which to detain somebody following an arrest. Again, for example, it might surprise you to learn that in Sweden you can be detained for 8 days for an ordinary crime. In the Netherlands, another bastion of liberal democracy, one can be detained for 10 days. So I think one has to put some of those provisions in the Offences Against the State Act in perspective. I’m not saying that significant change isn’t called for, and the report will recommend significant change, but, as I say, we are going to have a report fairly quickly.
“In conclusion, I can say that I believe that whereas the Republic still has a lot to do, on the human rights front its tradition has been very very good. There had been some aggredious failures. The ban on divorce, in my view, was an affront to civil liberties, and was a real denial of the civil liberties of minority religious groups in this State, and to that I think this State can plead guilty. And there are a number of other instances. But on the whole the tradition has been a very laudable one, and one of which we can be justly proud.
Cultural rights: “I don’t think that there are any significant human rights lacunae in this State. I’m not saying we couldn’t do more, and I’m not saying the Supreme Court couldn’t be more dynamic, but if we have a lacuna, it’s not as such in the human rights area, but if we have a lacuna vis-a-vis Northern Ireland it is in the area of what we might term cultural rights. I think that one has to acknowledge that we don’t have a sufficient understanding or appreciation of the Unionist tradition. .. Speaking purely for myself, I would have loved to have seen the Orange Order march in Dublin this year as they had promised. I don’t believe that there was any significant opposition to that march. I welcome what Dr. Mansergh has just said about the various steps that the Irish Government is taking. I belive they should go further and, for example, consider declaring the 12th of July to be a public holiday. I think it’s through steps like that that we could show in a tangible way that we appreciate the cultural rights and interests of the Unionist community. But on the narrow issue of human rights itself, without seeking to be complacent, I think that our record is as good as any other member state of the Council of Europe. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.”
Chair (Roy Garland): “Thank you, Dr. Hogan, for that very interesting and challenging address. I suppose it wouldn’t really matter from a unionist perspective how good the human rights tradition and laws and legal position is, but of course the last point I think is important – the Orange thing – that’s one of the ones I was thinking of. In the Orangeman’s psyche, and in fact in the psyche of many Protestants in the North, the fact that the Orange parade couldn’t take place in Dublin had significant repercussions. I was once a member of the Orange Order, and I know something of the feeling that somehow they feelthat where the Orange parades can go there’s freedom. Now you might think that’s a crazy thing – you might think it’s precisely the opposite, because they seem to force their way. But there is a sense in which they feel a minority in Ireland and that represents a central part of their tradition, and even people who don’t associate with Orangeism feel that somehow the blocking of Orange parades has other motives than it has, and it’s very very difficult to change that mindset.
“But the point I was trying to make was that no matter how much the change is in the Republic, it shouldn’t be – and I’m sure it’s not – done to try and create unity. But maybe it is done sometimes to create unity. It will not create unity in itself – it’s to do with the relationship between people – and I think the idea of “cultural rights” is moving towards that, where people can begin to feel at least that the enmity has died. I don’t think it’s possible for people down here to appreciate the feeling that I had when I first came down here – that this was really a frightening place. I’m talking about back in the 60s. That probably sounds incredible. Even though I came down first of all to find the farm from which my great-great grandfather came from – which I found – it still was a frightening place. And I think even though we move towards a situation where the South of Ireland has much more development in human rights, liberties and freedom and so on, until something is broken about the relationship between the two groups of people we’re still going to have a long way to go. In the end it must be some situation of mutual respect and tolerance which may develop in strange ways – maybe it will result in a united Ireland. I think some of the loyalists whom I know very well have lost the fear of a united Ireland, and that’s a major development. A lot of them haven’t lost it of course… But surprisingly, people who were at the front of the conflict, that I know personally, would have expressed those views – that no longer can the fear of a united Ireland be whipped out. It’s very very difficult, but I think both communities have to be generous and start to reach out. Tonight we’re talking about the South, and I’m sort of an interloper here in a sense, but I feel from the North, people have got to get out there and do it, and symbolise it. It’s not about argument, and it’s not about rejecting people’s traditions – it’s respecting people’s traditions, and finding ways of accommodating each other. The future, I think, is open. I think the hard line about a united Ireland or even a United Kingdom, is so hard that it is counterproductive. I imagine that some republicans recognise that certainly the violence was counterproductive. The reason why unionists are so upset, I think, is that actually there is a real challenge in the peace process – a real challenge for them. In fact the more conciliatory republicans become, or were to become – I feel the republicans are still hurting and are not so conciliatory as they could be – but the more conciliatory they become the more the unionists would fear. That’s my feeling.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS (Summary only)
Q. 1. [Co. Louth resident]: “I would like to say a few words on behalf of a completely forgotten group of victims in this war, that haven’t been taken on board by the peace process …… How were the Troubles prevented from spreading south of the Border? Apart from the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, the south of Ireland remained largely unscathed while Northern Ireland bled – Protestant and Catholic. .. What would have happened if Jack Lynch had sent the army into Derry, in 1969? … There was only one army going into Derry – the British Army – and in sending in the British Army it meant the British were going for a military solution… but they had to have the South of Ireland on side – that meant full exchange of information between the Special Branch and the RUC Special Branch.. . They had to have permission for their agents to … operate on the Southern side of the Border….. What these fellows did, with the help of the Special Branch, was to murder innocent Irish citizens, up near where I live, along the Louth-Armagh border. They came there to take out what they perceived as IRA godfathers. They went to the wrong houses, killed completely innocent people, but there was an inbuilt mechanism there when they discovered what they had done – they covered up these crimes, dumped the bodies along the border … The families even to this day hardly knew what happened…. but instead of apologising or helping the families they were blackguarded endlessly, even up to this day. This is how the Troubles were prevented from coming South. An awful lot is owed – while the fat cats in the South of Ireland got the brown envelopes and the big salaries, these people were in hell. … These people have been forgotten .. they paid the price for the Troubles not coming south of the border. It’s time their suffering was recognised. Some of them are in asylums, some are already dead. De Valera’s Constitution didn’t protect them. Who is going to take them on board? …
Q. 2. [Arthur O’Connor, Trim– to Dr. Hogan]: “When the Treaty was signed… what was the status of Northern Ireland at that time… … If it was a true treaty, how could De Valera and and the Irish Government … bring out a referendum in 1937 and include the North, Articles 2 and 3, if it was copperfastened? ….
Q. 3. [Nuala McGuinnes, Nobber resident]: “I’m very glad that Dr. Hogan mentioned the Orange Order . … Speaking as a Northerner who has lived in the South for 20 years… I have found over the years here a tremendous complacency and lack of knowledge about Northern Ireland .. The summer before last, Julitta kindly asked me to go to one of the grammar schools in the area to talk to the Transition Year. The views of the students were just echoing their parents and grandparents. They had an emotional attachment with the nationalist people in Northern Ireland, but they had absolutely not a clue about the unionist people. The Republic, in the year of the Millennium, missed an opportunity it will not get again, in not allowing the Orange march to continue in Dawson Street.. That was a token march – it was organised initially by the brethren in Wicklow who are Irishmen… No doubt they have an Irish passport.. no doubt they pay their income tax..
…And this gentleman I heard on the radio said he was an Irishman, his loyalty was to the Irish state, but he could not profess his identity and his religion in his own country. He spoke about the origins of the Orange Order, which like so many things gathered baggage over the years… He said it initiated from the principles of the French Revolution and it was not anti-Catholic – it was founded from the Reformation churches, where the individual conscience determines all. It was to protect the followers of the Churches of the Reformation from the Church of Rome which is not a democracy, power comes from on top.. . I read in the paper that first of all the march was going ahead, and then I read that all the business premises in Dawson St were intimidated by Sinn Fein, and I would like to ask Dr. Mansergh … why did the government not stand up and say “let them march”? …
“Another point – to Mr MacDonncha – a few years ago, the RUC officers came down to play rugby in a Dublin suburb with members of the Garda Siochana. Everyone got on very well… I put on the television that night and I was sick, sick, to see Sinn Fein with their horrible old placards complaining about the match. What was the harm?.. The RUC wanted to come back and play again, but to the best of my knowledge they never came back…
Q.4 [Liam McGlynn]. “Would it be a good idea to have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission similar to South Africa?
Answers to questions 1-4:
Dr. Martin Mansergh:
[Re victims on the border] …There is an investigation going on in the Dept. of Justice in relation to the Seamus Ludlow affair … I think your allegations particularly in relation to that case are to be taken seriously
Questioner. – I’m not referring to the Seamus Ludlow affair ……
Dr. Mansergh: “With regard to the status of Northern Ireland — that was settled in terms of international law, not really in the Treaty, it was settled in the Boundary Agreement of 1925, and that was settled in terms of legality, but the Republican side didn’t accept the legitimacy of that… Legitimacy and legality are not the same things.. Legality is something in the legal realm, whereas legitimacy is in the moral and political realm. Articles 2 and 3 – if you stand back and be objective – were challenging more the legitimacy of Northern Ireland rather than the legality.. In a sense, once the State had signed a Boundary Agreement recognised in international law, it’s not really possible to go back unilaterally on international agreements.
Re Irish Constitution – “Perhaps I could just bring in here a couple of comments made by Gerard Hogan – one good reason for not altering the Preamble to the Constitution is that it has a quite uncanny resemblance to the Preamble to the Ulster Covenant!
“Both speak of the struggles of our fathers in times of trial, and I’ve always thought if there were ever a united Ireland, one of the easiest things to do would be to amalgamate the Preamble to our Constitution and bring in the Ulster Covenant!
“With regard to De Valera anddivorce, he did leave an escape clause for the minority – the recognition of foreign divorces, and in those days maybe he was thinking mainly of the Anglo-Irish who flitted between the two countries…
Re the Orange Order and Dawson Street – “The Guards were approached, and were quite happy to police. The Taoiseach was approached – through me as it happens – and had absolutely no problem with an Orange march. However, one of the requests they made was that they could use the facilities of St. Anne’s, Dawson Street, and the Church of Ireland rector was not willing to do that. And if I could put a Church of Ireland hat on, the whole Drumcree business has been very divisive in terms of the Church of Ireland, and I think the Church of Ireland didn’t want to send the message to people in the Republic that it in some way or other identified with the Orange Order, especially as each year with Drumcree you see a big Church of Ireland spire, and you have the people protesting outside. I do honestly think – naturally we are a free democratic state, the Orangemen march in Rossnowlagh as it is, and there’s no reason in principle why they shouldn’t be subject to the public order, why they shouldn’t march in Dublin, I mean the Guards were prepared to deal with that situation.. .
“But if you’re asking away from law, I do think it would be better for all concerned if the Drumcree situation were sorted out. I’m afraid I don’t accept that the Orange Order is not anti-Catholic, you’ve only got to look at their constitution. Remember, David Trimble when he went to attend a memorial service for people in Donegal, there was a motion in one of the Orange lodges to expel him from the Orange Order for attending a service in a Catholic Church. I’ve met many people in the Orange Order, and like every other institution, be it a church, be it a State, they need to update and modernise which they haven’t done for a very long time – to modernise anachronistic parts of their Order. But I do want to say the State had no objection to the Orange Order marching, but the Church of Ireland did have an objection – they were not willing to allow St. Anne’s to be used.
Questioner – Could they not have held it in the Mansion House?
Dr. Mansergh: “That would be for the current mayor – she was actually very supportive”
Questioner – “When I referred to the Orange Order, I was talking about when they first set up, and they took the principles from the French Revolution…
Dr. Mansergh – “No it was the Glorious Revolution, not the French Revolution, which is quite different. The Orange Order was anti the French Revolution…
Questions/4
Brian Hayes: Re Truth Commission. “The straight answer is yes. We’ve all seen the difficulties in Yugoslavia, when that war-torn country was attempting to be put back together again. How difficult it is to face the future unless the past has been confronted, and all the hurt that has been done to people – that gentleman there expressed it and there are countless examples in the Republic and in Northern Ireland. A way forward could be seen in the following way. The Fusco case was interesting – the British Government dropped the extradition charges – there are about 40 persons from N.I. who reside here in the Republic who still have charges to their name in Northern Ireland or in other parts of the UK. I understand that in the majority of those cases that extradition warrants are not now being served for those people, so it is clear that those people will not now come before the courts. And if that is the case for paramilitaries, surely then we should look at the establishment of some kind of Commission, where loyalist and republican death squads and where the State failed in its responsibility, and all groups could be given an opportunity to come before some kind of Commission. I think we have to look into that, because the grievances felt by so many people have not been adequately addressed in this process. It’s quite clear, the one group of people who have not had their story told are the victims. I know we have a Commissioner who is doing excellent work, but I do not believe the process has dealt with the vicitms in the way it should have, and I think a Truth Commission is one way where we might make progress…
Re Orange Order – “We saw today in the streets of Dublin where the taximen demanded their right to march .. … how emotive and important this issue actually is. .. I happen to believe that the Orange Order handled last summer’s events badly – that’s my honest assessment of it. They were given an opportunity to assemble in the Mansion House, by Dublin Corporation, and were shown tremendous courage from the Labour Party Lord Mayor. I’m aware that St. Anne’s did not give them permission to assemble in their Church. But I would have liked to see it happen. I’m also aware that there was intimidation to shop owners in that area – whether it came from the group you mentioned, I have no evidence, but it happened. And as long as that kind of dual personality exists within some of those organisations that kind of intimidation will continue, vouched and cloaked in the kind of political participation that some people argue. So I very much regret that that march did not take place, but I think there was as much fault on the Orange Order as there was within Dublin Corporation at the time, because the facility was made available to them. I think the problem was insurance costs at the time, but I would like to see that happen, because it would be a good example of a modern pluralist country.
Annual Day of Reconciliation: “Finally, can I say, I’m very much in favour of a Day of Reconcilation.. . This idea came from the Irish Government last year, and it was a very novel proposal…. whereby one day of reconciliation would be established and on that day progress would be made on the decommissioning issue and the Executive would be re-established..
“But I don’t think it should be actually one day… I believe there should be an annual day of reconciliation that would be common to both Northern Ireland and the Republic … I think some day has to be established so that people can pause and stop and think of the suffering that has bedevilled this island for so long.”
Co. Louth questioner – “Should that be before or after the Truth Commission is set up?
Brian Hayes: “I think it should take place next year – as a principle I would be in favour of it…”
Micheal Mac Donncha: “On the issue of the Truth Commission, I think we do need to look at models where this has happened in other countries – various ways of getting to the bottom of what actually happened, and obviously to do it in a way which can advance what everybody is trying to achieve at the moment. I did mention the activities that happened in this State over the years – we do need to see those investigated as well, specifically where they involved incursions into the South.”
Re Orange Order march in Dawson St: “I have to refute immediately any allegation that Sinn Fein was involved in intimidation of any kind. I am very surprised to hear Deputy Hayes mention intimidation of people in Dawson Street, it’s the first time that I ever heard of it – I haven’t heard anybody in that street making that accusation. I can recall.. that one of the shop owners was interviewed in the Sunday Business Post and said quite openly that he objected to the march. To clarify Sinn Fein’s position – we did not object to the holding of an Orange march, and we do not object to the right of the Orange Order to march anywhere in the country. There are Orange marches in this jurisdiction, we do not object to that in any way… We defend the right of the Orange Order and other groups to assemble and parade. What we did object to was that, in the context of the continuing standoff in Portadown and the siege that the people of Garvaghy Road were under at that time, that the Mayor of Dublin, Mary Frehill, proposed to formally welcome the Orange Order on behalf of the people of Dublin. Our councillors objected to that. We did not object to the march. As Dr. Mansergh has said, the Church of Ireland rector in Dawson Street did not welcome the group there. So I must totally refute any notion of intimidation and I would like to see evidence that could be brought forward of it..
Now just on the Orange Order, I have my own experience – my father, his own father was from a family in which they were all members of the Orange Order, but because he didn’t join – he joined Brian’s former party, the Labour Party, and married a Catholic, he was actually ostracised by the rest of his family. Sadly the reality is that the Orange Order is a sectarian organisation – that is not in any way to deny people’s right to be part of the Orange Order, or to deny that that is a strand or tradition in Irish life, but we have to face reality. There’s no point in being starry-eyed and saying “let’s embrace this tradition, let’s embrace this organisation”, without looking at what exactly it is
Constitutional change: “ I think the changes in terms of divorce, in terms of the place of the Catholic Church in the Constitution here, were the right changes to make, they were long overdue, not only for the purpose of reconciliation, but also because of the rights of people in this jurisdiction.
“I was interested in the remarks of Roy in relation to the change in attitudes – and it’s a very slow historical process – the change in attitudes of everybody, but especially including unionists, and maybe not being so nervous as they were before in looking at different options for the constitutional future of this island. What we need to talk about is… what sort of united Ireland? … It’s not just about uniting territory, it’s not even just about uniting people…
Chair, Roy Garland – re Orange Order: “Dr. Mansergh spoke about the need to update and modernise, in regard to the Orange Order. I would totally agree. The difficulty that I would see, as a former member of the Orange Order, is that they are so much on the defensive they are not capable of changing and reforming at all. They are not a strong organisation as they are depicted, they are a weak organisation, and to my mind they’re sort of flailing out aimlessly. They really don’t have a coherent strategy. They really don’t know where they are going, they don’t know what they are about. They are a weak organisation. Once they had influence – if it was influence – with the Unionist Party. I think actually it was the other way round, but even that they’ve lost. And if you look at it from that perspective – if you can reach the Orangemen in some way, by opening up the possibilities in the Republic, I think you are freeing unionists. Because a lot of unionists, even if they are not members of the Orange Order, somehow see the way the Orange Order is treated as reflecting them, and they feel a minority on this island who are under pressure, they feel they are being squeezed out. Now I don’t agree with that, I think it’s self-defeating, but nevertheless it is a reality, and I think we all have to try and address that.
“But it’s extremely difficult, and I get frustrated and feel like saying all sorts of things to them – and I have said some things, which actually doesn’t help. And I think nationalists, particularly in the South, have the opportunity of showing to Orangemen, like in the situation of the parade, that it can take place. It’s very regrettable that it couldn’t take place, for whatever the reason, because it confirmed the worst prejudices of Orangemen and many unionists as well. There’s room there to do something about that – to open up that dialogue. We had a meeting last week in Co. Louth, with leaders of the Independent Orange Order. It was very hard stuff. I felt angry at some of what they were saying, and other people felt angry. but they needed to say it. The dialogue started with the Independent Orange Order who are more extreme, in religious terms, than the Orange Order – if I could use that word “extreme”. We’ve got to get into dialogue with each other, the most extreme groups on both sides need to face the realities and say it to each other face to face…
Q.5. [John Keaveney, Kilbride teacher] – to Brian Hayes on schools: “.. there’s a lot of things going on at primary level, and I would hate to think that policy would leave out the primary schools.. I think the Irish and British Governments should develop the Socrates programme … which would bring Scottish, Welsh, English and Irish together… .. so that more children can meet each other at a very young age. If you wait until they are 16 or 17, you’re too late to change their perceptions…
To Dr. Mansergh: “The Dept. of Foreign Affairs funds all peace groups – the Dept of Education appears to be being left out of the picture, to a certain degree… There’s a North-South committee in the Dept. of Education but nobody seems to know it exists – has that been set up as a result of the Good Friday Agreement? Could Foreign Affairs try to channel some money to education?
Q. 6. “I’d like to compliment all speakers here tonight…. I’m wondering.. I’m sort of sceptical that there’s a body of unionist opinion that will not accept us, no matter what happens down here .. I wonder, were we to embrace the British constitution, I wonder if Jeffrey Donaldson would ask us to embrace the monarchy as well?
Q.7. [Meath resident] Re Orange Order: May I remind people that in Donegal, there’s an Orange march without any trouble whatsoever every year. Surely if the people of Donegal can travel with an Orange march, surely the liberal people of Dublin can do likewise?
Q. 8. [Tom Hodgins, Drogheda Ecumenical Peace Group: “ I feel that changing our laws and proving ourselves or parading our business acumen will not of themselves bring peace to our land. I think I would be more thinking along the lines of building friendship and contact, and an overt showing that we are willing to change. Because we are all instruments of peace… I have two questions – one to Gerard – is our record so pristine in the human rights area because of our high regard for the dignity of the individual or is it because of the lack of strength of challenge? To Martin.. should the South spend more time working on our own calendar to help people on their own journey. Is it almost too taken up in responding to the situation in the North? .. Could we help people on their journey by showing the way in healing by bringing to a proper form of closure our own Civil War, to mark respect for the people who died in that period?
Q.9. [John Clancy, Meath Peace Group]: “We talked about the Truth Commission, and that seems to be broadly acceoted.. With regard to the possible apathy among people – I don’t think that apathy is there, I think we needs to fertilise it. The number of people who have come to these talks, the number that is here tonight, shows that there is interest which needs to be fostered. Can I suggest a variant of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation to help focus and develop this dialogue?
Decommissioning: “A specific question to the Sinn Fein speaker, and you are very welcome indeed. As I understand it the two independent assessors visited in the order of 30 dumps in the Republic. It defies my understanding of the issue of decommissioning that they haven’t engaged with De Chastelain.. Why has not more happened? .. The interlocutor was appointed but no conversation has taken place.. How or when does Sinn Fein reckon that this may happen before May 21st next year?
Answers to Questions 5-9
Gerard Hogan: “Our record on human rights is not pristine, certainly not.. but it is much better than it is depicted – I was seeking to put that in a comparative perspective. And it is certainly not because of any lack of challenges. The first case ever to come before the European Court of Human Rights.. was after all an Irish case… The number of constitutional challenges that are presently going on, not to speak of those that have gone on in the past, is almost overwhelming.. ..One thing is for sure it isn’t for want of the government being challenged in the courts. The Government is challenged in the courts day in and day out.
“One other thing about the Orange march.. I have no doubt whatever but that the Orangemen’s right to march is absolutely protected by the Constitution, and any attempt by this State to stop them marching would be an unconstitutional interference with their liberties. It may be unwelcome news to them, it may be a surprise to them … but they would be better protected under Mr De Valera’s Constitution than under the common law in Northern Ireland.
Micheal MacDonncha – re decommissioning: “I don’t think that information [re arms dumps] came from the arms inspectors.. I have to say I was surprised that there was a second inspection given the context. The fact that the Policing Bill had been so far removed from what the Patten Report had envisaged, and there had been very little progress on demilitarisation. I think that’s the reason why more has not happened. I believe that the commitment that the IRA made in May was sincere, they will continue with the process, but it’s part of the political difficulties, it’s part of the overall context of what decommissioning means.. that we touched on earlier….
John Clancy: “Will we see something before the deadline, May of next year?
Micheal Mac Donncha: “We’ve always said that deadlines have never been helpful.. I think the context in which progress was made was a context where everything was to be moved forward together…
John Clancy: “The guns are a political tool, are they? You seem to be linking them in with a whole lot of things…
MichealMac Donncha – “I didn’t say that that all, I’m simply recognising the reality that is there. I’m speaking for Sinn Fein. The reality is that you can bring people as far as they are willing to go – it has to happen within a context. It is fruitless to go to any organisation to seek to achieve something which you are of the view is unachievable at the time. So I would refute the notion that it’s deploying something in order to make political gain, I would totally refute that.
Brian Hayes: On the decommissioning issue – our Constitution is very clear about this matter, as to the rights of the Oireachtas solely and exclusively.. to raise an army… .. The Taoiseach was very brave in what he had to say on this matter some months ago when he clearly made the distinction between the Northern Ireland Executive and the Oireachtas, and specifically the role we have as an Oireachtas to raise an army and to maintain an army.
On schools, “the gentleman rightly said I did exclude primary education.. you are right, it needs to start at an earlier age. Also there was a commitment in the Agreement for a joint parliamentary forum .. I think it would be quite a useful thing if a civic forum were to be established in the Republic which would allow groups like yours, and there are countless others, in the peace and reconciliation business, as it were, to tap into all the arms of government and tap into the potential that is there… I think some kind of consultative forum should be established, and I think there is provision for it in the Agreement…
Dr. Mansergh: On the last point – there is provision, and the government would be keen – obviously it’s a matter for the Government and the Assembly.. At the same time, realistically, we need to get over some of the current difficulties first. I do broadly agree with what Micheal said about the context in moving things forward, whether we like it or we don’t like it, and much of the time we don’t like it. For example, David Trimble has created a linkage between appointing people to the North-South Ministerial Council and meaningful re-engagement with the de Chastelain Commission. From a Government perspective, one may dislike these linkages but the reality is you tend to move forward a few issues at a time, and that’s very often the only way you can deal with an individual difficulty.
Education: “I’ll certainly look into the question of education and peace and reconciliation funding. I would have thought that would have been covered.
Truth Commission: “We have a truth commision of a sort in the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, just relating to a particular episode. There are pros and cons of that. I was interested in the idea of possibly using a revived form of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation looking at those sort of matters. I have no doubt the feelings of victims will remain very intense for a long time to come.
“Somebody raised the question .. if we adopted the British Constitution would unionists join a political structure? I happen to believe that, if for pure theoretical argument, we were prepared to go back into the United Kingdom on a Home Rule, sort of Redmondite basis, I still think you would find that Ulster Unionists would not be prepared to come in under a Dublin Parliament, even though that was a united Ireland with devolution in a unitary state of the United Kingdom. It underlines the point that beyond a certain point … there ‘s no point whatsoever in attempting to stand on our head, because you won’t necessarily get the response.
“I take the point about the Civil War but I genuinely believe that Civil War politics has been transcended at this stage. Most people can see, whatever tradition they identify with, that there was something on both sides of the argument. I remember one former Taoiseach whom I served but who also had links with the Free State side saying he often found it very difficult to make up his mind, who was right and who was wrong. I think Fianna Fail people certainly respect Michael Collins and I think probably a lot of Fine Gael people respect at least some of the achievements of de Valera, the Constitution especially, and certainly Sean Lemass.
Brian Fitzgerald: “In relation to the Forum that you referred to, yes. But I think the best forum of all is in the schools and I believe a lot more could be done in the schools. I think the teachers should encourage bringing people in – people like yourselves – I know they did for a period, there was a pilot scheme introduced, and that could be done on a far broader basis to give people a better understanding of what we are talking about. A lot of the language that is spoken on television goes over the heads of young people. They’re not interested, it’s boring. But if they listen to it in the school, for a half an hour or something like that, it may get through to them what we are about. There’s a lot of things being spoken here tonight, if they were addressed to a young audience would they listen? I don’t believe they would. That’s the reality. But they’re the people we’ve got to get if we’re going to ever build peace and reconciliation on this island – a lasting one.
Re Orange Order: “I remember when a number of us were invited to meet a group from the Orange Order, and we were sitting having a discussion. There was a guy from the Ballynafeigh lodge who used to march up and down the Ormeau Road, a young chap. And I asked him – why do you have to march if you’re offending people who feel that you shouldn’t march? Why must you march that particular route? His only answer was, and the only reason why he was insisting that he should march, was “my great-grandfather walked it., my grandfather walked it, my father walked it, and if I don’t walk it I’ll let them down.” How are we going to change that thinking? As you said, they’ve no direction and that’s the tragedy. There are many many other groups in our society who feel the very same on other issues. We’ve a lot of hard work to do but we cannot sit on our butt in the South and be complacent and be comfortable. Because the problem won’t go away – it has the unfortunate knack of coming round. And we can have difficulties here, because there are some very very courageous people in Northern Ireland who have been involved with paramilitaries on both sides, who are preventing atrocities happening both North and South, and we should all remember that . We are only a very small distance away at any one time from some nut doing something rather stupid and rather tragic like what we saw in Omagh and elsewhere.
CLOSING WORDS AND THANKS
Chair (Roy Garland): “.. Just on the last note, about the contribution of loyalists and republicans “on the ground” – it’s a very real thing. Unfortunately they don’t get a lot of thanks for it, because it’s not seen, and it’s hard work. And I know there are people on both sides .. having extreme difficulty bringing the hardliners along. Sometimes it looks like they are sort of retreating because they are trying to speak to them, but they have to speak to them. We’re almost learning in Northern Ireland to speak in that way and understand the other community. And loyalists do understand, and republicans do understand, the difficulties that the other community has. That doesn’t make it any easier. Things are extremely difficult at the moment, but, like many people, I have a confidence that somehow we’ll reach there in the end, I hope, and yet we’re on a knife edge. So I’m very grateful to all the people who have worked, from both communities, and for you down here and the people we have here on the platform, and on your behalf I would like to thank each of the speakers here tonight for giving up their time and energies for us tonight. Thank you.”
Julitta Clancy: On behalf of the Meath Peace Group, Julitta Clancy thanked the speakers and the Chairman, Roy Garland, for their time and generosity, and she thanked the audience for coming, some from great distances. She also thanked the Columban Fathers for once again facilitating the talk at Dalgan Park. Picking up some of the themes mentioned in the question and answer session, she said that the group would like to see some sort of a people’s forum in the South – “to get people talking – even on a pilot basis – but also to allow community groups to feed into this peace process”. On schools, the Meath Peace Group had considerable experience in secondary schools in Meath and Louth: “young people of 16 or 17 can do so much to change attitudes. They start with prejudices as we all do, then they listen, they argue, they challenge each other, and we have seen tremendous good coming out of those exchanges”. The group would like to see resources made available for schools and teachers who really want to do this work. “It’s no threat to anyone, it actually works extremely well”.. .”We need to build and cement this peace and we appeal to the government to consider the idea of a forum … there is provision in the Agreement for some sort of a joint forum, but I think we need to do something before that.” She said such a Forum could also take in issues relating to minority groups such as those now coming into the country.
Ends
Meath Peace Group Report. December 2000. (c) Meath Peace Group
Compiled and edited by Julitta Clancy. Taped by Anne Nolan and Oliver Ward.
APPENDIX A: BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON SPEAKERS
Cllr. Brian Fitzgerald (Independent). Trade unionist and full-time SIPTU official, Brian has served on Meath Co. Council for 15 years and was chair of the Council from 1999-2000. He is also a member of the North Eastern Health Board. From 1992-1997, he served as Labour Party TD for Co. Meath. During that time he held many positions in the Labour Party, and was also a member of the party’s delegation to the Forum for Peace and Reconcilation. In the period 1993-94 Brian was involved, along with Fergus Finlay, in ground-breaking talks with loyalist paramilitaries prior to their ceasefire.
Roy Garland: Belfast teacher, researcher and member of the Ulster Unionist Party, Roy writes a weekly column in the nationalist Irish News and was one of the few members of his party to address the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in 1995. In the course of research into his family’s history he made contact with many people in Louth and out of these links he founded a unique historical and reconciliation group “The Guild of Ancient Uriel” – which has met regularly in Louth since 1995 and has been involved in dialogue with a wide variety of groups and individuals from all sides of the divide in Northern Ireland. The Guild’s members come from North and South of the border and Roy is the co-chair of the Guild along with Julitta Clancy of the Meath Peace Group
Brian Hayes, TD (Fine Gael). Educated at Garbally Park, Ballinasloe, Maynooth College, and Trinity College Dublin, Brian was formerly a secondary school teacher and Fine Gael National Youth and Education Officer. He has been a member of Dublin County Council since 1995, served on Seanad Eireann from 1995-1997 and worked as secretary to the Fine Gael Group at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. Elected to the Dail in 1997, for the constituency of Dublin South West, he first served as Spokesperson on Housing, House Prices and Urban Renewal and was recently appointed Front Bench Spokesperson on Northern Ireland. He is also Vice Chairperson to the Oireachtas Committee on the Implementation of Strategic Management Initiative in the Irish Civil Service
Dr. Gerard Hogan, Senior Counsel, Barrister of King’s Inns, Fellow of Trinity College Dublin and Lecturer in Law, is the author of numerous works on constitutional and administrative law and is the editor of Kelly’sIrish Constitution. Dr. Hogan served as a member of the Constitution Review Group from 1995-1996 and is currently a member of the Offences Against the State Review Group set up as a result of the Good Friday Agreement. Dr. Hogan first addressed the Meath Peace Group in September 1994 when he spoke on the subject of Articles Two and Three of the Irish Constitution
Micheal MacDonncha (Sinn Féin). Native of Dublin, he has been a member of Sinn Fein Ard Chomhairle since 1990 and was Editor of An Phoblacht/Republican News from 1990 to 1996. He has served as Dail secretary to Sin Fein deputy for Cavan/Monaghan, Caoimhghin O Caolain, since 1997, and is the author of the Sinn Fein submission to the Committee to Review the Offences Against the State Acts.
Dr. Martin Mansergh (Special Advisor to the Taoiseach on Northern Ireland): Son of the Tipperary-born historian Nicholas Mansergh, he was educated in Canterbury and Christ Church, Oxford, and entered the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1974. He served as Third Secretary, First Secretary and Principal Officer in various units before resigning from the civil service in 1981 to become Head of Research, Fianna Fail. He subsequently served as Special Advisor to three taoisigh – Charles Haughey, Albert Reynolds and Bertie Ahern, and was co-winner (with Fr. Alec Reid and Rev. Roy Magee) of the 1994 Tipperary Peace Prize. He is the author of numerous articles on the peace process and other political and historical topics, and edited a volume of speeches of Charles Haughey The Spirit of the Nation, in 1986
APPENDIX B:Principles Underlying the Good Friday Agreement and Commitments made by the Irish Government – A Summary (Compiled by the Meath Peace Group)
Declaration of Support
In the opening chapter of the Agreement – the “Declaration of Support”, the participants (i.e. the parties and the two governments), in a “spirit of concord”, strongly commended the Agreement to the people, North and South, for their approval, and set out the key principles underlying the Agreement. These principles were reaffirmed in the British-Irish Agreement.
New beginning “We … believe that the Agreement we have negotiated offers a truly historic opportunity for a new beginning”
Legacy of “The tragedies of the past have left a deep and
suffering profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering”
Remembrance “We must never forget those who have died or been injured”
Fresh start “But we can best honour them through a fresh start”
in which
Reconciliation “We firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of
Tolerance reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust,
Mutual trust and to the protection and vindication of the
Human rights human rights of all”
Partnership “We are committed to partnership, equality and mutual
Equality respectas the basis of relationships within N.I. ,
Mutual respect between North and South, and between these islands”
Democracy “We reaffirm our total and absolute commitment to
Non-violence exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences on political issues, and our
Opposition opposition to any use or threat of force by others
to use of force for any political purpose ..”
Equality “We acknowledge the substantial differences between
of our continuing and equally legitimate, political
aspirations aspirations”
Reconciliation “We will endeavour to strivein every practical way towardsRapprochment reconciliation and rapprochement …”
Good faith “We pledge that we will, in good faith, work to ensure the success of each and every one of the arrangements to be established under this agreement.”
Interdependency “It is accepted that all of the institutional and constitutional arrangements … are interlocking and interdependent and that in particular the functioning of the Assembly and the North/South Council are so closely inter-related that the success of each depends on that of the other .. ”
Constitutional Issues
“Legitimacy of whatever choiceis freely exercised” by a majority of the people in N. Ireland
Self-determination “It is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively… to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent freely and concurrently given, North and South. to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish”
Consentprinciple: “This right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of NI ”
Status of N. Ireland: “The present wish of a majority of the people of N.I. … is to maintain the Union”. Therefore “it would be wrong to make any change in the status of N.I. save with the consent of a majority of its people.”
Exercise of Governmental power: Government to be exercised with“rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions” and founded on the principles of
“full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights,
of freedom from discrimination for all citizens and of parity of esteem and
of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities”
Identity: Recognition of “birthright of all the people of N.I. to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British,or both”
Citizenship “Right to hold both British and Irish citizenship … would not be affected by any future change in the status of NI.”
Constitution of Ireland, Articles 2 and 3.1
Art. 2 – Irish nation: “It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage”
Art. 3.1 – United Ireland: “It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. …..”
Strand One: Democratic Institutions in Northern Ireland
Assembly: “This Agreement provides for a democratically elected Assembly ..which is inclusive in its membership, capable ofexercising executive and legislative authority, and subject to safeguards to protect the rights and interestsof all sides of the community.”
Safeguards: Allocations of key posts in proportion to party strengths; decisions to be human rights–proofed; Human Rights Commission; Bill of Rights; key decisions to be taken on cross-community basis; Equality Commission to “monitor a statutory obligation topromote equality of opportunity in specified areas and parity ofesteem between the two main communities…”
Ministers’ Pledge of Office: Pledge of good faith; commitment to non-violence and “exclusively peaceful and democratic means”; “to serve all the people of Northern Ireland equally”, “promote equality and prevent discrimination”; support “all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly”; comply with Ministerial Code of Conduct.
Ministers’ Code of Conduct – Propriety, impartiality, integrity, objectivity in relation to public funds, accountability, reasonableness; promotion of good community relations and equality of treatment; non-use of information gained for public gain, declaration of interests…
Strand Two: North/South
North/South Ministerial Council: To bring together those with executive responsibilities in N.I. and the Irish Government, to “develop consultation, co-operation and action within the island of Ireland … on matters of mutual interestwithin thecompetence of the administrations, North and South”. “All Council decisions to be by agreement between the two sides”. Best endeavours “to reach agreement on the adoption of common policies”.
North/South Implementation bodies: on “all-Ireland and cross-border basis”. Considerationalso to be given to establishment of: Joint Parliamentary forum and a North/South Consultative Civic Forum
Strand Three: British-Irish Dimension
British-Irish Council: “To promote the harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of relationships among the peoples of these islands..”
British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference: “To promote bilateral co-operation at all levels on all matters of mutual interest within the competence of both governments” . Provision is also made for regular meetings concerned with “non-devolved Northern Ireland matters”, facilitation of co-operation in security matters, review of the workings of the agreement, and addressing areas of rights, justice, prisons and policing in N. Ireland.]
Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity
Human rights: General commitment to the “mutual respect, the civil rights and the religious liberties of everyone in the community”.
Rights specifically affirmed –
right to free political thought, freedom and expression of religion, right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations,
right to seek constitutional change by peaceful and legitimate means; right to freely choose one’s place of residence;
right to equal opportunity;
right to freedom from sectarian harassment;
right of women to full and equal political participation
Steps to be taken by British Government – Human Rights Commission, Incorporation of ECHR, Equality Commission. Bill of Rights: “to reflect the particular circumstances of N.I. ….. to reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem”
Steps to be taken by the Irish Government
Setting up of Human Rights Commission; examination of question of the incorporation of the ECHR, measures to ensure “at least an equivalent level of protection of human rights as will pertain in Northern Ireland”; ratification of Framework Convention on National Minorities; employment equality and equal status legislation. Government to take steps to “further strengthen the protection of human rights in its jurisdiction”, “bring forward measures to strengthen and underpin the constitutional protection of human rights.” and ““continue to take further active steps to demonstrate its respect for the different traditions in the island of Ireland”.
Joint committee of the two Commissions envisaged “as a forum for consideration of human rights issues in the island of Ireland”. Consideration of “the possibility of establishing a charter, open to signature by all democratic parties, reflecting and endorsing agreed measures for the protection of the fundamental rights of everyone living in the island of Ireland.”
Victims of Violence
Need to “acknowledge and address the suffering of the victims of violence as a necessary element of reconciliation” is recognised. The participants promise support for the development of community based initiatives and recognise the need for services “supportive and sensitive to the needs of victims”.
Reconciliation and Mutual Understanding
Tribute paid to the work being done by many organisations to develop “reconciliation and mutual understanding and respect between and within communities and traditions, in N. Ireland and between North and South” . Such work is seen as having a “vital role in consolidating peace and political agreement” . “An essential element of the reconciliation process is the promotion of a culture of tolerance at every level of society…” Initiatives to facilitate and encourage integrated education and mixed housing.
Economic, Social and Cultural Issues
Economic growth and stability in N. Ireland: provision for a new regional development strategy “tackling the problems of a divided society and social cohesion in urban, rural and border areas”; measures for advancement of women in public life, employment equality, new Targeting Social Need initiative, combatting unemployment, and “eliminating the differential in unemployment rates between the two communities”, protection and enhancement of the environment, etc.
Language
The importance of “respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity “ is recognised “including in N.I., the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities.” Support and promotion of the Irish language provided for..
Symbols and emblems
Acknowledgment of the “sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division…”
DECOMMISSIONING
“The resolution of the decommissioning issue is an indispensable part of the process of negotiation”. Progress noted in developing schemes “which can represent a workable basis for achieving the decommissioning of illegally-held arms in the possession of paramilitary groups.”
Commitment to disarmament: “All participants .. reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations”. Confirmation of intention to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to “achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement.”
SECURITY
“normalisation of security arrangements and practice. ”
Steps to be taken by British government include reduction of numbers and role of Armed Forces, removal of security installations, removal of emergency powers, consultation with Irish Government, consultation on firearms regulation
Steps to be taken by the Irish Government:
“The Irish Government will initiate a wide-ranging review of the Offences Against the State Acts 1939-85 with a view to both reform and dispensing with those elements no longer required as circumstances permit.”
POLICING AND JUSTICE
Future policing arrangements in N. I. – provision for the Independent Commission on Policing and the review of the criminal justice system.
Policing
The participants recognisethat policing is a “central issue in any society.” They equally recognise that “N. Ireland’s history of deep divisions has made it highly emotive, with great hurt suffered and sacrifices made by many individuals and their families, including those in the RUC….”
The Agreement provides the “opportunity for a new beginning to policing in N. Ireland with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole.” They also believe that this Agreement offers a “unique opportunity to bring about a new political dispensation which will recognise the full and equal legitimacy and worth of the identities, senses of allegiance and ethos of all sections of the community in N. Ireland.”
“Essential that policing structures and arrangements are such that the police service is professional, effective and efficient, fair and impartial, free from partisan political control; accountable, both under the law .. and to the community it serves; representative of the society it polices, and operates within a coherent and co-operative criminal justice system, which conforms with human rights norms. ….”
Criminal Justice System
Wide-ranging review of criminal justice system to be undertaken
Aims of criminal justice system: to “deliver a fair and impartial system of justice to the community”; to “be responsive to the community’s concerns, and encouraging community involvement where appropriate”, to “have the confidence of all parts of the community” and “deliver justice efficiently and effectively”.
PRISONERS
Release: Accelerated programme for the release of prisoners. ”Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements…” Review process to “provide for the advance of the release dates of qualifying prisoners while allowing account to be taken of the seriousness of the offences for which the person was convicted and the need to protect the community…”
Reintegration: “The Governments continue to recognise the importance of measures to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities, re-training and/or re-skilling and further education.”
ENDS
Meath Peace Group Report. December 2000. (c) Meath Peace Group
Compiled and edited by Julitta Clancy. Taped by Anne Nolan and Oliver Ward.
Meath Peace Group Committee (all in Co. Meath): Julitta and John Clancy, Batterstown; Pauline Ryan, Navan; Anne Nolan, Slane; Fr. Michael Kane, An Tobar, Ardbraccan; Rev. John Clarke, Navan; Philomena Boylan-Stewart, Longwood; Leona Rennicks, Ardbraccan; John Keaveney, Kilbride; Olive Kelly, Lismullen
No. 38 – “MAKING A DIFFERENCE – THE NEW N.I. EXECUTIVE AND ASSEMBLY”
Monday, 12th June 2000.
St. Columban’s College, Dalgan Park, Navan
Speakers
Robin Wilson (Director, Democratic Dialogue)
Cllr. Anne Carr (Coordinator, Women Together Moving On)
Jim Lennon (Chairperson, SDLP)
Dermot Nesbitt, MLA (UUP) Junior Minister, Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister)
Chaired by Fergus Finlay
Contents:
Introduction and welcome: Cllr Brian Fitzgerald (Chair of Meath County Council) and Fergus Finlay
Addresses of speakers
Questions and comments
Closing words: Julitta Clancy
Appendix A: “Making a Difference ….” extracts (Robin Wilson, June 2000)
Appendix B: Biographical notes on speakers
INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME:
Cllr. Brian Fitzgerald, Chairman of Meath County Council: – “It gives me great pleasure to welcome all our distinguished guests here from Northern Ireland this evening, in particular I would like to welcome Dermot, who is the first sitting Minister to attend one of our meetings here…. It is wonderful to see somebody like Dermot give up his time at a very critical time in Northern Ireland to come here and speak to you. Also Robin Wilson, Cllr. Anne Carr and Jim Lennon of the SDLP – you are all very welcome here this evening… Of course I would also have to welcome my old friend and colleague over the years, Fergus Finlay, who has played a tremendous role in a quiet way in trying to foster peace and reconciliation…
“I believe that we have tremendous opportunities in this country for the coming years. We in this county which is extremely close to Northern Ireland – there’s not much land between us – I believe there are tremendous opportunities for us both to work together both from an economic and social and indeed from a tourism point of view, and I sincerely hope that Dermot and his many colleagues in the Executive and on the Assembly will be frequent visitors to County Meath. You will always be very welcome.
“I would like to say one special word of thanks to the Meath Peace Group who down through the years have worked tremendously hard during a period when a lot of people had thrown their hands up to heaven and said “there’s no hope”. The Meath Peace Group kept plugging away, they kept bringing people here to debate, discuss, have a cup of tea; from various walks of life in Northern Ireland, to get a better understanding. They just kept plugging away and at times I often said how do they do it? They achieved something that we could not achieve in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, they brought members of the Unionist Party here to speak with other colleagues with whom they had very much opposing views. They kept going. The way Dermot gave up his time tonight is an example of the esteem in which you are held. I will finish by saying Dermot, if you could organise a good road-map of Belfast, please supply Fergus Finlay with it – he got lost a few times up there! Enjoy your evening and I wish you all the best, good luck with the Assembly, good luck to all your colleagues up there. Good luck to the Meath Peace Group – please keep up the good work, you have succeeded to date. Thank you very much.”
Chair, Fergus Finlay: “Can I on your behalf thank Brian Fitzgerald who – it’s a most disloyal and treacherous thing for me to say – is still the best Labour man in Meath. I look forward to the day when he’ll be doing what he’s doing in his proper home. He mentioned earlier the necessity for a good road-map of Belfast and I think he was referring to an occasion when he, unknown to a lot of people, managed to strike up a dialogue with the sort of person that I suppose you wouldn’t really want to meet on a dark night, especially if you’re from down here, and he persuaded me on one occasion to go and meet some of them and in fact it was the beginning of a dialogue which contributed, I think, in some small way anyway, to the loyalist cease-fire. But the first time we went up, I drove and we both talked about how well we knew N.I. and how well we knew our way around .. and we had to find a venue quite near the university. We ended up hopelessly lost and I eventually pulled up outside a shop and I looked up … and there was a street sign on the corner which said Shankhill Road. I said to Brian “get out and go in and ask for directions” and he said “I’m not getting out, you go in and get directions!” I was the spin-doctor and he was the elected politician at the time – he pulled rank and made me go into the shop to get directions and to my surprise they couldn’t have been more friendly, they couldn’t have been more hospitable or welcoming and they sent us on our way. In fact they walked to the corner of the street to make sure we didn’t get lost … One of the things I learned to value most about Brian over the years is that he does the work that he does without looking for thanks or reward or without looking for acknowledgement for it, and I think that it’s only appropriate that, in a time when an awful lot of people are mentioned in history books and are mentioned in television documentaries and are mentioned in their own memoirs as having made a major contribution, that I should acknowledge the not insignificant role that a Labour Party backbencher played in a very quiet, but very important way….”
“.. Tonight’s meeting takes place against a background of very considerable hope and of very considerable optimism. There are still problems and there are still difficulties – the issue of policing is still causing difficulties, the issues of flags and emblems are still causing difficulties and of course we’re at the start of the perennial marching season which always has its potential. This time it’s all happening against a background of genuine solid, well-founded progress. It’s an honour I think for the peace group, and certainly I feel honoured, that we have with us tonight a number of people, not least of them Dermot Nesbitt who have made a very significant contribution to where we are now. Our first speaker is Robin Wilson, director of Democratic Dialogue, which is a kind of “think-tank” – a luxury in democratic politics very often, but an extraordinarily important one. Robin Wilson did one of the most difficult things that anyone could possibly do in Northern Ireland over a long number of years: he kept a fair-minded, open magazine going against all the odds and he graduated from that magazine (Fortnight) into someone who has become an important facilitator of dialogue and thought in Northern Ireland. ..
1. Robin Wilson: “Making a Difference – Preparing the Programme for Government”
“Thank you very much Fergus. Thank you too to the Meath Peace Group. and thank you all for coming. I’m very pleased to be here. I’m going to talk about some issues that are raised in a paper we’ve recently published on the Programme for Government called “Making a Difference” ..[Note – extracts from this report are reproduced in Appendix A below]. I will be rather skimming over the surface of a number of issues but basically what I’m going to try and do in ten or fifteen minutes is to look at the background to the Programme for Government, why it’s so important for the Executive Committee and some of the things which I think are going to be important issues to address in terms of preparation of the Programme and some of the positive outcomes that that process can generate. ..
Lack of policy debate: “I am going to start by talking about the problem of the lack of prior debate in Northern Ireland about what the new Executive Committee should do. There has actually been remarkably little discussion in the past number of years of what a devolved administration in Northern Ireland should do. There have been lots of discussions about lots of other issues but what we actually haven’t established has been something which is of obvious concern to the citizens of Northern Ireland and the rest of this island – that has actually been very much under-discussed. Most of .the discussions have been on the institutions that will be established eventually under the Belfast Agreement, and what these institutions would do, and indeed the background of this was the system of direct rule where there really wasn’t any serious policy debate for politicians to get involved with. There really wasn’t much point in getting too much involved in policy issues because obviously the Westminster administration ran things.
“All politicians in Northern Ireland were effectively in opposition. There was no discussion in the media over policy questions and there was very little likelihood that a party that got very interested in policy issues would gain electorally as a result.
Hard choices: “Direct rule was very unfortunate in many respects and one of the ways that it was quite unfortunate was that it led to a failure to address, or lack of experience in addressing, the “hard choices” that people in government have to face from day to day, hard choices which involve for example deciding to spend money on “X” and not spend it on “Y”, rather than saying – as politicians could do under direct rule in Northern Ireland – “please spend it on X and on Y”.
Unifying role of Programme for Government: “The Programme for Government which the parties are required to agree under the Belfast Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act, has a whole number of different roles. One of the roles which I want to focus on first is the potential role it has to unite the Executive Committee. You will be aware that, apart from the First and Deputy First Ministers – David Trimble and Seamus Mallon – the other ten members of the Executive Committee are drawn from four different parties; the Ulster Unionists, the DUP, the SDLP and Sinn Fein. It’s a four-party coalition which is a fairly extraordinary number of parties in coalition in itself. Add to that the fact that these four parties were flung together in what is in effect an involuntary coalition, where they’re simply appointed under the so-called D’Hondt mechanism, rather than coming together because they previously agreed about the programme as would be the case in the coalition for example in the Republic. Given the underlying sectarian tensions … the tendencies towards fragmentation in this Executive are obviously fairly self-evident. I therefore consider it important an Executive does agree a Programme which everyone agrees, from which ministers try and “glue” this rather unusual, in fact completely unprecedented, structure together.
Public understanding and involvement:: “.. One of the other functions it’s important to advert about the Programme for Government is the importance of it generating public understanding of a sense of what the Executive Committee of the Assembly is trying to do. Democratic Dialogue ran some focus-groups across Northern Ireland last year and asked people what they thought about the future of the Executive, and one of the things that people said again and again was how frustrated they were about what they saw as the hassle of the constant polarisation of argument between the fixed positions presented in a very adversarial way one against the other. ..People wanted to see Northern Ireland politicians co-operate more and to address other issues more, and to address ways in which the two communities in Northern Ireland could grow closer together rather than, as has continued to happen in recent years, in many ways further apart. …
Unrealistic expectations: “In fairness to the politicians there’s a danger that citizens in Northern Ireland have unrealistic expectations as to what devolved government can do. In the big wide world these days people are used to having governments that they vote in to office, there’s a fair degree of cynicism about what governments can do. But I must say that on this side of the border there’s a fairly high level of cynicism and there is what one minister in the Northern Ireland Executive described as a culture in Northern Ireland of protest and demand .. and there is a need to have a better understanding amongst the public at large of what government is about so that people’s expectations can be more realistic as to what can actually be permitted. ….
“Joined-up” government: “One of the buzz words used these days in discussion about governments anywhere is “joined-up” government… The reason that people use that language more and more these days is because it’s increasingly evident that departmental structures in government often get in the way of solving problems that people experience on the ground. Most of the problems that ordinary people experience, for example problems with your health or worries about education are actually issues which you can’t simply resolve with the Health Department or the Education Department themselves, they have to be resolved by a cross-departmental effort. With these ten different departments for a population of 1.7 million people, the dangers of things falling into these so-called departmental silos are quite evident.
“Wicked” issues: “This is particularly so for problems that people have come to describe as “wicked” problems, that is to say the most intractable ones. These often are problems which straddle different government departments and there are two which are very obvious in Northern Ireland among many that you could pick. One of them is the problem of sectarian divisions which cuts across all areas of social life and needs to be addressed in a holistic kind of way… Another is horizontal division between haves and have nots, the problem of social exclusion which scars so many, mainly Catholic but also some Protestant, working class ghetto areas… So it’s a big challenge in that sense that the Programme for Government needs to take account of which is how you manage to co-ordinate work across departments and to avoid ministers being bogged down day to day in their departmental responsibilities. ..
Focusing on outcomes: “One of the things that lots of people tend to say these days about government is that we need to try and move beyond a focus on the outlook of government to looking at an outcome, a real problem solved, a real difference to people on the ground. For example in Northern Ireland one of the problems about the health debates is that it has been almost entirely about the acute hospitals services in Northern Ireland when there’s an outstanding and glaring problem which is the very high levels of mortality and morbidity in Northern Ireland associated, for example, with cancer and heart disease and, frankly, addressing these problems is a far, far bigger question than whether this or that hospital should be kept..”
“That leads us to focus more on the performance of government and what it actually achieves and I think one of the things that’s important for the new administration in Northern Ireland is to make sure it thinks about what it is trying to achieve in a way which recognises the need to bench mark its performance against what is happening elsewhere in the UK
Citizens’ panel: “It is also important to focus on citizens and their problems and one of the things that I think would be a positive benefit in Northern Ireland would be to establish a standing citizens’ panel of maybe 500 people whom the government would poll on a regular basis to monitor its performance, so that there was an external view on what it’s doing ….
Setting clear policy goals: “… Following on from what I’ve just said particularly about the focus on outcomes rather than outlooks I think it’s critical that the new Administration should set very clear policy goals for itself, very definite outcomes that it really wants to see achieved, and I’ll give you some instances of what that might be in a moment. That’s going to be very important if devolution is something that will make a difference. … You might get a situation … where with the best will in the world ministers are working every hour that God sends them and they might not be very much different from direct rule unless very clear policy goals are set up by the new administration which hasn’t been the case in the past. If a small number of relatively clear policy goals are set then it makes it easier for the public at large to understand what the government is doing or says it is doing and to assess its performance against that. … I think that one of the dangers otherwise would be that the Programme for Government emerges by a process of private discussions between the parties which involves a set of endless trade-offs which are very comprehensible to the politicians involved in them but when the report comes out into the public domain it turns out to be a huge volume which is totally unmanageable and which ordinary people find very difficult to get a handle on.
Possible policy goals: “…In our focus groups … we spoke to a complete mixture of groups – Protestant, Catholic, whatever gender or class and so on – and the big thing they all said was that they wanted to see the government do as much as it could to foster better relationships between the two communities and support thevictims of violence. That I think is the crucial thing. There’s no doubt that victims of violence in Northern Ireland, wherever that violence has come from, whether it’s the State or more usually paramilitaries, feel very neglected and that situation needs to be changed. I talked earlier about the huge problem of social exclusion in N.I. which needs to be addressed by promoting equality of life-chances.. … By comparison with the Republic, Northern Ireland’s economic development has not been superb over the last couple of years which is hardly surprising given the background of political instability. That has to change and in particular unemployment has to diminish. The unemployment figures in Northern Ireland … conceal a very high level of economic inactivity particularly in ghetto areas. As I mentioned earlier, there are huge problems in public health which need to be tackled … there are also major problems in terms of education.
“It is true that the top end of the educational scale in Northern Ireland with its selective schooling system do very well, but there is a very long tail of kids who come out of school with very low levels of qualification which is really a disadvantage to them in terms of the modern labour market.
“Other issues which arose from the focus groups is the enhancement of physical mobility and the environmental fabric. The public transport system in Northern Ireland is absolutely appalling – it’s a huge issue which needs to be addressed. In terms of the environment what was mentioned in our focus groups was that many housing estates in Northern Ireland are very dilapidated and bring an air of depression which only adds to the problems people have to face.
Maximising links to the rest of the world: “Last but not least, it’s critically important that Northern Ireland should not turn in on itself after all this time, but should maximise its links to the rest of the island, to the rest of the UK and to the rest of Europe.
Self-performance indicators: “If we go down this road that I’m suggesting the Programme for Government should go, I think one of the useful things that can be done is to establish self-performance indicators when focusing on outcomes like getting down unemployment or improving levels of public health. You can measure these things and of course you can be called to account as to whether you achieved those outcomes or not when your performance is going to be monitored. This is an effective way, I think, by which people can begin to take a different attitude to government, which is reflected in people voting according to whether the government or parties within government do well or don’t do well in terms of what they achieve. I think also this is a useful way of how we’d get from the situation of the direct rule administration to make it a real difference; if we adopted this approach I think it’s possible for us to look at how we could maybe ditch some programmes from the direct rule administration which don’t seem to fit in with the policy goals that I talked about, or could they refine those a bit better to give us some more scope in public spending, welcome new programmes and support some new projects and perhaps adopt some fresh approaches.
Financial questions: “Having said that, I think that there are some big financial questions to resolve. Frankly it’s not going to be possible for the new administration to do everything one wants to do on the basis it will do everything it did already and do all this on top, because obviously that’s going to be financially unsustainable, but whether there are cuts in programmes whether they were unsuccessful in the past or not, there are some hard decisions that have to be taken about charges and taxes. I think it was unfortunate that in the debate leading up to the Good Friday Agreement the question of tax-varying powers for the N.I. Assembly – the nettle wasn’t grasped as it was in Scotland for example where the Scottish Parliament has a power to vary income tax by 3p in the pound. There will however be ways in which charges can be produced and I think they’ll have to be produced to address the local problems.
“I mentioned earlier how awful public transport is in Northern Ireland. I don’t see how we’ll get around that problem without investment, I don’t see how we’ll do that without bringing in something like congestion charges which I know some private motorists will not like but are in the wider public interest.
Comprehensive Spending Review: “N.I. exists as part of the UK and is therefore feeding into the Comprehensive Spending Review and there are big questions associated with the so-called Barnett formula which distributes money to different parts of the UK. The Stormont Parliament is doing very well out of that – it gets about one-third more of the public spending per head than the UK average – but there will be lots of pressures over the coming years to reduce that, particularly as devolution becomes more transparent across the UK, and particularly as London with its new mayor starts to flex its muscles and get angry about the degree to which it subsidises N.I., and I think we’re going to need to have a situation where the financial position of the Northern Ireland Executive is on a firm-footing by UK- wide needs assessment.
Civil society: “Civil society is a phrase that has become more used in N.I. over the last decade. I think it’s very important this whole question of how people, whether as individuals or as members of organisations, can be involved in a process of government, particularly because these days government is not so much doing things but about facilitating people doing things, acting as a broker, a problem-solver, rather than as an executive. .. In that there is obviously lots of experience in this jurisdiction of the idea of social partnership and the role that social partnership can play in both legitimising what government does, also in terms of delivering what government does, and I think that that social partnership idea which has been very successful on this side of the border and has had some impact in Northern Ireland… that’s something we want to see developed in future…
Relating to the Wider World: “… N.I. has been in a long dark tunnel for 30 years since it last had its own administration …. In those 30 years lots of things have changed in the world and these days regions have a much bigger significance in a globalising context than they used to have. Things aren’t going to be done by the nation state anymore. Of course Europe has integrated onto a very significant level and in that way it’s really up to the regions themselves either to pull themselves up by their boot-straps and succeed or to remain dependent and to fail. One of the more cruel comments about N.I. ..is that for many years it has been like the Mezzogiorno in Italy, the very dependent, backward part of Italy which has had lots of money pumped into it but apparently to no real positive effect. I think that has changed ……
Happily one of the things that has proved much less controversial this time about the Agreement, unlike Sunningdale in 1974, is the whole area of North/South structures, these are much more acceptable now than in the past. Obviously in terms of the potential mutual economic benefits in the context of the Celtic Tiger, but also in moral terms in terms of creating a climate of reconciliation in the island and perhaps allowing situations where we can all be at ease with a notion of Irishness which is all-inclusive and which perhaps doesn’t carry some of the ideological baggage it might have carried in the past.. …
“It is certainly most important that Northern Ireland does by the same token develop good relationships within the UK including the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. There are lots of ideas that are going to develop in these other assemblies and parliaments across the UK in the coming years and it would be unfortunate if Northern Ireland wasn’t to digest them. For example there’s a very interesting idea in Wales for a new system a bit like the Leaving-Cert here which is a Baccalaureate system which would be a much better system than the A-levels in Northern Ireland, and it’s one example of how you might begin to do things differently if you start looking elsewhere.
“More broadly Northern Ireland has got to link on to the European stage. If you take for example Catalonia is a successful region partly because it’s put itself up on the European stage – it’s got its own problems of a national question but it’s found a way of sorting out its future in a way that most people can come to live with, and it seems to be that the future of Northern Ireland, if we can bed down the institutions, will be where it is not only internally inclusive but also on a fairly catholic basis – if I dare say that – to the rest of Ireland, the rest of the UK, the rest of Europe….
“In conclusion, I know it has been a fairly rushed-over course but I tried to stress that this process of preparing the Programme of Government is a big challenge which if it’s going to last properly can do a lot of things. In a way it is starting from a clean sheet … and I think it really can make a difference to people’s lives in N.I. and I think it can really bring Northern Ireland “kicking and screaming” into the 21st century. “
Fergus Finlay: “Thank you very much Robin. I think we would all agree that Robin paints on a very large canvas and has set out a whole series of very ambitious goals. .. Most of us down here probably have accustomed ourselves to believing that if this government survives for five years that’s the most valuable outcome of all! Our next speaker is I think – in both practical terms and, I hope she won’t mind me saying this, symbolically – highly indicative of the kind of difference that can be made. I think it’s very difficult to imagine a more profound difference than the kind of difference that’s inherent in the title “Women Together Moving On”. Although she’s a member of the Women’s Coalition and a councillor, Anne Carr is speaking here tonight in her capacity as co-ordinator of Women Together Moving On and I’d like you to give her a good welcome please.
2. Cllr. Anne Carr: “I’m delighted to be here with you this evening and as has been said, I’m actually here speaking tonight on behalf of the “Women Together, Moving On” organisation. Women Together was established 30 years ago. This is the thirtieth anniversary of an organisation that was established at the very beginning of the Troubles when a Protestant and Catholic woman got together and said “.. people are having to move out of their homes because of the violence. This can’t be right we should be able to solve our differences by sitting down around a table and talking them out”.
“Thirty years on there’s still a need for the organisation, they have certainly not solved all the problems and we have had thirty years of violence. Thank goodness now we have cease-fires and we have our Agreement, and we are all looking forward and working through that new beginning which is hopefully going to achieve the vision that those two women had thirty years ago…
Role of ordinary people: “I have known Julitta and members of the Meath Peace Group for many years through my work as co-ordinator of the Women Together organisation. We in Women Together too had to take a look at where we were as we move on, looking forward to that new beginning in society and where our organisation actually fitted into all of that. So we have become very recently “Women Together Moving On” a project-led organisation which is very much looking at how we as ordinary people can actually involve ourselves in that moving on process. Because it can’t be left to the politicians. We have elected politicians to an Executive and to an Assembly and we certainly are supporting their moving on, their working towards the Programme of Government that Robin has been talking about, but we as people and as a society have to support them and have to develop the intra-personal relationships in our society which have been lacking over so many years of violence.
Talking through the differences: “There’s been so much fear around that we haven’t done the talking we should have done over years. We’ve lived in divided communities, we’ve talked in safe company amongst ourselves. We all have developed very sectarian attitudes about things. And also we’ve all been hurt, we’ve all been angered, and we all are still angry about things that are going on at this moment of time, but we have to work our way through that. So we in Women Together are encouraging people to sit down round tables to talk through the differences, to tell others how they feel about something that’s happening, or something that’s happened in the past, so that we can all get a better understanding of where we all have come from, and how we are all here now and the importance of remembering what happened in the past. We don’t want it repeated in future generations.
We can make it work: “The war is over as far as I’m concerned. Violence is not the way forward – we’ve all learned very hard lessons in relation to that. We can make it work, we can all work together, we can build that society which is never going to be perfect but certainly a society where difference can be appreciated, where we can look at someone across a table and not feel the touchstones of anger within us – because that person’s different from me – rising. That doesn’t have to happen. We can try and understand who they are and where they are coming from and that is going to build the sort of society that we can all be part of.
Sense of belonging: “A sense of belonging for all of us is what we want and it’s certainly what I want as a Protestant mother of 4 Catholic children, from the Shankhill Road area of Belfast where my mother and father still live, and all the hurts that that has brought with it over now 27 years of marriage. Even on Saturday when I went up to my mother’s on the Shankill Road my father said to me “Oh that Gerry Adams!”. .. I get it all the time you know … but I move on, I try and work with him. My father has not read one word of the Agreement, not one word. He supports the DUP, he doesn’t feel he has to read it because it’s not something that Ian Paisley said he should read. My father in-law, on the other hand,.who died two years ago, was a very staunch nationalist and he and I had third-world-war discussions around the kitchen table, and if he heard Ian Paisley on the radio I could hear the motor-bike coming to the door and he was in to tell me what he thought of him!
“That’s what it’s about, it’s about working through all that, it’s all about our history, it’s all about the fact that we haven’t understood each other in the past but we will in the future, and that’s what Women Together Moving On is all about.
Good Friday Agreement: “So we decided this [Agreement} is very important to us and I hope to all of you, because an awful lot of effort went in to creating this document. It’s very easy for people to say “get rid of it – it’s not what I want.” It’s not what the Unionist people of Northern Ireland want or it’s not what the Republican people or certain elements want. It took an awful lot of effort to get this Agreement and within this Agreement there’s a lot that has to happen to ensure that all of this Agreement is implemented. You can’t pick one or two issues from this Agreement and say “right, this hasn’t happened, therefore the Agreement should be thrown out the window”. It’s a long process, and we all have to remember the effort in getting that Agreement and the effort it’s going to take to implement that Agreement in full.
People Moving On campaign: “People Moving On” is a project which Women Together Moving On has helped support. It started at the beginning of the Mitchell Review – we desperately wanted our Agreement to be implemented and we were very concerned that the government had not been established in Northern Ireland, and we felt that if we could get our Executive and Assembly up and running it would certainly help move other things on. We know that decommissioning has been the big bugbear there, but we felt that if we had the Executive up and running, decommissioning would happen. Anyway during the Mitchell Review “People Moving On” started to do a bit of campaigning outside Stormont. We decided that our first campaign would be the day the politicians came back from holiday, in August 1999, so we would have breakfast with the politicians outside Stormont, and 150 of us went up and welcomed the politicians back and encouraged them to get on with the work, to get our Agreement implemented, to get our institutions up and running. That was the beginning of it and we had lots of different campaigns during the Mitchell Review to ensure that the Agreement was moved on, that our peace process was moved on and that it was remembered that the peace process and the Agreement belonged to all of us.
“We actually voted in a referendum on this and 71.12% in the North and … 94% in the South voted for it. An awful lot of people decided that within this Agreement was the beginning of a recipe towards a new way forward. We didn’t want to forget that, we didn’t want other people to tell us that that was going to be thrown out the window, and wasn’t going to happen. We worked continuously through the Mitchell Review and obviously we were delighted when the Executive got up and running, short-lived as it was. We’re also delighted now with the IRA statement and the movements that have been made on decommissioning and we now just know that the obligations within this Agreement will be met. It’s going to take time, but we’re certainly on our way forward.
Audit of the Agreement: “In the midst of all that, we decided as people, just ordinary people, that we didn’t really remember all that was in this Agreement, we certainly knew that there’s a section on decommissioning within this Agreement and we certainly knew that there was a government that had to be got up and running, but we weren’t too sure that we knew everything else that was in this Agreement so we decided that we would do an audit of the Agreement. One of our volunteers who has now retired (she was a business analyst in England and has come home to Northern Ireland to live) came along to one of our meetings and she did a baseline document for us, an audit document of the Good Friday Agreement. We then sent that out to people working in the fields of human rights, prisoner’s issues, victim support groups etc. and asked them to tell us, as the Agreement had been broken down phrase by phrase, whether or not this particular section of the Agreement had been implemented or not, or whether it was in progress, whether it was on the way, whether it was in train. We found this a very, very useful exercise. Out of all of that, in a couple of weeks time, we are hoping to have a launch of the results of our audit which actually are very interesting. .. Quite a bit of our Agreement has actually been implemented, so it’s not being thrown out the window, it’s not disappearing. It actually is happening, people are working day in and day out to implement this Agreement. An awful lot of it is in place. It’s a process, it’s going to take time for all of it to happen but an awful lot of it is already happening.
Issues needing attention: “We noted as well a few things that we feel could be given attention within the Agreement:
(1) Civic Forum: “One of those issues is the establishment of a Civic Forum which we feel should be established as soon as possible – and maybe Dermot will be able to tell us what actually is happening in relation to the Civic Forum. We feel that when there are difficulties, when there are strained relationships between some of our politicians, if we had the Civic Forum up and running, and ordinary people from a very wide public sector were sitting together discussing some of those issues, it certainly would help to keep things moving on and to prevent that vacuum being created. I’ve heard the timescale for the establishment of the Civic Forum is perhaps September 2000 but I really don’t know an awful lot about its terms of reference and how issues can be discussed, what will be discussed, who will decide what will be discussed etc. etc. So the Civic Forum is something we would like to see up and running as soon as possible.
(2) Joint parliamentary forum: “I understand that the North/South Ministerial Council are saying that consideration should be given to establishing a joint parliamentary forum, bringing together equal numbers from both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Oireachtas for discussion of matters of mutual interest and concern.
(3) Independent consultative forum. Also discussed is the establishment of an independent consultative forum appointed by the two administrations, representative of civil society and comprising of social partners and other members with expertise in social, cultural, economic and other issues. We feel there is merit in establishing these two bodies as soon as possible as well as the Civic Forum. In particular we see that the independent consultative forum can progress outside the powers of the Parliamentary Assembly or Oireachtas. As members will be drawn from civil society they would not be sacrificing parliamentary time to attend, representatives would not be committed to any party, they would be expected to work within the “spirit of concord” defined in the Agreement.
(4) Human rights: “We also feel that the issue of human rights is ongoing and needs more work and more attention. All participating parties must show in their day to day relationships mutual respect and legitimacy of the rights of others as well as their own. We are estimating in our review that only about 15% of the human rights section has actually been implemented, most of it is being implemented at the moment and needs constant attention and constant work. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has been established and has been given the responsibility of consulting widely on a new Bill of Rights which will, in addition to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, provide for areas which are particular to Northern Ireland. We feel that the budget for this is small and there’s a lot of work to do and very important work to do in that respect. The comparable steps by the Irish Government are also in train but we feel that that work is slow and late and we would like to see that prioritised within the responsibility of the Irish government. This would then allow the envisaged joint committee of representatives of the two Human Rights commissions, north and south, to be established for important work in considering human rights issues on the island of Ireland and even establishing a charter which would reflect and endorse agreed measures for the protection of the fundamental rights of everyone living in the island of Ireland.
Cherry-picking of the Agreement: “All of that is in our Agreement. All of those are issues which are being progressed. It’s very easy to progress some and just forget about others and we all know, we’ve heard it all along, there’s no cherry-picking of our Agreement. It all has to happen, it all works together and the process is so important. We need to be moving forward on everything and not forgetting some of those, even some of those smaller issues which if they were worked on and if prioritised a little bit more would certainly help to help those relationships, those inter-personal relationships which are so important in our society to develop and encourage people to see that this Agreement is working.
“Bread-and-butter” issues: “We talked about the need for the government, our new devolved government, to be able to say “we have done this” and “we have done that”. That’s all-important because people are concerned about the “bread-and-butter” issues, they want to know that things are going to happen. We’ve a lot of work to do in the media… It’s very difficult to get the media interested in what they would see as the mundane bread and butter issues, but in a society like ours that has not had their own government for so long, those are important issues. And it’s not unrealistic expectations, it’s just to know that our own politicians are working together to move forward what is important to us – the bread and butter issues, the things that matter to us in our everyday lives.
“This is ordinary people who I represent doing their little bit to try and understand what our Agreement is all about and to tell others and to encourage the politicians to remember that we are interested, that we do care. And though at times we know things are strained, relationships are strained, and we have to live with the sectarian realities of Northern Ireland and all that’s going to happen in the summer season – we have the marching season, we always have these tensions – but that we are working towards something new. We understand it’s a process, we understand it’s going to take time.
Blaming others: “Just to finish off, I would like to mention a campaign which “People Moving On” ran very recently and I have postcards here. I would be delighted if you could take some of them and send them to anyone you feel might be interested in receiving one or might actually think if they received one. The message reads “Pointing the Finger is Missing the Point”. It’s very easy to blame others for where we are, to blame others for where we’ve been, but at the end of the day none of us fell down from outer space. I’ve lived through nearly 48 years of my life, 36 of them in Northern Ireland and I have responsibilities, I have to change. We believe that peace is people choosing to live differently, not somebody else making that choice – me deciding what my choice is. So instead of blaming others for all that’s gone wrong in our society, maybe we could blame a little on ourselves and think about what we can do to change and change in our own lives to make sure that we have a better future. We actually had this on a billboard campaign for two weeks recently in Belfast and we had eight billboards up around Belfast. We have it up on our web-site and we’re inviting comments on the image which is a very shocking image and it produced quite a bit of emotive responses when people saw that image but it’s simply saying that if I point the finger at you, there’s three pointing back at me and maybe I could start to do something in my life to help build that new society we all want for our children in our future generations. Thank you.”
Chair (Fergus Finlay): “Thank you very much Anne. It’s sometimes said down here that the Taoiseach is as anxious as everybody else is to set up the joint parliamentary tier – apparently he’s sending Jackie Healy-Rae up to give demonstrations on how practical day-to-day politics really work!
“Our next speaker is Jim Lennon who has what I often think one of the more thankless tasks in politics. It tends to be a low profile job and an extremely hardworking job nonetheless. The SDLP in Northern Ireland has long been famous for the strength of its personalities and for its ability to present a coherent and united front despite the strength often pulling in opposite directions of those powerful personalities. When you see that happening you know that a great deal of the credit for the unity of purpose within a party has to go to the party chairperson and I have no doubt whatsoever that Jim Lennon must have learned an awful lot of patience in the time that he has been chairman of the SDLP, so I’d grateful if you welcomed him now to address us.
3. Jim Lennon (Chairman of SDLP): “Thank you Fergus. Chairman’s jobs sometimes are thankless but there are occasional rewards like getting invited down by the Meath Peace Group and getting fed in an hotel! Not only that but you also made us feel very welcome. I just live about 8 miles from Monaghan on the south Armagh border so I’m no stranger to this part of the world… On my way here tonight, I came via Slane and I was thinking about what I was going to talk about tonight, I was thinking about cultural differences, administrative differences, machinery of government, programmes of government, all those sort of things, but as I came to a ruined monastery with a round tower at the side of the road the first thing I saw was “Navan says No” and I thought – Northern Ireland has exported something! I’m not sure whether Castlereagh Borough Council still have a large banner up “Castlereagh says No” – you can ask Sammy Wilson or Peter Robinson, when you next invite the DUP here!
“In terms of the topic tonight there are a number of issues I want to try and focus on – the role of the Executive, the role of the Assembly, the role of the devolved institutions and the machinery and structures are important but there are 3 other key aspects I would like to talk about. The first one is hope, the second one is perception and reality, and the third is leadership.
Hope: “Fergus referred to me as the internal bureaucrat working away while others are in front of the radio or TV but part of what I’ve been doing for the past two years, since I became chairman, I’ve commissioned a whole series of polls on behalf of the party to address a whole range of issues in terms of our image and whatever. But particularly over the period since the signing of the Agreement, what we wanted to try and work out was – what is it that people, those who voted for us, either collectively as a party or those who voted for the Good Friday Agreement, and those who didn’t vote for it, about 30% – what do they expect of the future? What precisely when they sit down and think in the quiet of their own homes, what is it they are thinking of? It’s quite interesting because the results of those polls – they were conducted by MRBI – have been very consistent. They haven’t shown any great significant change between the “yes” and the “no” voters – there’s been some change in various constituencies and you’ll be aware of the trauma that the Ulster Unionist Party had to go through recently and there’s been a change probably there – but really it’s marginal at the end of the day. In terms of the question “was the Good Friday Agreement better or worse for Northern Ireland?”, the unambiguous answer is “yes”.
“In terms of what people’s expectations were, when there were difficulties on the road – whether it was over the setting up of the institutions or decommissioning – what you saw all the time was a continual return to the concept of hope. They had voted for something that they believed would offer them a way forward. It didn’t offer everybody all that they wanted, everybody in terms of political leaders, in terms of parties or in terms of various pressure groups who were advising the parties at the time, but it offered a way forward that the people had solidly accepted and they never lost hope. It was interesting because we haven’t received the formal data from the current poll, but a lot of the survey took place since the re-establishment of the Agreement and the preliminary results seem to indicate that again there’s been a surge of hope. If you look at the other key indicators in Northern Ireland, if you look at factors to do with the economy, to do with perceptions with respect to investment – is this a good place to invest?, if you look at the G7 which is the major business and social partners who offer opinions regularly, then again when the Agreement’s going well and when problems are being overcome there’s a resurgence of hope.
“In terms of what difference will the Agreement make, in terms of the future, I’m addressing some of the issues that Robin Wilson has asked. I think there are two different answers you can give depending on whether you adopt a short-term view or whether you adopt a longer-term view.
Short-term view: “I think if you look at the short-term view first of all. If you look at what’s going to happen over the summer – and you will have heard over the weekend Drumcree again is on the boil – yes we are going to have a series of repetitive incidents or reruns of history. That is going to be a recurrent feature of Northern Ireland. So in the short term the deep divisions that exist in our society, the naked sectarianism that exists is going to continue. There will be continuing problems over issues like flags, there will be continuing problems over Patten, over criminal justice reform.
“But there is a way around them and when we talk to people and when we look at the results of the polls what they continue to show is there is a belief that as long as the political institutions are working i.e the Assembly and in the fullness of time the other elements, the Civic Forum, North-South bodies and probably, in the longer term future… the east-west dimension that concludes the remainder of the devolved parliaments in the British Isles including Westminster. Those will significantly increase the level of wellbeing in Northern Ireland.
Sectarianism: “In terms of the short-term issues, I think that the big issue that we still have to face that will underly a lot of the Programme of government and will underly a lot of the actions and work that the Executive, the Assembly and the other elements of the machinery of government have to address is this issue of sectarianism. It’s a much broader issue than most people perceive it to be. In my last professional job I was head of statistics in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and I commissioned reports by Will Glendinning of the Community Relations Council. I looked at my own constituency because there is this perception, you get it when you talk to people from the country areas who say “we live very well with our neighbours”. A lot of us in the civil service didn’t believe these views, because what we were finding on the ground was that when you came to make micro-decisions about the allocation of resources – and in my case it was the Department of Health – you began to get anomalies appearing. People would not travel one mile to a doctor but would go six miles the other way. People would not go to a primary school half a mile down the road, you’d have to get a bus put on for four miles down the road. You began to question was the decison-making economic or rational or was there something else underneath it? We looked at two villages that are about a mile and a half apart in South Armagh; Dunane and Whitecross, and what we found was, very briefly, that they had a very different social life, they had a different economic life, they had a different cultural life and they had a different approach to what is supposed to be the neutral machinery of government, the health service, access to schools, access to other automatic services. Whitecross went to Newry, Dunane went to Portadown. There was very little intermixing.
“If you look at Belfast, yes you can see the results of sectarianism. It’s walls up and down the centre of the city, particularly in the north of the city. But that model exists throughout most of Northern Ireland. There will be people who tell you it doesn’t happen in my little part of the world – the reality is it probably does. That’s the first reality we’ve got to address. That’s the first reality that the Assembly and Executive have to address. In terms of sending out a very strong message, they are sending out a message about leadership because for the next 5-10 years it is going to be a series of incidents, it’s going to be one crisis after another. It’ll be decommissioning this week, and something else next week. And if you think the fun is only started with decommissioning, wait till you see whenl we start looking at the re-allocation of resources – see what impact that makes! You’ve had a foretaste of what will happen in terms of the decision over the Royal Maternity Hospital in Belfast. These are key issues that need to be addressed but to do that we need to understand the basis of which many people make what are supposedly rational decisions in their normal life….
Respect for national identities: “I think there’s another issue that we need to look at which is a short to longer term issue, and I speak from, although I don’t like using it, a nationalist perspective, because that’s what I’m labelled, but I’m not a nationalist, I’m Irish. I think there is a major issue that will underpin quite a lot of work in the Assembly and it is to do with respect for national identities.
“That respect means you don’t try and clone everybody in to some sort of quasi-neutral type citizen of Northern Ireland, where you’ve mixed the green, white and gold and the red, white and blue and something else blocks out the middle. It is about recognising, in all our diversity, that we are all part of a people who share one piece of land. In reality we all pay lip-service to that and if you talk to any politician they’ll tell you that… But in terms of what we need to do on the ground it means, from my perspective, we need to recognise certain rights, we need to recognise that though we might not like things like the Orange Order, they represent a cultural tradition, we need to recognise that. It also means that in dealing with symbolism; flags, emblems and other issues that we need to recognise what it means to a particular community, and I mean in a way that recognises the value that it has to them and ultimately the value it has to us if we pretend that we want to live in a society at ease and at peace with itself. …
Longer-term issues. “I think there’s a view about that the nature of the institutions themselves will change as the political process becomes much more about what you down here would term “normal politics”, i.e. economic politics, social politics, the allocation of resources, issues of that nature. There is a view that the nature of the political insitutions will themselves change to reflect that political stability. There are a number of different polls and opinions about to suggest that you will see the emergence of parties of the right and parties of the left based on models of either socio-economic co-operation or socio-economic politics. That realistically is probably 10-15 years down the road. The Agreement itself does contain provisions within it for change of the machinery of government.
Over-management: “There is a view about that with 108 members of the Assembly we are probably slightly over-governed, and in terms of the number of district councils that we have, and the number of what we call quangos, semi-state bodies, we certainly are over-managed. There will have to be at some level a shake-out there in terms of the whole administrative machinery of government.
Civil society: “The most important element that underpins quite a lot of that is the notion that we are moving from a society that is very heavily based around division, paramilitarism or formal military structures, to one in which a civil society takes its proper place. Part of that in the Agreement was the whole idea of a CivicForum and one of the interesting attributes in Northern Ireland if you look at it even in comparison with the Republic or with the rest of mainland U.K., we have a very very strong community or social sector, there are very strong community groups. Now some of them you might query, but there are also very strong genuine ones who operate purely in the interests of either their local community or in the interests of particular groups. whether that be victims, whether that be social deprivation, housing or whatever. That again will both support the work of the Executive in underpinning the vote that was taken to approve the Good Friday Agreement, but also underpin the programme of government and underpin the measures necessary to tackle some of the most blatant elements of sectarianism and the results of division within our society.
“In terms of other issues, I was compiling a list because we have a special conference coming up .. in terms of things that needed to be put on the agenda and I was getting inundated with all my MPs and MLAs pet projects.
Policy goals: “There were 3 key issues that came out in terms of things people wanted done: The first one was about economic growth; the second one was about the 11-plus or more widely about the education system; and the third one was about the health service. Now in terms of setting three or four clear goals, if the Assembly and the Executive move on those sort of issues then it will build on the confidence, it will build on the hope and it will build on the goodwill that exists within Northern Ireland and much further afield to make it a success. If it falls down on some of those issues, then it will bring into question the effectiveness with which it is moving forward. But the evidence to date is that there is a very strong level of support within our community and there is a very strong belief within all the parties that are participating in both the Assembly and the Executive that they have the wherewithal and the ability to make decisions on those issues that reflect the particular local circumstances that we find in Northern Ireland and that are different from both here and the rest of the U.K.
Quality of leadership: “On that basis I think I would say there is hope for the future, and in terms of the quality of leadership to date that has been displayed by all the parties, even the DUP. There is criticism among all political commentators of the DUP but if they had wanted to bring the show down, they had an opportunity earlier on this week with the Appropriation Bill where they could have forced the issue on the floor and they could have brought down the Assembly – they didn’t do that and that tells you something, that tells you that they believe it’s here to stay, that they believe it’s going to work. The reality is that they understand the basic numbers game – 71.12% of the people want this to work and they’ve invested their hope in this and woe betide any politician who fails to deliver. Thank you.”
Chair (Fergus Finlay): “Jim, thank you very much indeed. I think it’s probably beginning to be clear that there is indeed a degree more common ground than we might have thought in Northern Ireland about the need for what we might call ordinary politics to kick in, and the kind of issues that will rise to the surface as and when ordinary politics kicks in. If the institutions work in the next 5 years, if they achieve the several ambitious goals, one person who will undoubtedly have a key role to play will be the person whose job it is in official terms to act as the bridge between David Trimble and Seamus Mallon. It’s hard to imagine a more difficult job. I was trying to figure out which two politicians in my own experience you wouldn’t want to be a junior minister to – Albert Reynolds and Dick Spring came to mind very quickly!
“Our next speaker has that extraordinary difficult and challenging job to do and, according to friends and supporters alike, in the first period of the Assembly he did it with tremendous skill. When he first came to prominence in the Republic he attracted the label which is generally speaking regarded as a kiss of death in Northern Ireland politics – he was described down here as a “reasonable unionist” which we used to see as a kind of contradiction in terms and is now seen “up there”, as they say, as a gross insult! I asked someone who had observed Dermot Nesbitt at close quarters, I won’t tell him who it was, but it was an Irish civil servant who’d observed him at close quarters in the Castle buildings negotiations – was he indeed a “reasonable unionist”? This person said that he was tough, fair-minded, honest and direct. He said there was good news and bad news. The bad news was that David Trimble had taught him to negotiate and the good news was that he had taught David Trimble to listen! Given that he has all those skills and talents I think we should give Dermot Nesbitt a very warm welcome indeed.
4. Dermot Nesbitt, MLA (UUP): “Thank you. .. The first thing I will say, there’s a gentleman at the back who comes from a party in this jurisdiction [Fianna Fail] and during a conversation I once had with him I said I would love to give him a “flea in the ear” down that mobile, and he said to me on a later occasion there was a time that he would love to give me a “flea in the ear”. Such was the interchange of views North and South at certain times. But it’s a pleasure to see you Derek … and the rest! It’s an actual pleasure to be here and I genuinely mean that.
Making a difference: “Making a Difference – Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly? Yes! The last time I was here [April 1999] I represented the Ulster Unionist Party, tonight I represent an administration, not wearing a unionist hat, not even to speak for or to advocate unionism, but to advocate that which I represent which is an administration comprising four parties. That is making a difference.
“Secondly, the last time I was in Dublin, no in fact the penultimate time .. I was in Dublin Castle. I remember the press conference, sitting in Dublin Castle with all the fabric, with all the persona that represents old colonialism – the pictures are still there, the lords and ladies of the Manor are still there. It could still be colonial Dublin. There was I sitting in the room, the same room, facing in the same direction as I did during the Talks. But eighteen months previously I spoke for the exclusion of Sinn Fein from the Talks in that very room. That day at the press conference, Martin McGuinness and I were the two ministers from Northern Ireland with Michael Woods in the middle, giving a press conference on education within the island of Ireland, representing two political jurisdictions. That makes a difference…. I wouldn’t say it was a defining moment, not at all, but perhaps it had the potential for a defining dispensation … perhaps. You know your position, you know your parties. I noted carefully, Fergus, when you said the Chairman [Meath County Council Chairman Cllr. Brian Fitzgerald] was the best Labour man you had, and he gave me a wink because he had told me where he was now in politics. So yes, know your catch when you come here so as you can understand the nuances as they come about you. So yes we all have our division within politics and within parties but none has moved further than we have for that difference to be made by that representation I did that day in Dublin Castle and here tonight representing the administration.
“This is a good time to come. It’s a time when we have just reinstated devolution, and we have begun the process…. There’s another difference – I forgot to tell you – I’m here tonight in a ministerial car, I’ve got my private secretary, I’ve got the PR person and I’ve got the driver with me and – guess what – I’ve got a speech from the civil service that I must deliver! ….
“Yes, we have 108 people elected.which ..could be over-representation. We have an Executive comprising four parties. Yes it is an involuntary coalition as someone has said. Yes we have 10 departments of government, we have a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and they are like Siamese twins – if one resigns the other must also go, because you can’t have one without the other. If one was accidentally killed in a road accident tomorrow, the other would automatically resign and you would have to make two new joint appointments of a First and Deputy First Minister.
“Yes, chairman, you used the words challenging and daunting to describe my position. I’ll give you another word – it’s fascinating. Because not only have I Denis Haughey this way which is the opposite to me, but I’ve also got Seamus and David that way and then I’ve got it all around me, these civil servants who are trying to pull us in every way but the way you want to go, so it is fascinating, I can assure you of that!
Programme for Government: “This Executive Committee, as Robin rightly alluded to .. it’s got a very precise definition of what it is to do. It is to deal with cross-cutting exercises, “joined-up” government; 10 silent departments – we must make them work together. That’s the first thing it says. It also says that it has to have a Programme for Government allied with a budget. Now think of the words very carefully there because Robin said Programme for Government and I hope he doesn’t mind me saying this because quite often he said “Programme of Government” …. There’s a difference and we are having a “Programme for Government”. It’s not of the government because we are to consult more widely and bring forward all views, of the government for the people. It’s a programme for government not derived solely of government but to come from others. …..a programme for the governing of Northern Ireland.
“Yes it will make a difference, Robin said bringing people together. Most important thing of all, of the administration I represent, is that I feel when I go out that I represent a grouping, a body, that the people of Northern Ireland by and large have an affinity to and owe an allegiance to. Those are two difficult things to have in Northern Ireland – an affinity with it and an allegiance to it. That is making a difference as well.
North-South/East-West dimensions: “Yes we have the North-South Ministerial Council and, yes, we have the British Isles dimension as well. That will make a difference. That does represent political and geographical reality.
The island as a geographical unit, the British-Irish Isles as a geographical unit and the political dimension that there are different jurisdictions within those islands. That will make a difference because it reflects reality.
“If you do not reflect reality you will not be sustained and therefore you will not really make a difference, you will only be of short-term benefit. I participated in two of those North-South Ministerial Councils, one I have already alluded to and the other one with your Minister for Agriculture and Brid Rogers as well.
Normal politics: “Of course this administration is elaborate from a voting point of view – checks and balances, First and Deputy First Ministers must act as one, we try to coalesce and coordinate that, that all does make it cumbersome. … But believe you me it is much more provocative within parties than one may feel. I was away a short few days ago … and we were talking about a Programme for Government and 11-plus and various other things – nothing crystallises the mind more than having to make a decision that you’re responsible for. Yes we’ve had the politics of opposition, yes we’ve made many demands and many wants for things we would love to have, but .. nothing crystallises the mind than having to live within your budget and that we have to do… So yes, normal politics and all the normal failings, weaknesses, inter-party, intra-party, tantrums, fights, that will go on … backbenchers versus the administration, pressure groups that try and make you do this that you don’t want to do but you, Sir, are responsible, don’t blame Westminister, you decide. That’ll make a difference for me as well ….
Economic growth: “But I wouldn’t at the same time in the new administration do a down too much. We have had the highest growth rate in Northern Ireland of any region of the UK over this past number of years, mindful of the violence we’ve had. Yes you have your Celtic economy and Celtic Tiger, and yes … Temple Bar is a blossoming, youthful, dynamic region of Dublin…. Yes, that’s in Belfast now as well and, yes, Belfast has dramatically changed from what it was in the 70’s – dramatically changed …. This Programme for Government is a key priority and I need not say anymore because Robin has said much about that aspect! …….
“The Civic Forum I come to, and I suppose I’ve got 4-5 minutes left .. and that reminds me the most important part of the evening is the questions because that’s the bit I enjoy the most so I want you to fire very provocative questions to us all. The joint ministerial committee, there’s another aspect which is being formulated which I should mention in passing to show “making a difference” which is the theme of this evening. The east-west dimension was mentioned … The administration and the government in NI is now not unique within the UK. The previous one, up to 1972, was a unique form of government within the UK. Now there is devolution to Scotland and to Wales and to Northern Ireland. In fact the celtic fringe now have devolution within the UK. The Gallic Scots and Irish and Manx, “X” Gallic as distinct from the “Y” Gallic connection of history of thousands of years. That makes a difference.
“There is a memorandum of understanding – wonderful phrase devised by the great and the good – a concordat, which of course Dr Paisley said in the Assembly last week, was a doctrine derived by a “papal nuncio of agreements”, well he would have to say that in that sense…….
“Importantly that day I spoke on behalf of that memorandum of understanding which is a concordat of the relationships and agreements as to how government will interact in the UK between Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and London. That very day, the first meeting involving the Northern Ireland administration chaired by Prime Minister Blair in London in Downing Street, speaking on health were David Trimble and Bairbre de Brun…. Making a difference? Yes! Think of the history, think of the background of what each represented, what Martin McGuinness and I represented in Dublin and then ask yourself – are we making a difference? The answer has to be – potentially, “yes”.
DUP: “One final point I’ll just mention in passing. Yes we do have a little problem with the DUP in the Administration. They did make a statement when they said they would not partake in the Executive Committee, that that party would not uphold the pledge of office and it would go to the very heart of government and expose it for what it was doing. That calls into question the integrity of confidentiality within the Administration. The Administration agreed last week that it would seek an assurance from the two DUP executive members that they are obliged to abide by their obligation to confidentiality. Until that assurance is given then certain Executive papers will not be released to the two DUP executive members. That is a difficulty. We do hope we will overcome it, because remember the more inclusive that government is, the better – unique as it is… You need to remember that thirty years of violence is what we are trying to come out from, and above all the intrinsic value of the Adminsitration is not perhaps the dramatic change in policy outlook, though there is a big expectation for that, it is that the institutions of government are functioning with allegiance given to those institutions across the spectrum.
Tax-varying powers: “I take one point for example that Robin mentions … he used the words that we did not “grasp the nettle” of tax-varying powers as in Scotland. We could have a wonderful debate about that … Scotland does have tax-varying powers and if it raised it’s income tax a full 3p it would only raise £400 million – big bucks you might say but compared with a spend of £14 billion it is very small … The true value of the tax-varying power is that it makes you reach your decision on the best way of allocating your funds….
Full implementation of the Agreement: “But while I say “grasping nettles”, the real nettle has been grasped – the real difficult one. As you know with all nettles – if you take Robin’s analogy – you hold it tight and it doesn’t sting you, play with it and be loose with it and it will sting. We have grasped this nettle of devolution. There are obligations to be fulfilled by all. There are commitments to implement – all. There is a commitment by the IRA in its aspect as well. Grasp that nettle tightly. All can be delivered and none of us will be stung. That’s what it is about – grasping it, running with it, and delivering it. The priority of all democrats in Northern Ireland must now be to deliver and develop a cohesive government … in a sense we are going for regeneration, we are going for rebirth. We are not going for conflict The past is gone, the present we know, the future can – must be – better. Thank you”.
Chair (Fergus Finlay): “There must be some lesson in it when the only full-time politician here is the one who has stuck to his time! I’m going to give a quarter of an hour for questions and then review the situation, as they say in the best executive circles… “
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS (SUMMARY ONLY)
Q.1 (Nuala McGuinness, Nobber resident): “I would just like to say how very pleased I am as a native of Co. Down, living in Meath to see Mr. Nesbitt here – I know he’s been here before but I wasn’t here then. I would first like to make a point to Anne – first of all I would like to compliment her for her ecumenical Christian outlook. She mentioned personal relationships …. about two years ago at the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Belfast, the incoming moderator … made a very strong speech that the members of his church should reach out to people who are different, and more specifically to Roman Catholic people that they work with and they meet wherever they go. He said “don’t do it tomorrow, don’t do it next week or next month, do it now, don’t leave it to the politicians and community workers, each individual is responsible”.
Re Orange march in Dawson Street: “The second point I want to mention is in relation to something Jim said. I don’t mean to be derogatory, but he talked in a somewhat grandiose fashion about shared nationalism and so on … and about different cultures. I would like to ask the people here from the twenty six counties – I felt very strongly about the Orange march that was cancelled in Dawson Street. It was only a token march and I was absolutely disgusted as a person from Northern Ireland who’s lived half my life in NI and now I’m in Meath. Dublin city could not stage that walking down the street a couple of hundred yards. Even the speakers here tonight – they’re all blaming Northern Ireland for this, that and the other, but southern Ireland to me has shown tremendous political immaturity. I was quite disappointed that neither the government nor the opposition parties in the south had not a word to say about it. I would just like to ask what other people think.”
Fergus Finlay: “Yes and you’re perfectly entitled to do that”..
Member of the audience:. “The reason the Orange march was cancelled was because a terrorist organisation used their influence to prevent the march…. “ [rest of comment inaudible on tape]
Q2 (Slane resident):Re: Bill of Rights: “… Dermot talked about one of the ways – it’s almost like the advice a psychologist would give to somebody trying to give up cigarettes – “get up and do something else”, but the temptation comes. In other words he’s saying, we’ve now been given the responsibility to act on social policies, educational policies of various kinds – that takes the attention off the patriotic debate. Has anyone suggested that when they’re drawing up the charter of rights that they should also put up alongside that, word for word, a charter of responsibilities. … People have got to understand that they have got to do something as well. It’s not just a passive perception that rests on somebody else, it’s an act of dispersal of those rights for the people … Would the panel agree?”
Dermot Nesbitt: On the first point made – “I agree … Alban McGuinness was speaking the other day in the Assembly and he was saying about dealing with this and I quote “we would not then be concentrating on the National question”, we know what he meant by that. Second point, yes, rights do have responsibilities. I could not agree more with that. Many people demand rights from both sides. This question here exemplifies that. … Yes, rights must be upheld but equally so also must responsibilities be clearly seen to be reflected.”
Anne Carr: “.. Just in relation to what was said about rights – I think this card is about the importance of each and every one of us taking responsibility. We actually had a discussion on putting together a Bill of Rights just last week and it’s a very difficult thing to do. You come up with a right that you would like to see but then you have to actually ask yourself; are there any absolute rights? Because there are always responsibilities which have to accompany these rights. At the same time, I think by having a discussion around the whole issue of human rights, we are encouraging people to think that they must take responsibility, because we’re now thinking about a new society, it’s a different society. It brings in all the issues around respect for difference, all the issues around the Orange march and on both sides all the things we find difficult. As [someone] once said “too often justice is just us” and that is what I always remember. It’s very easy just to think about what I want in any Bill of Rights. The challenge is to think about the responsibility that goes with that and looking at somebody else’s rights.”
Fergus: “I think it probably is worth making the point – and I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong – that there is an onus in both jurisdictions, on both governments, to make progress on human rights issues. As I understand it at the present rate of progress, progress will be complete in Northern Ireland long before it has been established down here and that’s something worth thinking about….
Julitta Clancy (Meath Peace Group): “Just to take you up on that Fergus. there has been a Human Rights Commission in Northern Ireland for two years now. We have had several public talks on human rights here and we have been assured that our Commission is going to be set up soon. I think in a lot of areas … we are actually way behind Northern Ireland in terms of the amount of change you’ve gone through in the last few years on both sides. … We’re expecting you all to be moving and changing and yet there was that incident in Dublin … when it came to putting a plaque up in Dublin to another tradition, recording an historical event, it really threw us and we actually don’t seem able to do these things. We see it in our attitudes towards asylum seekers …. Maybe you have to lead us on that because I feel that we need a forum down here of the people, linking into your forum, where we can honestly explore and have understanding between us….”
Robin Wilson: [re identity politics]: “I wanted to comment on two or three of the things people have said because they’ve all raised what is a tremendously difficult set of issues which underpin many of the very difficult political arguments in Northern Ireland, most obviously the argument about what flag or flags, if any and what possible combination or when might flags might fly… So these are issues which are really crunch issues which need to be addressed. The difficulty is that these are issues which are hugely important all over the world. People refer to it by shorthand as identity politics. I went to a conference last September in Bristol, an academic conference on nationalism, identity, minority rights. There were about a thousand people there – 37 countries, about a fifth of the world’s countries represented there and there were hugely difficult issues that people were trying to get their heads around. For example, what do you do in terms of how tolerant you are to people who are intolerant. That’s a hard question. If you’re too tolerant won’t they walk all over you, if you’re not tolerant won’t they become more intolerant?
“There are big questions about what kind of rights you might include in the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights …. the simple bit is the early bit, that is to say the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights which is being done in both jurisdictions. It’s simple because that’s just about abstract rights that any citizen is entitled to – like freedom of expression or the right not to be detained against your will, the right to a fair trial etc etc. When it comes to the rights that are attached to individuals as members of particular groups it all gets hugely more complicated. There has been some effort in the 1990s to begin to address some of these issues, for example via the Framework Convention on National Minorities which the Council of Europe promulgated some years ago and which is now being incorporated into UK law.
“There are big, big problems there which need an awful lot of thought. For example, I’m someone who is, in theory, from the Protestant community but I don’t want to be aligned with a claim of group rights that assumes I am part of a “cultural tradition” which all my community is meant to share and which has certain conventional connotations like Orangeism and so on. I happen to have two of my father’s sashes but I don’t wear them very often. It happens to be the case that in the Council of Europe Framework Convention it says “individuals have the right not to be considered as members of groups, if they so wish”.
“The reason it’s so important links into what Jim said earlier about sectarianism. One of the things that has been evident in recent years in Northern Ireland , particularly in recent days, has been the profusion of flag-flying, illegal flag-flying all over the place; union-jacks, tricolours, paramilitary flags … Really what that’s about is about saying if you’re in this area, whatever you might want to be, forget it you’ve no choice, you are defined as nationalist, unionist whatever. I think it’s crucially important for us to make progress towards a new Northern Ireland, that people can make a distinction, like the distinction Jim made between being nationalist and being Irish, and I’m happy to sign up to being Irish too. I’m not actually unionist but I’m from a Protestant background. We have to be allowed the freedom to make those kinds of choices which hasn’t to a degree been the case. I think we’ve also got to see whether it’s not possible to create new senses of identity which might be more complicated than the simple unionist, nationalist, either or.
Parity of esteem: “I used to do discussion classes with IRA prisoners before my captive audience got out, so to speak… One of the discussions we had was about this issue of “parity of esteem” as it is called in Northern Ireland, and at the end of the discussion while I was waiting for the person from the prison service to take me out of the H-block one of the guys said to me, “you’ve talked about identities, what would you say you were?” Knowing it wasn’t going to be the answer he wanted I said I was a liberal socialist, and he said “apart from being a liberal socialist, what are you? – When I get up in the morning I listen to Radio Ulster, then I turn over to RTE. I go into the office I read the Irish Times and then I read the Guardian. I have an Irish passport, I’m interested in politics in Britain and Italian football. Make of that what you will and until such times as we can have that kind of hybrid identity in Northern Ireland it’s going to be very difficult for us to sort out some of these issues that are so contentious.”
Fergus: “I’m tempted to say that anyone who listens to RTE and Radio Ulster between the Irish Times and the Guardian also needs to get a life!…”
Q4:[Slane resident, re Euro]: “I wanted to ask an economic question actually. The economic performance in Northern Ireland is going to be critical …… Dermot, what is your attitude or the Unionist Party’s attitude towards the Euro, the economic issue of all economics. What would the attitude of the Ulster Unionists be if there was a referendum on this issue? ….”
Dermot Nesbitt: “Fascinating question .. unfortunately we don’t have all night and I don’t mean that glibly. The Euro, it’s a bit like the European Union itself, it’s based on economic theory but sometimes in practice it doesn’t precisely work, because the European Union is a customs union whereby .. you have trade barriers broken down and therefore everyone’s better off, it’s a win-win situation. The Euro should be better because we’re all trading in one currency, therefore there is stability. And I find it interesting that the UK-based industries in London … were talking about fiscal stability through the Euro currency and here we were still trying to get political stability in Northern Ireland which is what industry looks for. However the Euro will function only if it is acceptable as an international currency, if you do not trade in the Euro the way they are trading in the dollar and the deutschmark then it will not become an acceptable currency to hold, therefore its value will not increase and if its value does not increase it itself will not become a viable currency. So it’s like any product, as it were, because money is only money for money’s sake. It’s of itself no worth, it’s paper money in a sense, it’s not real money. It’s a medium of exchange and as a medium of exchange it will only be valuable if people value it as that and until it becomes a currency that is acceptable as an international currency of exchange – in other words transactions are based on it – it may not get off the ground. From our point of view I think there may be a tendency within the EU to have greater problems with what happens in the expansion of the EU eastwards from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Poland down right through to Slovenia – that sliver of countries that used to be part of the Soviet Republic that now wish to join the European Union. That will become a bigger problem for the EU than whether or not this Euro functions.
“Therefore I would say that: a) the jury is out on the Euro for various fiscal reasons and, b) there are more important issues at this moment that might help or hinder the future benefit of Europe than the Euro.”
Questioner: “So I am therefore to assume that the Ulster Unionist position is….
Dermot Nesbitt: “The answer to that is I’m here representing the administration, not the Ulster Unionist Party!… It is a fascinating question.”
Fergus: “It doesn’t take full-time politicians long to learn the skills of full-time politicians! You wanted to come in, Jim.”
Jim Lennon: “I’ll give you the party position first because I’m not here representing the Administration. We, that is the SDLP, support the inclusion of the UK within the Euro zone, and that is partly because of our principles in respect of inclusion within the European Union and the fact that we see that as one way of breaking down some of the barriers. However if you look at the economic arguments – there’s two sets of factors and I’ll deal particularly with Northern Ireland rather than the UK as a whole. There are two sets of factors that you have to consider. Where I live, which is about 6 miles from Monaghan town, if you take a broad belt from Newry through to Strabane, effectively 20 miles north of the border is now Euro land. They trade effectively punt for pound because they have to do that to survive in business and if you look at towns that don’t do that, they close down.
“That’s one reality that we live with. However you also have to ask yourself some economic questions and if you look at the structure of the European economy, the european economy is largely a closed economy – about 80% of the European trade is in the European zone, it trades with itself. So whether the Euro is a trading currency in some respects doesn’t matter, because it only accounts for about 20% of foreign trade and that foreign trade is largely petro-chemical based, oil and a few other bits and pieces, high technology, which are trade in dollars anyway. The UK economy is different. The structure of the UK economy has markedly changed certainly in the last twenty years. It has moved from what I would call heavy metal [based] into mainly financial services and other services and technologically based services and I think about 60% of the UK trade is with the EU, 40% is with other trading blocks, so the issues for the UK economy are substantially different.
“Our problem in Northern Ireland is, we’re a bit like “piggy in the middle” – there’s an economy down here that now effectively is sucking between about 5% or 6% of our workforce across the border … where white vans are heading for Dublin every morning. If you look at factors that are influencing capital investment, take Xerox – my previous professional career was in IT and I would have had some dealings with Xerox in Europe and IBM. They purposely put Xerox in Dundalk because they wanted to get at Northern labour, the labour market down here effectively is running as full as possible which is why inflation is starting to shoot through the roof. So they are now putting plants along the border area. If you look at what’s happening in Donegal it’s the same story. We are affected by the Euro and to a certain extent our answer, I suppose in the longer-term, depends on how our own country develops. Now in Northern Ireland the economy has taken off over the last seven years, since the first cease-fire. You would have noticed if you look at the Belfast Telegraph, probably the main paper for jobs on a Friday night, there is a proliferation of IT and technologically service-based jobs in it and that’s the way it is happening in the belt from Belfast right through to Armagh, all the way down to Newry. So if our economy continues to travel that way then a lot of our trade will be in non-Euro-based currencies, particularly the American dollar so there are economic issues that we do have to face. “
Dermot Nesbitt: “Very quickly … . I would entirely agree with what Jim said… and that’s why I’m saying about currency of exchange being acceptable because it depends on where you do your trading.”
Q5: Rathmolyon resident [re new police service and 50/50 religious quota]: ]: “The emphasis is on recruits from the Catholic population joining the police service. What in the name of heavens has religion got to do with policing?….. A policeman should be a policeman. We’re all Christians surely.”
Dermot Nesbitt: “Very briefly. Realpolitik is not a matter of wants, it’s a matter of needs. Now I know historically when the police service in Northern Ireland was set up, 30% was provided for the Catholic community to join. For whatever reason they didn’t join, for whatever reason, only 8% of the police service in Northern Ireland [comes from the Catholic community]. It is viewed therefore to be unbalanced and we support a balanced police-force that reflects the community, that’s part of the reason of having an affinity with it. I’m not so sure if the 50/50 recruitment might be as skewed as one might think because the age population of school children is about 50/50 Catholic/Protestant, and the main recruits to the police service will be probably 18-25 year olds. So if the balance of applicants reflects the community then the success of applicants will be on a fair basis as it should be. I’ll conclude by saying that realpolitik requires that that be done so that we have policing like politics to reflect a society that all can have an affinity with.”
Questioner: “Why don’t they use the term “Christians” instead of Protestants and Catholics, what the blazes, aren’t we all Christians? ..”
Dermot Nesbitt: “I would agree that we are all Christians in that sense, but, as Robin says, there is a Framework Convention for the Protection of National minorities, where identity is defined. I think it’s article 14 of that Convention and identity is defined as culture, language, education and religion. Now we may like it to be different, but it isn’t. The former Yugoslavia deals with Muslims, which is religious, Bosnians, which is Orthodox, Croats which are Catholic…. In the Philippines where some people were kidnapped the other day, again it was a Muslim/Catholic conflict within the Philippines. Whether we like it or not, our culture is quite often identified by our religion. In the context of this island it is Catholic/Protestant, in other parts of the world it is different, but what is not different is that religion is a barrier to being together. “
Chair (Fergus Finlay): “… I am going to take two more questions ….”
Q7:Re committee system in the Assembly: “…Will the committee system have real power in checking and balancing decisions of ministers?
Robin Wilson: “The answer to that is that the jury is still out. There was an unfortunate experience which .. was already referred to – the decision about the location of the maternity services in Belfast … whether it should be in the City hospital which is in mixed south Belfast or at the Royal hospital which is in Catholic west Belfast. The unfortunate thing about that issue was that it went before the Committee and all the members of the Committee voted on lines which you could associate either with their sectarian or constituency affiliation which was unfortunate. It was even more unfortunate when the issue went to the Minister. She contradicted the Committee’s view, giving no reasons to the Committee as to why she had contradicted its view, before she went to the press and told them that she was taking the position she was taking, which she also hadn’t agreed with the other members of the Executive. Now that was nota model of good government, to put it mildly. Some of the committees one hopes will over time take on more of a scrutinising role so they do act more as a check on government. One of the things which they also haven’t done too well to start with in any case is to remain secret.”
Q8: Re: forgiveness and promise: “…One thing throughout the peace process that has impressed me has been the gutsy leadership that has been shown at times – leadership that has been based on two principles, one of forgiveness and one of promising…. The impressive leadership that has come, particularly from David Trimble, the ability to forgive and the ability to be liberated from the past you have talked about, and the ability also to promise or to be bound by our word some time in the future and I think I would like to bring this down to a personal level and to ask what each person is personally prepared to forgive and what each is personally prepared to promise in order to keep that dynamic going and keep the process moving forward.”
Fergus: “Now is that a reasonable basis on which to invite the panel to say their last word? What are you each personally prepared to forgive and what are you each personally prepared to promise?”
Anne Carr: “I’m personally prepared to forgive the loyalist killers who very nearly murdered my husband in 1971, only he wasn’t home that night. We were 18 years old and I had just left my then boyfriend and gone home and he was going to Spain that night on holiday with friends. A Catholic family living in the centre of Belfast, a quarter to twelve that night there was a knock on the front door – he wasn’t there, but if he had been there he would have answered that door. His young brother heard a knock, shouted through the door “who’s there?”, this was the middle of 1971, the hard “Troubles” and the guy on the other side of the door said “I want to speak to Terry about a football match”. If Terry had been there he would have answered the door, but instead two shots were fired through the door and one of them hit his brother’s shirt and he still has the shirt with the hole in it. You never know the names of these people, it was just tit for tat, an easy target, a Catholic family living in a Protestant area at a difficult time. The people who came to the door that night did not want a Catholic about. When he came home from Spain they had no house, they had nowhere to live and had to move to the country. .. We gave up our jobs and moved to London for two years. I desperately wanted to come home, so did Terry. We got married and came home. All these years later I have watched my father-in-law barricade the house every night before he went to bed because he thought these people would come back. I watched my husband sitting with a baseball bat beside the bed just in case these people would come back. But I forgive those people because I know the number of young people that were drawn into this conflict, they were drawn in by violence of thetongue that led so many people to lift a gun, those people on platforms shouting them why they should get involved, whether it was for “God and Ulster” or a “Free Ireland”. Those people led a lot of young people to do things that they would never, ever in their lives have done if they had lived somewhere else. I never found out who those people are but they’re still out there. I know the only way I can move forward as a human being, now with four Catholic children, who I hope will never have to face what we had to face as teenagers, I know we are moving to something different, so I can forgive those people and say, right, we all made mistakes in the past, we didn’t understand the hurt we were causing to one another and the barriers that we actually lived ….. all we knew was that we hated somebody else because they were different. I can forgive those people now because I know that we all have to forgive one another if we’re going to move on. I heard at a conference “if the light of the past is too bright it blinds us for the future”, I’m more interested in that light for the future than in the past. “
“In relation to my promise – my promise is that I will do all in my capability to ensure that I not only listen but hear people who are different from me whether it is culture, religion, race or whatever. I need to hear them, I need to walk around in their shoes to understand where they’re coming from and every day of my life I will try and do a bit of that.”
Jim Lennon: “Very briefly, I believe our future doesn’t lie in our hands, it lies in that of our children. My promise is – I have 6 kids, I will teach them to respect their neighbours, respect the difference and to work with them in a way which probably wasn’t possible when I was a child. In terms of forgiveness, I don’t have the same experiences as Anne … however one of the things that I think we all have to do in Northern Ireland is …the mess of the last 30 or 70 years, depending on your view…passed on to us a perverted version of history that taught us, certainly when I was at school, that it was a glorious thing to die for your country and perpetuated a myth that – certainly from my perspective, from the community I came from – caused quite a significant amount of hurt, pain and distress that probably still hasn’t been fully recognised.”
Dermot Nesbitt: “… Forgiveness is a difficult thing. I think one should forgive those who have festered division. I listen to both sides and sometimes I say, you must not, because there’s more in common among us than there is a division to divide us. As regards a promise, I shall just keep doing what I’m doing because I genuinely believe what I’ve done, am doing, and what I will continue to do is for the best interests, not just of Unionism but also of Nationalism, not just those in Northern Ireland but those throughout this island and further apart…”
Robin Wilson: “Not having been touched directly, I can happily forgive all those sectarian protagonists and paramilitaries who have made the lives of many people in Northern Ireland a complete misery, those who weren’t touched by the violence directly ….. In terms of promise, like a lot of other people who have just spent the last many years, not being in leadership positions, not in the limelight but just working away solidly for something better, I’ll probably keep doing that.”
Fergus: “For my part I’m going to forgive the person who asked a difficult personal question which drew four very honest and direct answers from the panel and I’m going to promise to wind up the meeting now in the interests of ensuring that everyone gets a cup of tea! “
CLOSING WORDS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
On behalf of the Meath Peace Group, Julitta Clancy thanked all the speakers and the Chair, Fergus Finlay, for giving so generously of their time. She thanked the audience for coming, and she again thanked the Columban Fathers for permitting the use of their facilities for the talks. All four parties in the new Executive had been invited to speak, she said, but the group had had no response from the DUP, and Sinn Fein had been unable to send a speaker.
Millennium Award: At the close of the evening, Cllr. Phil Cantwell, Chairman of Trim UDC presented a Millennium Award to the Meath Peace Group for their work in promoting peace and reconciliation.
ENDS
APPENDIX A: “Making a Difference: Preparing the Programme for Government” (Robin Wilson, Democratic Dialogue, June 2000)
Extracts from Executive Summary:
1. “The stipulation in the Belfast Agreement that the parties involved in the Executive Committee governing a devolved Northern Ireland elaborate a Programme for Government has been subject to remarkably little public debate. Getting the institutions agreed, getting them up and running, and now getting them back up and running has dominated exchanges. This reflects the lack of prior policy debate during the decades of direct rule, when every party was in opposition and the hard choices of government were left to others .
2. “Yet the programme is not only crucial to the credibility of devolution to ordinary citizens. It is also critical to cementing a potentially fractious executive, with four parties thrown together in involuntary coalition. It provides the only means, in the absence of conventional arrangements for collective responsibility, for parties to subordinate their partisan concerns to the wider “common good”.
3. Focus-group evidence indicates that citizens of Northern Ireland feel alienated from a political discourse which is adversarial rather than collaborative. There is meanwhile insufficient public understanding of the political and financial constraints upon a devolved administration in the region. It is therefore crucial that key actors in civil society are engaged in the debate about the programme.”
4. “A growing concern in government everywhere is how it can be made more “joined up”. The “wicked issues” that cut across departments present a particular challenge. Northern Ireland is especially scarred by two of them: sectarianism and social exclusion. Developing the cross-departmental Programme for Government is a key requirement if such apparently intractable problems are to be addressed.”
5. “Governments … are increasingly concerned to demonstrate that they do not just have outputs (services), but outcomes – real change that makes a difference on the ground. Focusing on outcomes also favours better evaluation of what government does. But this should not just be internal: a standing “citizens’ panel” should be established to monitor the work of a devolved administration.”
6. “For all these reasons, the Programme for Government should be structured around the outcomes a “joined-up” administration would seek to achieve – the key policy goals for the region. These chapter headings might be –
• fostering intercommunal integration and supporting all the victims of violence,
• promoting equality of life-chances and securing social inclusion,
• pursuing sustainable economic development and reducing unemployment,
• reducing mortality and morbidity and improving public health,
• raising educational achievement and skills attainment,
• enhancing physical mobility and the environmental fabric,
• maximising Northern Ireland’s links to the rest of the world.
“This would make clear to the wider public exactly what difference devolution would be intended to make, and would in turn provide a focus for debate around the draft programme when published…..
7. “Outcomes tend to be measurable. So the programme should publish a series of indicators by which performance of the administration can be assessed over time. This offers a powerful tool for accountability to the Assembly and the public. It also requires, however, a liberal regime vis-a-vis freedom of information.”
8.” The first full year of a devolved administration should in part be devoted to a review of all existing government projects. Those inimical to the agreed policy goals should be discontinued or scaled back. Those at variance with the programme should be refined so that they dovetail better with it, and so with each other. The space should thereby be created for new projects to be introduced. A small Economic Policy Unit has been established in the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister; it should be enlarged and its remit broadened to embrace review and renewal in all policy domains.”
9. “The financial constraints on devolved government need to be eased, ultimately by Westminster legislation for tax-varying powers, as in Scotland. Meantime, hypothecated charges should be considered. In the context of UK-wide devolution, the Northern Ireland executive should support a new needs assessment to stabilise its public-expenditure allocation from the Exchequer.”
10.”Much of “government” is these days delivered by non-governmental organisations, or in partnership with them. NGOs may often be more appropriate vehicles to pursue policy goals straddling government departments. The Civic Forum envisaged by the Agreement can thus play a key role, not only in the debate around the programme but also in exploring how best it can be delivered.”
11. “Northern Ireland inhabits a globalised environment, and must relate to the rest of Ireland, the rest of the UK and the rest of Europe. The Republic’s government should be taken into confidence at an early stage of the drafting of the programme, so that potential synergies can be maximised. The Economic Policy Unit will be critical to keeping abreast of policy developments in Cardiff and Edinburgh, as well as London. And establishing effective official representation of the administration in Brussels is a priority.”
APPENDIX B: Meath Peace Group talk no. 38: Biographical Notes on Speakers
Cllr. Anne Carr was elected to Newcastle Council in 1997. She is a member of the Women’s Coalition, and is currently co-ordinator of Women Together Moving On. She worked for 10 years with Women Together for Peace and as coordinator has seen through the many changes involved in developing that group into Women Together Moving On. Winner of the Bahai Peace Award in 1999, it has been said about her that she truly “lives her beliefs”. She has been a great inspiration to many working for peace.
Fergus Finlay worked for three coalition governments from 1982 to 1997, as adviser to the Tanaiste and Labour Party leader, Dick Spring. He is the author of several best-selling books including, A President with a Purpose, about Mary Robinson’s election, A Cruel Trade (political thriller), and Snakes and Ladders, his own political memoir “packed with insights, incidents, and anecdotes about the most turbulent and eventful years in recent Irish politics”.
Jim Lennon is Secretary of the SDLP Newry and Armagh Constituency Council. He was elected to the SDLP Executive Committee in 1994 and has served as Assistant Treasurer and Treasurer of the party. He was elected Chairperson of the SDLP in 1998. He presently works in Armagh College of Further Education, having previously worked in the Health Service, Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the N.I. Civil Service. He holds a Masters Degree in Business Administration and Planning from the University of Ulster and Queen’s University, Belfast.
Dermot Nesbitt, MLA, a member of the UUP, is Junior Minister in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. He has been actively involved in public life for many years, having been a District Councillor as well as a former Chairman of both the S.E. Education and Library Board and the Board of Governors of Stranmillis College. From 1992-1998 he served on the Standing Advisory Commission on HumanRights. He was the UUP’s South Down representative in the N.I. Forum (1996-98) and was a member of the party’s negotiation team at the Stormont talks. He was elected to the new Assembly in June 1998. Before becoming a full-time politician in 1998, he had been a Senior Lecturer in Finance at Queen’s University Belfast, and also head of the Department of Accounting and Finance.
Robin Wilson is Director of the Belfast-based think tank Democratic Dialogue, which he established in 1995. Democratic Dialogue has been involved in arguments about the evolving political architecture in Northern Ireland as well as exploring economic and social themes. Previously he was for eight years editor of the N.I. current affairs magazine Fortnight. During that time he helped establish the Opsahl Commission, which laid the template for what was to become the Belfast Agreement of 1998. He is the author of numerous journal articles on the region and has written and commented on Northern Ireland in a wide range of press and broadcast media.
ENDS
Meath Peace Group Report. July 2000. (c) Meath Peace Group
Transcribed by Sarah Clancy, video-taped by Anne Nolan, and edited by Julitta Clancy.
The Meath Peace Group is a voluntary group founded in April 1993 with the aim of promoting understanding and mutual respect through dialogue. As part of its work the group has hosted a series of public talks in Meath mostly at Dalgan Park, Navan – 38 talks have been held to date, and over 135 speakers have addressed the group, representing political parties, community groups, victims’ support groups, human rights activists, women’s groups, peace and reconciliation groups, prisoners’ support groups, the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, the N.I. Human Rights Commission, the Victims’ Commission and the Victims’ Liaison Unit, Stormont, residents’ groups involved in parading disputes, and representatives of the Orange Order and Apprentice Boys.
Acknowledgments: The Group would like to thank the Columban Fathers for permitting the use of their facilities at Dalgan Park for the series of talks, and we gratefully acknowledge the practical assistance given towards the talks by the Community Bridges Programme of the International Fund for Ireland (1997-2000). We thank all our speakers and visiting chairpersons and all our supporters who have come to our talks, often from great distances and in all sorts of weather, all who have participated in our informal small-group discussions and all who have assisted with our schools programmes, involving students and teachers in secondary schools in Meath and Louth.
Contacts: Julitta and John Clancy, Batterstown; Anne Nolan, Gernonstown, Slane; Pauline Ryan, Navan; Philomena Boylan-Stewart, Longwood; Michael Kane, An Tobar, Ardbraccan, Navan; Olive Kelly, Garlow Cross, Lismullen
No. 37. “The Good Friday Agreement – Two Years On”
Monday, 10th April, 2000
St. Columban’s College, Dalgan Park, Navan
Speakers:
Sean Farren, MLA (SDLP Assembly Member; Minister for Higher Education in the NI Executive)
Dr. Esmond Birnie, MLA (UUP Assembly Member; Chairman of Higher and Further Education Committee; UUP Spokesman on North-South Relations)
Cllr. Gary McMichael (Leader of the Ulster Democratic Party)
John Bruton, TD (Leader of Fine Gael; Former Taoiseach)
Chaired by Ercus Stewart, S.C.
Contents:
Addresses of speakers
Questions and comments
Appendix: Biographical notes on speakers
Editor’s note: This report is, as far as possible, an accurate transcript of the presentations and discussion on the night – items between square brackets refer to portions of the written speeches of the speakers which were not delivered due to time considerations
1. Sean Farren, MLA (SDLP). “Thank you. Can I say that I’m very pleased to be here, to have the opportunity of speaking to the Meath Peace Group. I’ve been aware of the Group’s activities. Its involvement goes beyond simply holding meetings, important as it is to hold meetings like this, but it’s involvement goes beyond that to direct encounters across the border and indeed elsewhere, with people at all levels involved in the political, social and other aspects of life in Northern Ireland, all focussing on reconciliation and the creation of a stable, peaceful, political situation there.
Scale and scope of the Agreement: “Can I just begin by reflecting with you a little bit on the Good Friday Agreement? Much that you probably know in detail yourselves. But I think it would be helpful to reflect on the scale and the scope, and indeed the ambition that lay behind the Good Friday Agreement. It would be very easy tonight – given the protracted impasse that we find ourselves in – to reflect more on the negative sentiment which is undoubtedly out there in Northern Ireland, and indeed throughout the South and elsewhere where people take an interest in our affairs. It would be easy to reflect the sense of disappointment – to put it no stronger – that people feel two years on, and indeed the question more on people’s lips and in their minds is “whither the Good Friday agreement now?”
“The Agreement has been compared with the Sunningdale Power-sharing Agreement reached in 1973. But on reflection it is much deeper – it attempts to address much more comprehensively all of the issues relating to the relationships that the people of Ireland, north and south, and indeed the people in Ireland and Britain enter into by virtue of the historic legacy which in a sense lproduced the conflict, let the conflict to simmer and to boil, on what A.T.Q. Stewart described as the “narrow ground” of Northern Ireland. But the Good Friday Agreement – looking comprehensively at all of the relationships that form part, or indeed the whole of that legacy – is an Agreement which, despite the difficulties of the last two years, is, I think, going to stand the test of time. It addresses the legacy in terms of its political relationships within the North, between North and South, and between Ireland and Britain, in a very comprehensive way, through the political institutions that it proposed be established and that became tantalisingly close to giving firm roots to last November, and throughout December and into early February.
Sense of self-respect: “Those political institutions began to demonstrate a degree of confidence that people in Northern Ireland in particular – and between North and South – could take political responsibility, and through that political responsibility begin to restore or indeed give for the first time for many a sense of self respect. That their own political representatives could do things together for the benefit of the whole community, and between North and South to begin to work – as the Agreement itself says – to the mutual benefit.of the communities on both sides of the border.
“We had that tantalising sense of restoring the self respect to ourselves through those institutions in that short period of time. That remains there as something which, because we have sensed it I think we will, undoubtedly in the short or the longer term, restore to ourselves, because without it we condem ourselves to failure.
New civic order: “But the Agreement is much more than the political institutions. It addresses many of the issues which were a cause or a contributing cause – if not a root cause – to the problem. The equality agenda, the human rights agenda, the vexed question of prisoner releases, the vexed question of police reform, and – maybe less vexed, depending on what side of the fence you stand on – the issue of criminal justice reform. And indeed all the other associated issues in the cultural sphere, the social sphere and the economic sphere. All of those in the Good Friday Agreement were being given frameworks to be addressed effectively and positively, and in ways which, hopefully, would enable us to create a new civic order – a civic order in which people would feel comfortable, no matter what their allegiance, no matter what their identity, no matter what their aspiration.
Prisoner releases: “Undoubtedly some of those are much more problematic for one side of the community than for the other – trying to bridge the problems associated with policing, and through the release of prisoners – an issue which undoubtedly has caused a great deal of pain. And I have to say, as someone looking at the manner in which the unionist community has received that issue and has responded to it, I have a great deal of admiration for the equanimity with which the unionist community, which bore a great deal of the pain and the tragedy which was inflicted by many of those in prison, responded. We all know there have been responses which have expressed some of the bitterness associated with that, that was not to be unexpected. That equanimity is reflected also within the nationalist community, because there have been many prisoners released who have inflicted a great deal of pain on people from the nationalist community. But particularly I think I should acknowledge, from within the nationalist community, the manner in which I observed the unionist community responding to the release of so many prisoners, many of whom who will live not very far from those very people on whom their actions brought so much tragedy. And yet that has been accepted….
Policing reform: “Alongside of that there is the vexed question of policing. We all noted the reactions within the unionst community to that. There my own reflections might not be so generous in reflecting on their response to the Patten Report, as I have just reflected with respect to their response to prisoner release… But nonetheless there is an acceptance that change and reform of a significant kind is necessary if we are going to create a police service in which people from both sides of the community will comfortably serve, and in turn be accepted through their service by both sides of the community.
Criminal justice system: “Likewise, although we haven’t yet begun in public to debate the recommendations that have come out of the criminal justice review – changes there will, we hope, create a new set of attitudes which will allow the criminal justice system to be one which is accepted with a greater sense of equality and fairness being delivered to people on both sides of the community too.
Political stability: “All of these issues, alongside the political issues, are intended to create the confidence, the trust, that would enable the whole of the Good Friday Agreement to go ahead and progress in a manner that would enable us to reach stability within a political framework in which the identities of all sides are accepted, recognised and respected. And that whatever the destiny of Northern Ireland is to be, that it will rest on the principle of consent – perhaps one of the most fundamental dimensions of the Good Friday Agreement which has led to the constitutional change here in the South – a change that many indeed in the South would have argued for and wanted to see effected long before this. But nonetheless it has been accepted now as a working principle for constitutional change within the North.
Impasse: “Yet despite what the Good Friday Agreement has both promised and indeed begun to deliver, we are at the impasse that I’m sure is going to be the focus of a great deal of our discussion this evening. We all know where the focus of that impasse lies – it lies on the one remaining confidence building measure on which there has been not sufficient progress. You’ll gather that I’m being a bit hesitant in formulating my words and views at this particular point. But there’s been so much debate that perhaps it is important to recognise that while we say progress has not been sufficient, or that no progress has taken place at all, nonetheless we are living in days which compare much more favourably than the days of the early 90s and late 80s and stretching back into the decades before then. We do have a greater sense of freedom from violence, we do have a greater sense of security. And that sense of security – that sense of freedom from imminent danger of violence – comes from the fact that the ceasefires have held since 1997 in particular. They haven’t been complete. I recognise there have been punishment beatings. I recognise that punishment beatings are turned on and off, almost to mirror political developments – almost to remind us at this critical time, that “they haven’t gone away you know”, on either side, And they come back with their terror – that’s what it is in the areas where the paramilitaries seek to exercise their control – to remind us of that very obvious fact, that they haven’t gone away.
Our entitlement: “And of course, underlying that is the question we are all asking – will there be any more progress on decommissioning? Will there be what I regard as our entitlement – I’m talking here about the people of Ireland, north and south who voted so overwhelmingly in the referendum just two years ago. Their entitlement to live free from the threat, free from the actuality of paramilitary violence. That is what we have said to the paramilitaries. And the response, while it exists in the form of the ceasefires – inadequate as we may regard them from time to time because of the punishment beatings – nonetheless they have a responsibility to go beyond that and to give us some sense of reassurance, some clear sense that the threat no longer exists, that there is no danger of a return – insofar as that can be guaranteed and there are no absolute guarantees – that there is no imminent danger of a return to politically-motivated violence.
“That’s our entitlement, that’s what we asked for when we voted “yes” in the Good Friday Agreement. Amongst all of the other things, we did ask for that.
Decommissioning: “The Agreement recognises that “decommissioning is an indispensable part of the process”. The conditions that we’re reminded of that will bring it about – the full operation of the Agreement – seem at times, by those who put it in that way, to remove decommissioning from the Agreement, and to suggest that it would be a desirable extra which would come after everything else has been put into effect. If that’s the attitude and that’s the approach… when is everything else going to be in effect to the point where decommissioning can take place? I don’t accept that it is apart from the Agreement – I see it as an essential element. It needs to be progressed along with all of those other matters I’ve just reminded you of that are also essential parts of that Agreement..
Obligations of paramilitaries: “We do need a reassurance – not only do we need it, we’re entitled to it. We’re entitled to it because we said that that was the wish of the Irish people overwhelmingly. If the Irish people are sovereign, if the Irish people have the right to express themselves openly and freely and democratically through a referendum accepted by all of the pro-Agreement parties, then the paramilitaries associated directly or indirectly with those parties have an obligation to respond to what we have asked for and what, as I say, is our entitlement. So far they haven’t done so sufficiently. They have begun to come closer to it in recent months – some of the things they said before the 31st January, some of the things which are reflected in the de Chastelain report of 11 February – where there is an indication that arms might be put beyond use in a way to maximise public confidence – seem to be nudging the argument on their side in that direction.
Need for clear response: “But the language is still the language of “might”, “maybe” and “perhaps”. We do need at this stage, if the project is to move forward in the near future and not become a victim to electoral considerations – we do need a clear response. That’s your entitlement, that’s our entitlement in the North most particularly. Without it the Agreement is likely to be further arrested and become a victim to electoral considerations. If that’s the case, then I think the Irish people need to know very clearly what is happening and to give their response accordingly. Thank you…….”
[The following paragraphs are taken from Sean Farren’s written speech – sections which could not be delivered due to time considerations on the night:
Peace and stability or a return to sectarian politics– the choice:
“Despite their clearly expressed desire for reconciliation, stability and peace through the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, the people of Northern Ireland are being now faced with the prospect of a return to the poison of sectarian politics. Having voted overwhelmingly for the Good Friday Agreement the people of Ireland, North and South, face being betrayed, ironically and tragically, not by political parties in the “no” camp, but by parties who proclaimed themselves in favour of that agreement. The impasse is the result of a failure to build confidence and trust through an open and generous approach to implementing the agreement. For this republicans and unionists share a grave responsibility.”
Breaking the current impasse:
(i) “If we are to deliver on the hopes and expectations of the Agreement there has to be a real commitment from the republicans and loyalists to ensuring that political violence is over and done with. Without that commitment trust will not develop between all those who want the Agreement to succeed.
(ii) “Alongside that commitment it has to be clear that the political institutions will function free of any threat either to undermine or suspend them. Any future difficulty or crisis facing these institutions must be fully and openly addressed by all pro-agreement parties and both governments. Precipitate and unilateral action by either government of any party such as happened on the 11 February must be ruled out. Otherwise the trust essential to making those institutions work will never develop.
(iii) “To break the current impasse the implementation plan being prepared by both governments must, therefore, be comprehensive. It will not be sufficient merely to deal with decommissioning and the re-establishment of the political institutions. The package must make clear that progress will be made on all of the other major issues as well. These include a clear timetable for reform of the police and of the criminal justice system, the full implementation of equality measures, parity of esteem for all our cultural traditions, the establishment of the civic forum as well as progress towards a North-South parliamentary tier and the North-South Forum.
“On this second anniversary of the Agreement, all pro-Agreement parties, together with both governments, must rededicate themselves to fully realising the hopes placed by the people of Ireland, North and South, in the Good Friday Agreement]
2. Dr. Esmond Birnie, MLA (UUP) [Note: additional text in square brackets is taken from Dr Birnie’s written speech]:
“ Thank you very much – It’s the first time I’ve addressed this group and I’m very grateful for the opportunity…. We live in interesting and challenging times in Northern Ireland and throughout the island….. My presentation tonight is in two parts – firstly I will address the immediate issues, and secondly, I want to say a little about some radical suggestions as to how the institutions might be developed in the future…
Part 1: Immediate issues
UUP commitment to the Agreement: “Under David Trimble’s leadership the Ulster Unionist Party has taken a huge leap away from what I do admit was a somewhat insular and exclusive past. David Trimble himself has taken personal, party and political risks – but I believe they were always calculated risks and indeed necessary risks for the good of the Northern Ireland people as a whole. He – more than anyone else – opened the door to a cross-community political partnership which had the potential to provide decent and stable government for everyone. It is against that background that I regard the criticism made, for example, by Sinn Fein of the Ulster Unionist Party – that we are not genuinely committed to the Good Friday Agreement – I would regard that criticism as nonsensical.
“Because in fact we do believe in inclusive government, and indeed we proved that by participating in the Executive between November of last year and February of this year.. But inclusivity is not an unqualified virtue. We believe it does have to be qualified by two things – first of all any government needs to be based on democratic principles, and secondly we cannot govern if we govern under a threat of a return to violence. Sean made that point very well and I would agree with him… In November 1999, the Ulster Unionist Party did take a risk – a calculated risk. Why did we do that? We did that because we felt it was worth making one final effort to bring the IRA – and the other paramilitaries – in from the cold. We did decide to take them on trust. And we hoped that when we – and other parties like the SDLP – took major steps towards implementing the Agreement, we hoped that the paramilitaries and those parties linked to them would reciprocate They didn’t, sadly.
What we were asking for: “It’s important to stress what we were asking for and what we weren’t asking for, because again Sinn Fein propaganda has clouded the issue. My party was not insisting upon a public handover of arsenals prior to the devolution of power. We weren’t certainly asking for surrender. We weren’t asking for the abandoning of power-sharing or indeed the Irish Dimension. We weren’t asking those who had an aspiration to a united Ireland to abandon that aspiration, provided they worked entirely through a democratic political platform. All we were asking in November of the IRA was that it would set itself the immediate task of outlining a process whereby the decommissioning of arms would begin, be continued and be completed. Now in April of this year we’re still waiting to see if the IRA and Sinn Fein are going to offer such a process….
[“There were many people in the Ulster Unionist Party who believed that David Trimble was wrong to take the risk. Not, as Sinn Fein pretend, because they don’t even want inclusive government, but because they believed that the IRA would never make a gesture on decommissioning. It was because David Trimble believed that the IRA were serious about decommissioning that he underwrote the risk by offering his own resignation and further risking his own position as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. Since November 1999, the IRA have done nothing to help either the Agreement or David Trimble, and if both are now in a vulnerable and perhaps terminal position, it is the IRA who must take the blame”]
IRA problems with the Agreement: “I do recognise that the IRA have awful problems with the Good Friday Agreement. From their perspective it is probably not a very good agreement at all. It has involved, quite rightly from my point of view, the amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of your Constitution. The so-called British presence has been entrenched in Northern Ireland. To some degree it is an internal settlement – though of course arguably it is much more than that. It does involve a return to a parliament at Stormont, a Unionist First Minister and a unionist input into, and veto, over the activities of the cross-border implementation bodies. [Neither the paramilitary nor political wings of republicanism has been able to win the political and constitutional war and for the the IRA there is still a sense of unfinished business].
“Militant republicanism in particular, and republicanism in general, to some degree is built upon a martyr-worshipping culture. That may be why they find pragmatic things represented in the Belfast Agreement hard to swallow That sort of militant republican culture does I think have a passion for tortured, imprisoned, law-defying, freedom-fighting or indeed dead heroes. They cannot cope with anything which smacks of surrender and I think they do have a difficulty with a political settlement which in effect involves recognition of something of a stalemate with what they regard as their old historic enemy.
“In that context, I suppose some in republicanism view the handover of weaponry as a public acknowledgment that they have lost a military campaign [along with the political and constitutional battles]. Another huge dilemma for the IRA is that 95% of the republican/nationalist electorate within the island as a whole voted in favour of the Good Friday Agreement [and in favour of them decommissioning their weapons by May 2000 at the latest]. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the IRA haven’t got a clue what to do at the moment – and that is reflected in Sinn Fein policy at the moment – and nor do they appear to have the moral courage to face facts and start with the very simple statement that “the war is over”.
[“In September 1997 the UUP had to sit down with Sinn Fein in order to move the process forward. In December 1999 we sat down with Sinn Fein in the Executive to move the process forward again. We have delivered everything which was required of us by the Agreement and it is now up to the IRA to deliver the one and only thing we have asked of them – decommissioning.”]
Spirit of the Agreement: “They claim that the Good Friday Agreement makes no specific demand upon them to hand over a single bullet or ounce of Semtex. In one narrow sense I agree with them. In a strict legal sense the Agreement does not do that – if it did presumably we would have taken Sinn Fein to court. But beyond the technical, legal aspects of the Agreement is a concept which has come to be known as “the spirit of the Agreement”…. Even though there was no written guarantee that decommissioning had to happen, there was a hope and a real expectation on the part of almost every party that decommissioning would start soon after April 1998 and continue until it was completed well before May 22nd of this year. If in fact the IRA – and indeed Sinn Fein continue – to take refuge in legal niceties, it doesn’t set a good precedent to the establishment of a pluralist inclusive executive in Northern Ireland where Sinn Fein ministers would have major exercise of power.
[Long-term intentions of the IRA “When the determination to keep your weapons is justified by the legal nicety that no-one actually said that you had to hand them over at all, it does beg the question of the IRA’s sincerity and intentions. As I see it, the possession of weapons is not, in itself, a threat to the peace process. The simple fact of the matter is that the IRA could decommission tomorrow and then replace their arsenals in a relatively short time. Decommissioning does not necessarily mean either an end to the war or an end to the threat of war. What matters more than anything else is the long-term intentions of the IRA.”]
Terrorism still a tactical option: “Whilst I agree with Sean’s view that the extent of peace we have had in Northern Ireland over the last five years is a lot better than what we’ve had before, it is also true that in that time period, the IRA – and indeed the loyalist paramilitaries – have continued to recruit, train, target, intimidate, punish, purchase and stockpile weapons. They haven’t so much de-commissioned as re-commissioned. They have gone about all of the business which is required if they are to maintain their arsenals and organisation, as well as retaining their terrorist capability. The only conclusion which can be drawn from this evidence is that a return to terrorism remains an ongoing tactical option for the IRA. [And that option could remain ongoing even if the IRA began to decommission tomorrow. The continuing existence of that option is why my party has to draw the line at returning to government with Sinn Fein – for the brutal fact of the matter is that the shadow of the gunman would continue to hover over the Executive table. What sort of basis is that for the growth of trust and the success of democracy?
[“And Gerry Adams’ comments on Saturday [at Sinn Fein Ard Fheis], about a possible return to violence, is the clearest evidence we need that the terrorism option is still available. The IRA’s refusal to decommission, to disband, or to announce a formal and final end to their war suggests that they intend to remain an active terrorist organisation.”]
“The IRA cannot continue to have it both ways. Either they are part of the democratic process or they are not. Their bogeyman strategy, built around the threat that “they haven’t gone away you know” may appease the hawks in their own camp, but if they continue to act like that it will make it impossible for unionists such as myself to take them on trust. And I do want to try to trust them.. [Since the IRA failed to make a positive response to my party’s leap of faith in November 1999, I have to say that I would find it almost impossible to make a similar leap at a later stage]. I do want to see the Good Friday Agreement fully implemented and I want to see suspension lifted as soon as possible. But before that can happen, the element of ambiguity about the long-term intentions of armed republicanism has to go. [In other words, the lifting of suspension must embrace a palpable resolution to the problem of terrorists or their frontmen in government. At the moment it looks as if the IRA’s own survival is deemed more important to them than the survival of the Good Friday Agreement. It is up to the IRA to resolve this continuing impasse, for it is entirely of their creation. My party has nothing more to offer and nowhere else to move. David Trimble has repeated that we are willing to take part in the Executive and I support him.”]
Question to IRA: “I ask one simple question of the IRA: is the bogus god of a terrorist campaign for an unavailable united Ireland more important than the authentic mammon of a political settlement which has already been endorsed by 95% of the nationalist and republican electorate throughout the island?
[“The IRA blame us for insisting upon prior decommissioning and then they issue statements that they won’t decommission at all. They blame us for reneging on promises and yet they are recruiting the next generation of teenage martyrs. They blame us for belligerence and then take a baseball bat to some child who annoys a local godfather. What sort of crazy, convoluted, head-in-the semtex logic do these people actually live by? In the real world the breeze-block and democracy do not cohabit. The sooner the IRA understands that simple fact, then the sooner we will have the Good Friday Agreement back in action.]
Part 2: Institutions – suggestions for the future.
“It is worth mentioning at this stage that it is remarkable that the Good Friday Agreement is still in existence after two years. You may not think that’s much of an achievement. But remember the Sunningdale Agreement lasted for less than six months and in the intervening period there have been countless initiatives which have come and gone with great rapidity.
“I want this Agreement to work because I believe that it represents the basis for an honourable – and balanced – political settlement between all sides in Northern Ireland. [Whether it will survive or not depends upon the actions and reactions of terrorist groups and particularly the IRA.]
Widening the debate – danger of institutionalising sectarianism:
“But let me widen the debate a little bit. There is a faction within the unionist NO lobby which insists that even if we secured a deal on decommissioning and re-established the Executive, that the institutions would always be inherently unstable and unworkable. They are so because they institutionalise and indeed entrench sectarianism because the arrangements in the Belfast Agreement are very very complex. They involve dividing the politicians into designated unionists and designated nationalists or republicans, they involve balanced voting, qualified majorities, vetoes etc. [Rather than paving the way for a better future, they would leave us with the same old parties and the same old problems. The unionists would try and secure their own position while the nationalists worked to a united Ireland agenda.] And there is a quite respectable argument which says that this whole system would grind to a halt. They could point to other areas where such systems of institutionalised power-sharing in deeply divided societies have eventually broken down – and sometimes have broken down very messilty – Lebanon’s civil war is a good example of that. Arguably, Belgium and Austria are other examples…
“It’s arguable we may be in danger of such a system which will deadlock and simply institutionalise our divisions. We have to take that criticism seriously but it’s not insuperable. [We don’t have to live our lives according to the predictions of Mystic Meg and the No-is-me, woe-is-me pessimism of anti-Agreement unionists.]
“One of our problems, of course, is that the main political parties in Northern Ireland are built around their response to the constitutional issues. However, if we get devolution to work, with power returning to Belfast from London, our political parties will be confronting so-called “bread and butter” issues, because at the end of the day, whether you are nationalist or republican or loyalist or unionist or whatever, you need to send your children to school, you use roads, environmental services, hospitals etc….
“There is evidence, even in the short 72-day period when the Executive was in operation – Sean was a Minister and I was a chairman of a committee – we saw evidence that on key social, economic and welfare issues consensus could occur, and could occur across the lines of unionist, nationalist, republican and so on And perhaps there’s an interesting contrast with the old Stormont parliament between 1921-1972, because to a great extent it avoided debate on left, centre and right issues, because the Stormont unionist government tended to legislate in whatever way the national parliament in London did.
[“Stormont had a tendency to take social and welfare legislation which had been passed for the rest of the UK and then adopt it unchanged for Northern Ireland. This had the advantage of saving unionist governments, the split-risking problems associated with internal disputes over policy platforms. Unity of the party was always deemed more important than full debate on “left” and “right” issues.]
“Now I think that the Belfast Agreement could adapt to new-style politics in Northern Ireland. Indeed paragraph 36 of Strand One makes provision for review and adaptation: “After a specified period there will be a review of these arrangements and of the Assembly’s procedures, with a view to agreeing any adjustments necessary in the interests of efficiency and fairness.”
“Power-sharing is desirable in a deeply divided society such as ours, but it does not need to be sectarian-based only, let alone dependent upon the continued existence of the present political parties. There can be power-sharing between parties that take similar views on economic and social issues…. [A minority does not have to mean just nationalist or Roman Catholic. Many of the local parties actually have left-of-centre policies and beliefs and would probably agree on very much more than you might imagine at the moment.]
Political realignment: “Perhaps over time, if we get the institutions up and running, the various parties will experience a realignment towards a continental or European system of politics – towards Social Democrat or Christian Democrat or if you prefer the British political designations – labour and conservative parties. And indeed I would like to see all the United Kingdom parties – Liberal Democrats and Labour – organising and campaigning in Northern Ireland too, along with the Conservatives who are here already.
[“The truth is that most parties in Northern Ireland are little more than loose coalitions embracing everything from the far left to the far right. These differences would be exposed once the parties had to create policies rather than produce soundbites on the constitutional issue. It would be a tragedy if the rules governing the Assembly were so tight that they prevented the existing parties from fading away to be replaced by new parties based on a wide range of social and economic issues. Sectarianism will only become institutionalised if we choose to make it so. ]
Devolution the only way forward: “I believe that devolution is the way forward for Northern Ireland, in part because the United Kingdom constitution as a whole is undergoing reform and change. Devolution has already occurrred to Edinburgh and Cardiff, so Belfast is part of the bigger picture … . We should also bear in mind the growth of European regionalism and that has implications for Northern Ireland and the Republic.
[“It is essential therefore that we in Northern Ireland, irrespective of what we think about the present nature of mandatory power-sharing, grasp the present opportunity to pave the way for a new era of fairness, self-government and inclusiveness. We have to prove that we are capable of living together and governing together. The growth of regionalism has been one of the main consequences of our membership of the European Union (and at the European level it may prove to be somewhat of a mixed blessing) and it isn’t surprising that the Scots and Welsh and even the Irish want to ensure that their voice is heard at many different levels. It is equally vital that we in Northern Ireland are able to represent ourselves and make our case where it matters, rather than depending upon others to do it for us.]
“I believe in a unionism which embraces the whole of the British and Irish isles. I’m not talking of reversing the historic decision of 1921, but what I am saying is that we can recognise that Ireland and the United Kingdom have so much in common in terms of history, culture, to some extent in terms of language, and in terms of the movement of people back and forth between the two islands.. .I believe that the British-Irish Council has much scope in that regard..”
Sea-change in relationships: “I believe that the Belfast Agreement – when and if it is implemented – could provide the platform for an absolute sea-change in all the important relationships – relationships within Northern Ireland, relationships between Northern Ireland and the Republic, relationships between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and relationships between the Republic and the United Kingdom. [And the improvement in each and every one of those relationships will do far more to bring about a stable, decent and democratic society in Northern Ireland than our continuing and destructive obsession with the constitutional question.]
Commitment to the Agreement: “This is why I argue that there is no workable alternative to the Good Friday Agreement, even two years on. Yes, alternatives can be spoken of in a theoretical sense, but it has to be said to the anti-Agreement part of unionism – they have yet to produce an alternative which is either viable or available. [And the alternative which dissident republicans want involves decades more of struggle and slaughter.]
“My party will continue to do everything we reasonably can to save the Agreement and indeed to implement it. I ask others – Sinn Fein/IRA in particular – to join us in that task. David Trimble had to face down the rejectionists within unionism in order that he could bring his party this far. Sinn Fein/IRA will have to face down their own rejectionists, abandon their old ways of thinking, and meet us upon the common ground where the foundations for a genuine lasting settlement can be put in place.”
3. Cllr. Gary McMichael (leader of Ulster Democratic Party)
“Thank you very much for the invite. It’s a pleasure to be here. It’s a very important time – two years after the Good Friday Agreement. … I’m not going to get into the business of apportioning blame for the difficulties we face now. Because the Good Friday Agreement was a collective arrangement – a collective process to develop a solution to a long-standing problem… a very complex and wide-ranging Agreement with many part. And the reality is that if one part fails then it all fails. We didn’t sign up to those bits of the Agreement that we liked – we signed up to it all, and today the Good Friday Agreement doesn’t work. The question has to be dealt with – do we try and fix it, or do we try and look for something else? The deputy leader of the UUP said today it may be time to look for other options. I don’t think he means that seriously. I’d like us to concentrate minds. We have to deal with the problem now. Unless we try to deal with this problem now, then there will not be anything to fix.
“Sinn Féin have been tallking about instead of concentrating on the peace process they will be concentrating on their electoral process … Looking at the next general election and the subsequent elections, and the southern election also, and their ambition would be to take the majority from the SDLP within nationalism, perhaps thinking that that would put them in a stronger negotiating position. But the reality is that if this Good Friday Agreement is not corrected, then by the time those elections are held, they will only be negotiating with the DUP.
Process not about majority rule: “There’s no point in me trying to explain the different parts of the Agreement and what they mean for each of us. We all know what they mean… most of you voted yes in the Referendum – if you voted “no” you’re probably a unionist. Because when people talk about the 71.12% who voted for the Agreement, they forget that 50% of the unionist population voted against it. And that was one of the primary causes of the difficulties that we contended with in this Agreement. You mightn’t agree with the rationale of Ian Paisley and people like that – I certainly don’t agree – but it’s their Agreement as well, whether they like it or not. We have to understand that this process is not about majority rule – it’s not about saying “ok, we got an Agreement, 71% voted for it now implement it”…. We can’t just implement it. We have a growing crisis within this process which means that if we lose a majority of support within unionism then the Agreement is finished anyway. Therefore it has to be fixed and it has to work effectively.
Problems from a unionist perspective – “I would just like to deal with Unionism for the moment because Nationalism is very much pulling in one direction in terms of the peace process, whereas Unionism is pulling in many different directions. The two problems for Unionists revolve about Sinn Fein being in government and decommissioning. Most unionists don’t like the idea of Sinn Féin in government – and you can understand why – but it’s an essential part of the Agreement.
Decommissioning – “I don’t believe in decommissioning – never have. I don’t believe that the bona fides of people can be determined by how many guns they hold. I don’t care if the IRA have guns – I dont’ care how many tons they have – I just want to know if they’re going to use them. That’s the core issue. My view is a minority within the unionist community. …There are arguments about the spirit and the letter of the Agreement… The Agreement didn’t say decommissioning has to be completed by 22 May 2000…. the reality is that it is the least defined part of the Agreement, and the reason for that is we couldn’t have got an agreement if we had defined it… At the same time we have to also understand that this is a practical world and that the only way the Agreement is going to work is that everyone will work within the Agreement and work within the institutions it provides. There’s no point in having an Executive if people won’t work with each other, there’s no point in having an Assembly if it doesn’t command the support of the people. So we’ll have to find a way of making it work. I see the issue of decommissioning as being not about decommissioning… The only language being used within the Unionist community… since 1994, decommissioning was put at the top of the agenda by the British and Irish governments and Unionist politicians, and in every successive negotiation process since the Good Friday Agreement, rather than finding a way around the issue of decommissioning, getting it off the stage, we’ve actually made it more centre-stage….
Intent the essential issue: “The reality is, whether we like it or not, the terminology of decommissioning and what that represents is the only currency that is being used to measure intent. Essentially for me it’s about intent. I want to know what the intent of the republican community is. Because the intent of the republican movement will make a huge impact on what the behaviour of my community is going to be in the future. I come from a community which has resisted republicans face to face, which has participated in the war and will again if it felt it had to. But I also speak for my community in saying that we don’t want to see that. We need to know – is the war over? Has the option of force.been removed?
“If you understand the Unionist mindset, and it’s important we do, it’s a very simple issue. There’s a broad spectrum of opinion within Unionism…. It’s very difficult to get people within Unionism to agree on many things, but the one common thread throughout that whole spectrum is this – it is based on a failure to accept that the IRA is involved solely within the democratic process, and there is a desire to have that issue cleared up. When a unionist looks at the Agreement, or where we are today, he see a democratic process, he sees institutions which have been created by the Agreement – institutions based on co-determination, which means that both communities depend on each other for stability and future political progress. He sees Sinn Fein represented in government at the highest level, difficult and all as that is to accept. He looks at an equality agenda emerging where provisions are being made and will be evidenced through a future bill of rights – a protective mechanism…. He looks at RUC reform, the recent review of the criminal justice system, and he sees that in the context of all this Sinn Fein and the republican movement still need to hold on to the option of force.
“They can’t understand it. I can’t understand it. Either this peace process, which is about transition between war and peace, is actually about achieving peace through a democratic coming together of people who have existed outside the system and against the system, through their own negotiation, to create a new situation which they should all remain within, which embodies the framework through which they can pursue their objectives. Is that what we’ve agreed? If it is, do we need the option of force? I don’t think we do.
“The mindset of the unionist says – the concessions we make in order to keep the process alive, the concessions we make to republicans, “are those concessions which will lead to peace, or will those concesssions be taken and when they dry up the republican movement retains the right to use armed struggle again?” I think that’s an understandable fear. I think that the people in my community, that all of us, have the right to know – does the creation of the institutions and the placing of republicans in government represent the swapping of physical force for democracy, or is it a tactical shift on the part of the republican movement?
“Usually the best way not to get republicans to do anything is to ask them to do it, or particularly to demand them to do it. They don’t respond well to demands, certainly not to unionist demands or British demands. But I think a reasonable demand is to know whether this process is for keeps. I think it’s a reasonable demand for any of us to make. And I think it’s only reasonable to respond to that in an honest and clear way. Now the reality is that if the war is over for the IRA, then it’s over for us all – we all know that. But as long as the IRA hold on to that option, then we can’t have real peace. As long as the IRA retain the possible intent of armed force in the future, then I don’t think we’ll have a stable government. I don’t think we will have a government at all. Certainly what I want to see is a commitment from the republican movement, and from everybody – all paramilitaries have a responsibility in this regard. To know that as bad as it gets – as bad as it ever gets – that the problems will be sorted out through the democratic process. That we will commit ourselves to the risks and the rigours of democracy because that is what a peace process is about.
“My party’s position is hardening on this issue. We want to see the IRA commit itself to the unionist community that they have set aside the option of physical force for good. And if they do that then I think we will have a stable government, a government that will work and can command, through time, through its outworkings, the confidence of the entire community.
“But equally – and no one can doubt the commitment of my party and myself to the success of this Agreement, and in many ways we would be in the very moderate wing of unionist opinion – be under no illusion. If we believe, in the next talks process that is going to develop in the coming weeks, if we believe that the IRA and Sinn Fein are seeking to enter government while retaining the tactical use of force for the future, we will not accept that. I think this issue has to be dealt with once and for all… Myself and my party will go into a future process determined to see the decommissioning issue resolved, whatever the implications of that may be. I don’t believe in decommissioning but that doesn’t mean that that’s not part of what maybe is necessary in order to sort out this problem.
Expectations of failure: “People are looking now, we’re hoping to see some kind of process emerging by Easter. I think it’s important that that happens – that a vacuum isn’t allowed to continue to be created. We’ll find that the community out there is turned off… It’s not surprising that whenever the Assembly collapsed – this “holy grail” of unionism – there wasn’t any sense of real trauma within the unionist community, because what we have now is a growing sense that the community expects us to fail. After two years of the Good Friday Agreement not being able to get this thing up and running, not being able to resolve these problems – people are starting to expect us to fail. And that in itself will kill the Agreement off.
“The time is now for everyone to sit down, to share the collective responsibility, to share the implications of this collective failure and to collectively work towards resolving this problem once and for all, so that we can look at this next year and see an Agreement that is working, which does have an Executive that does include Sinn Fein, where the community is secure, where there is no prospect of physical force from one side or the other in the future, and where we have a stable environment. And then next year when we come here we’ll have something to celebrate. Thank you.”
4. John Bruton, T.D. (leader of Fine Gael)
“First of all I’d like to say that I’m very pleased to be here for the 7th anniversary of this group, and I think it’s very important that we should look at a meeting like this for a way out what is of an increasingly deep morasse into which the process is now sinking…
“If you want to know why decommissioning of weapons is important you simply have to reflect on the reality of punishment beatings because people would not “agree” to be beaten if there wasn’t a threat of a trigger being pulled if they didn’t agree to be beaten. Without the guns there wouldn’t be punishment beatings …
Formula to break the Northern deadlock:
“I believe that a formula to re-establish the institutions can be found. It contains three elements:
(i) Mutual respect
(ii) A renunciation by the British Government of the unilateral right that it has exercised to suspend the institutions.
(iii) A committal to the Mitchell Principles by all parties and by all paramilitaries associated with them.
(i) Mutual respect: “I would like to acknowledge some important positive contributions to the peace process in the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis over the weekend: Mr. Gerry Adams said, “We know that, by its very nature, this historic task [the peace process] cannot be completed unless unionism has ownership of it.” And later he added “by-passing unionists is not an option for us.”
“The latter comment is particularly important because it removes the possibility of some form of one-sided imposed solution, such as advocated for example in the Sunday Business Post some time ago… Gerry Adams has specifically rejected that. I believe that Unionists should seek to develop this issue in dialogue with Sinn Fein. It provides a solid basis for the sort of mutual respect that is essential for the success of the process.
(ii) Renunciation of suspension: “I would also urge Unionsts to develop a dialogue on this important issue on the basis of what Sinn Fein has said.
In his response to David Trimble’s Washington offer to re-enter an Executive in advance of decommissioning, the Chairman of Sinn Fein, Mitchell McLaughlin, said that “Sinn Fein would not itself re-enter the Executive unless the British Government gave a commitment that it would not unilaterally suspend the Executive again.”
“I believe that is something that could be conceded to Sinn Fein in return for some movement on other issues… It is a productive area for discussion between the Parties. I believe that a commitment not to unilaterally suspend the institutions again is one the British Government could and should give. It should not be forgotten that under the rules either the SDLP or the Ulster Unionists are big enough anyway by themselves to suspend the Executive, simply by resigning from it. The particular voting situation in the Assembly – the position concerning Weir and Armitage – that required Mandelson to exercise the suspension option rather than allow David Trimble to resign – or allow Josias Cunningham to resign him – is unique and would not be likely to recur in any relevant circumstance concerning resumed institutions. Therefore I believe that that Sinn Fein demand can be conceded without any loss on the part of the British Government. I believe that Unionists, the SDLP and Sinn Fein could agree between themselves that all would re-enter the Executive on the basis that the British renounce any unilateral right to suspend again.
“As I have said, either Unionists or Nationalists themselves can, in any event, bring the executive to an end if it is not working for them at any time. That is what the Agreement provides. They can and should be left to do make their own judgments on that without any assistance from the Secretary of State.
(iii) A Recommittal to the Mitchell Principles:
“There remains the problem of the “no guns, no Government” position of many members of the Ulster Unionist Party, and indeed the wider unionist community. These guns are held by paramilitaries. Paramilitaries were not parties to the Belfast Agreement. But they have now appointed interlocutors to deal with General de Chastelain. Therefore, since then, they are now in the process in a recognisable way and this engagement of the paramilitaries in politics does open up a method of breaking the deadlock over guns and government
No timetables: “Sinn Fein is right when it says that no timetable for decommissioning is contained in the Belfast Agreement. No timetable was included for anything else either, including the setting up of the Executive and North-South bodies, for that matter. There is no statement in the Agreement about the sequence of any of the steps in it. This is a fault in the Agreement. But it is a fault for which all the negotiators, not just some of them, have a responsibility. From their perspective, Unionist negotiators can be criticized for not insisting on a timetable for decommissioning. Equally, Nationalist negotiators can be criticized for not getting a timetable written in for the setting up of the institutions. It is just as pointless now for Unionists to complain about the lack of a date for the start of decommissioning, as it is pointless for Nationalists to complain about the Unionists making decommissioning a precondition. Both positions are unfortunately perfectly tenable under the vague terms of the Agreement as it was negotiated by all the same participants. We cannot rewrite what was written, and we cannot write now in the past what wasn’t written in the past. It wasn’t written, and it wasn’t clarified..
New formula: “The challenge now is to negotiate a new formula,which adds to the Agreement and which can get us over the current obstacle.
“I believe the answer is to be found in a return to the Mitchell Principles. These principles were antecedent to the entire negotiations. Everything, including the ground rules for the negotiations and the Agreement which emerged from those negotiations, stem from the Mitchell Principles. All Parties accepted these principles as their entry ticket to the talks. Unfortunately the parties did accept the Mitchell Principles, but the IRA Army Council, and the UDA and the UVF – though they were associated who were at the table in the talks – they did not accept the Mitchell Principles and they were not formally asked to do so. Because at that time they officially didn’t exist in political terms. They now do exist because they have all appointed interlocutors to de Chastelain, and that has changed the situation and that is why I think we can now take a new approach.
“If all the paramilitaries could now be persuaded to formally accept the Mitchell principles, as their sister political parties have already done long ago, a basis would then exist to restart the Executive and Institutions straight away without prior decommissioning.
“The Mitchell Principles involve a commitment:
(a). To democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues.
Agreeing to this would be tantamount to the IRA saying the war is over. The UVF and UDA would then be redundant, in their own terms, because they only exist to prevent the IRA taking over..
(b). To the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. In saying “yes” to this the IRA, the UVF and the UDA would be agreeing to disband and disarm.
(c). To agree that such disarmament must be verifiable to the satisfaction of an independent commission. Sinn Fein signed up to that, so did the UDP and PUP. If the IRA signed up to that it would involve re-engaging fully with de Chastelain…
(d). To renounce for themselves, and to oppose any effort by others, to use force, or threaten to use force, to influence the course or the outcome of all-party negotiations. At the stage that this would be agreed to the negotiations would be over, so in a sense this would be null.
(e). To agree to abide by the terms of any agreement reached in all-party negotiations and to resort to democratic and exclusively peaceful methods in trying to alter any aspect of that outcome with which they may disagree. That involves … the IRA accepting the Good Friday Agreement, something they never did. And I remember, I think, being the only politician in the broad nationalist community who made the point.in the euphoria that existed in the immediate aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement. Do remember the total suspension of critical faculties in the immediate aftermath of the Agreement when to ask a question was to be almost something equivalent to treason. I did point out repeatedly and painfully that Sinn Fein had accepted the Agreement, but the IRA had never accepted the Agreement. Well if they signed up to the Mitchell Principles they would be accepting the Agreement…
(f.). To urge that “punishment” killings and beatings stop and to take effective steps to prevent such actions. This would mean, if the IRA, UVF and UDA accepted the Mitchell Principles then punishment beatings would stop
“Sinn Féin, as I said, on behalf of the Republican movement, signed up to these principles before they even entered the all-party talks. The question is simply this. Can the IRA not do now what Sinn Fein have already done? Signing up to the Mitchell Principles cannot be portrayed as surrender, because Sinn Fein have already done it. If the IRA were to refuse to follow Sinn Fein’s political line, one would have to ask – why does Sinn Féin remain in political alliance with the IRA?
“The issue of peace and war – in any discussion of politics in any jurisdiction in the world – would have to be said to be the most fundamental political issue there is. No coalition could exist between political entities that had a different view on that question…. Peace and war is the fundamental question. Yet we have a situation where, in formal terms, the Mitchell Principles – which deal with peace and war – have been signed up to by Sinn Fein and rejected by the IRA, and yet the two remain apparently happily in alliance, and nobody asks any searching questions about the truthfulness of this alliance. The Mitchell Principles are about peace and war. Sinn Féin accepts them. The IRA does not. That is unsustainable. It is something that must be resolved.
“Exactly the same contradiction has to be resolved between the Loyalist paramilitaries and their sister parties. It is not possible for Gary McMichael to sign up for the Mitchell Principles and the associated organisation not to sign them. We’re either in or not in… And this is a rubicon that all the participants – not just Sinn Fein and the IRA – have to cross. The Loyalist paramilitaries and their political associates have to cross it too, and they haven’t. There is no point in my view in all the weight being placed on the shoulders of Sinn Fein and feeding that “martyr syndrome” which was referred to by Dr. Esmond Birnie where they’re able to feel or argue that everyone is against them, because. the finger is pointing at them. Of course it’s understandable it’s being pointied at them – they’re the only ones in government. The UDP and PUP unfortunately didn’t get enough votes to have Ministers – it would be good if they had, because then they would be under the same amount of spotlight as Sinn Fein now is. I might have voted for them myself just to get them into the embarrassing situation that Sinn Fein are now in. But that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be embarrassed, because they can’t be in a situation where they are talking democracy and yet they are associated with an organisation which opposes democracy and practises punishment beatings. It isn’t on, it’s hypocritical.
“There’s a lot of room on this island of ours for “blarney”, but I think we’ve probably had enough blarney, enough blarney from politicians associated with paramilitaries. There’s a time for a bit of old-fashioned plain old boring straight talk. We haven’t had it and I think we need it now.
“Let me say why I have come forward with this formula now.
Punishment beatings: “The recent increase in punishment beatings is a dramatic sign that the political situation is rapidly deteriorating. Punishment beatings – as was said already – far from being spontaneous expressions of local frustration, are in fact turned off and on centrally, as a means of signalling political satisfaction or political dissatisfaction with the activities of the powers-that-be.
“The paramilitaries, who use the shattered limbs of petty crooks and social outcasts as one of their chosen means of communicating their political messages to the outside world, are cynical and depraved. The peace process has asked many decent people to avert their eyes from such depravities in the greater interest of polite discourse, and to carry on as if nothing was happening. Punishment beatings are submitted to “voluntarily” by the victims. The victims “volunteer” to have their kneecap shattered for one reason, and for one reason only. That reason is that the paramilitaries – who are making these adjustments to their physique for them – have guns and will use them. The “volunteer” has an option between a broken leg, a bullet in the knee, or a bullet in the head. He only “volunteers” for one of the first two options, because the third option very definitely exists…. Remove the threat of the gun, and there would be no more punishment beatings.
Guns not silent: “The existence of punishment beatings and shootings demonstrates why paramilitary guns do remain such a central part of the peace process. These guns are not silent. They are being used – used when they are discharged into somebody’s kneecap, and also used when they are silently displayed in a threatening way, so as to encourage someone to “volunteer” to have their leg broken. Paramilitary guns are at the centre of politics. Gerry Adams said at the weekend: “We remain wedded to our objective of taking all of the guns out of Irish politics”. I agree with that. I do not agree with him when he went on to say, “There is no special onus on our party to do this over and above and beyond the responsibilities of every other party in the process.”
“Most political parties are not associated with a paramilitary organisation. Fine Gael is not. Fianna Fail is not. The Ulster Unionist Party is not. Nor is the SDLP. Nor the Labour Party. Nor Alliance. Nor is any other party in the Dail, except Sinn Féin. Nor was any other party in the suspended Northern Executive, except Sinn Fein. The only party in the Dail, or in the suspended Northern Executive, that is associated with a paramilitary organisation, is Sinn Fein.
Loyalists: “The UDP and the PUP do not have seats in the Dail or the Executive, but they are, like Sinn Fein, associated with organisations that have guns. Like Sinn Fein, they too have not severed those links. Like Sinn Fein, they too have failed to get their associates to start to decommission, in accordance with the political commitment in the Belfast Agreement. I ask at this stage, now that we have changed our Constitution, and taken out Articles 2 and 3 which made a claim to which the supporters of the PUP and the UDP might have reasonable objection – why won’t the loyalists be the first to decommission? Why are they taking the view that the first bullet to be deommissioned has to be an IRA one? Why can’t loyalkists lead by example, now that we’ve changed our Constitution to facilitate the removal of the threat that existed. Why can’t Loyalists take the first step? Why should they always be waiting for Sinn Fein and the IRA to move first? Why can’t they move first? I believe they should.
“I believe however, that the best way of all for that to be done would be that all of the parties and all the paramilitaries could be asked to re-commit to the Mitchell Principles. Those Principles are the fundamentals of democracy. There would have been no talks process and no Agreement if everybody who participated in the talks had not first signed up to those Mitchell Principles. All we’re asking now is that not only should the parties sign up, but that their allies on the paramilitary side should sign up too. It’s not an unreasonable request and I believe that with the other confidence-building measures I have mentioned – no suspension and building up mutual respect – I think we can and should solve this problem.
Time to move on: “It’s not an intractable problem. Northern Ireland shouldn’t be the subject of any more theses, or any more verbal gymnastics. We’ve had it all. We’ve heard all the weighty tomes of discussion. We’ve had all the people getting their pictures on the television talking about the problem, saying they’re moving the process forward and all this. It’s time for the attention-seeking to end and for decisions to be taken and to move on. This is not a complicated problem. Guns are irrelevant.. Guns have achieved nothing in Ireland – nothing at all.. Guns have achieved nothing for Loyalists except misery for their own people. Guns have achieved nothing for Republicans except misery for their own people. The people concerned don’t need to rely any more on the crutch of the bomb or the crutch of the Kalashnikov. It’s time to put it aside – it’s time to grow up and get on with it!.”
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS [main points only]
Questions 1-4 (taken together):
1. [to Gary McMichael} “Was Peter Mandelson right or wrong in relation to the suspension of the Executive?”
2. [re decommissioning] – I was told by a Sinn Fein supporter – “if you give them 10 guns, they’ll ask for 20, if you give them 20, they’ll ask for 40”. What is the UUP position on that?
[to John Bruton]: “The Meath Peace Group and others have asked for the re-constitution of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation or something similar, possibly starting in Louth and Meath. While there is a very strong peace movement in Louth and Meath, there is also a very strong presence of Real IRA in those counties… Would he consider calling for the re-constitution of the Forum?
3. “How would you persuade paramilitaries to sign up to the Mitchell Principles?”
4. Re statement of intent, what wording is suggested?
Replies to questions 1-4
Gary McMichael:
Q3. ….My understanding is that the UDA accepts the Mitchell Principles…It was the only paramilitary group following the Agreement was made to come out and support it and call on its members to vote for it. … Whenever the Mitchell Principles were announced, the IRA had difficulties with them – they had difficulties with the idea of resolution of differences by exclusively peaceful and democratic means….
Q4. Re intent: “one of the problems is the notion of republican “doublespeak” – what we want to hear directly from the IRA… in a sense all we need… that in the context of the Good Friday Agreement there is no justification for the use of force….
Dr. Esmond Birnie:
Q1. [decommissioning]: “I can see the problem…. what we have said is we want a substantial verifiable process to start. and in a sense we have recognised the problem by devolving the responsibility for checking the process away from the 2 governments, away from the army and the police. It’s in the hands of a neutral international observer – General de Chastelain and the decommissioning Commission – it’s for him to judge. The sad thing that made suspension necessary if deeply regrettable is that de Chastelain as a neutral observer was unable to report substantial progress
Dr. Birnie:
Q3 – Re Mitchell Principles… “ I think that was an excellent suggestion. Paramilitaries are subject to pressure, so the influence of public opinion does matter.. The influence of various governments matters, in particular your own government and the government in Washington… if you look at the shifts in the position of the IRA as reported by de Chastelain, there was some progress … between the end of January and the middle of February and that shows to me… that opinion was having some effect… There needs to be maximum public opinion and pressure
John Bruton: Q3. “I think the merit of trying to get the paramilitaries to sign up to the Mitchell Principles rather than some other new formula is 1) that they are there already, 2) their associate political parties have already signed them…3) they’re actually very demanding, and 4) their author is an American.. George Mitchell has acquired, in political terms, the nearest thing to sainthood – and deservedly… I also think that the player who has exercised the least pressure is President Clinton.. He could have exercised far more pressure on the republican movement than he did. They really do need the oxygen of support from the United States… It was a great pity that the opportunity of the St. Patrick’s weekend was lost … pressure was put on Trimble rather than the Provos… The pressure should have been put on them to get movement on the arms issue … America is far more important than Dublin. The amount of influence the Irish government has on Sinn Fein and the IRA is very limited, yet the amount of influence the White House has is enormous … Perhaps President Clinton was concerned not to lose some of the Irish vote for Gore… I’m not so sure if that is a factor – the Irish vote is not all that important in a Republican/Democrat contest in the United States nowadays… I think that that the Americans could take more risks … in pressurisng on this issue.
Q2: “I regret to say I wouldn’t be in favour of a re-constitution of the Forum…. The assumption would be that talk could do no harm, and the more talk you have the better. I think we’re at the point now of decision, and the setting up of the Forum would be just an alibi for more talk and more indecision… The issues are very clear – it’s not a seminar we need, it’s jumps……
Julitta Clancy (Meath Peace Group): “I would just like to clarify what we were looking for when our group talked about a Forum. We were not looking for a forum as a method of getting out of a crisis – we were looking for a Forum throughout the island – a Forum of the people. Grass-roots understanding is not being built – you will get groups like this in Meath and Louth, but it is not being done around the country. We wanted something that would move around the country and would enable unionists and nationalists to start working out our differences….
John Bruton: “I would have no problem with that. I just don’t want to create another alibi. That’s my only concern.”
Questions 5-12
Q5. “Did Mandelson get an impossible task ? There was no communication between Mandelson and de Chastelain. Was it stage-managed?… The thing was inevitable – the dogs in the street knew it was going to be suspended
Q6. “I am glad to see everyone here making a contribution – this wouldn’t have happened two years ago. . Everyone perceives things differently … unfortunately Northern Ireland is slightly different to here….there are many organisations in NI who have guns … I come from Northern Ireland .. for people in the South to understand the mindset that could accommodate the concept of decommissioning – it’s not the decommissioning of arms we want, it’s the decommissioning of mindsets that requires the need for arms… Gary McMichael, Gerry Adams, billy Hutchinson, David Ervine have lived their lives bearing witness to what happens to families… Gary McMichael cries the same tears as Billy Wright’s father – we have to make a quantum leap in accommodating… If Gary McMichael who has lost his father can make that quantum leap of accommodating, of listening to and sitting down with people who have perpetrated unbelievable injustices against his people, and Gerry Adams can do the same … that is the future … I think the UUP party leader is trying his damnedest, but he doesn’t have the grass-roots intellectual rationale built up to facilitate the accommodation that is required…….
Q7: “I’m an Ulster Unionist from Portadown…. I worked very hard to get the referendum passed in my area … One of the things you need to be careful of when you address rejectionist unionists is to see them as some sort of enemy… At the time of the referendum, 50% of unionists did not have confidence in the Belfast Agreement to vote for it. Don’t get the impression that that 50% don’t want to accommodate an inclusive government in Northern Ireland. They didn’t have the faith to put their vote to it – that didn’t mean they didn’t want what it aspired to…. In all sections of the community in NI we have people who are basically bad – it’s a human trait. The vast majority of the unionist population do want to look to a new vision of the future… they’re not trying to wreck it.
“I do not like phrases such as “they don’t want a Catholic around the place” – because that is not true. They want to feel safe – they want to feel as secure as their fellow nationalists do…. What has happened to those people since is that their fears have been confirmed … … we have confirmed the fears of 50% of the Unionists, we have undermined the feeling of support for the Belfast Agreement of a significant section of the other 50%. who voted for the Agreement. How in a very short period of time.. do we instil confidence and security? Does a complicated formula of words and techniques involving phrases like the Mitchell Principles and parity of esteem – and all that spent language which is going to be heard… We need something much more concrete. Esmond is absolutely right – we’re not looking for surrender, or handover of arms.
“We just simply want to know that as we take this difficult job and bring it forward, that somebody else is not going to beat us.. Is it not the case, that as with beauty it is very difficult to define, but it’s something you know when you see it?… As I said once to the Sinn Fein Assembly member for Upper Bann – you have to persuade our electorate that the war is over and we have to persuade your electorate that we’re interested in totally democratic and inclusive means… I can assure you as long as David Trimble and the present leadership is there we will do our damnedest to make sure this Agreement works. And we will continue to go anywhere, any place we can to show our intent on making it work. We do need some reciprocation from Sinn Fein.
Q8. [To Dr. Birnie] – you stated your party as a whole wants the Agreement to work – In the light of the UUC vote perhaps you are overstating the amount of support for the Agreement?
Q9. [To the unionist speakers]: It might be useful for us to find out what their problem is with the Agreement, not with IRA and Sinn Fein… I feel that tonight I’ve heard from the speaker from the UUP an awful lot about what other people’s problems are and not about what their own problems are…
Q10. I find decommissioning frustrating and hypocritical because even if the republicans hand over all their guns it is still only symbolic. It’s heart -warming to hear Gary McMichael say that so prudently by saying he personally didn’t believe in decommissioning, because they can always be replaced. So what I heard Gary McMichael say is that it’s the real thing they want, a guarantee which inspires trust and will last so that they won’t go back to war again… I can’t help getting the impression that both sides are using decommissioning as a political football to delay the process, and is it because London is moving too fast? I would like to ask Gary McMichael — why can’t he come out straight and demand the real thing – since decommissioning is only symbolic?…
Q11. The gentleman from the UUP spent two-thirds of the night talking about the IRA and Sinn Fein – I would have liked to have heard the position regarding unionists… At an earlier talk I asked if and when the SNP marches out of the Union, where will the unionists go?
Q12. If every party handed over their guns, can we say that any one individual in each party knows where all the guns are – and who can certify at any time that all guns are handed over? Also, in many countries in the last 2 centuries agreements have been agreed and adhered to before any guns are handed over by either side…
Replies to questions 5-12
Esmond Birnie [re confidence-building measures] – “I think first of all we need a statement directly from the IRA that the war is over, secondly a timetable about when decommissioning will start and the process and speed with which it will be completed. We thought back in November ..that that what would happen in December and January, our understanding was that that was the subject-matter which the interlocutor from the IRA would talk about with the Commission… But they didn’t sadly, so that’s what we need now…
“Also, I think the London government need to deal in a balanced manner with the very contentious matter of reform and change, and perhaps necessary modernisation of policing services in Northern Ireland. One of the most contentious elements has been what are they going to call the police… I would suggest a reasonable statesmanlike compromise as suggested by Denis Faul, – that we use both names.. It’s long and inelegant but many aspects of the Belfast Agreement are complex and inelegant.. but it would be a confidence-building measure which, rightly or wrongly… would help that section of unionism which has been “iffy” – on the margins of the Agreement – to come back to it, and …come back to supporting David Trimble…
Re level of extent within UUP for the Agreement – “my party is a broad church. Arguably over the past couple of weeks it has become so broad that the ceiling may collapse and we’ve got two different choirs singing from different hymn books as it were… Having said that, David Trimble has been re-confirmed as leader, he got 56% of the vote …The percentage change against David Trimble between November and 2 weeks ago is only 1 point something percent which I admit is bad… but in the light of the difficulties we faced – IRA intransigence – it is hardly surprising, I think the majority of the party is still behind the Agreement if only because no viable alternative has yet been suggested…
Re criticisms: I was asked about unionist problems about the Agreement -,there are many. The Agreement is complex, it is rigid. There is is a danger that we would simply institutionalise sectarianism rather than facilitate the fading away of the two predominantly sectarian based blocks… A mistake was made, not so much in the Agreement but rather in the legislation that followed – in that the release of paramilitary prisoners was not made conditional on delivery or disposal of weapons.. ..Obviously there is a moral difficulty … that Sinn Fein get into government notwithstanding what Sinn Fein were associated with in the past… Yet on balance it was a good agreement – it was a compromise, but anything negotiated between political parties will be a compromise…
Re last question directed to myself – you said I spent too much time on Sinn Fein and the IRA. But they are the root of the blockage.. if Sinn Fein and the IRA had done things differently we would be talking about the success of the Belfast Agreement….
Esmond Birnie: Re implications for NI politics if Scotland left the Union:
“I am Scottish, born in Edinburgh, educated in Northern Ireland – I don’t think it’s likely to happen – the opinion polls suggest maybl about 30% of Scots.. that leaves 70% as unionists… If Scotland did want to go independent then I would suspect that Northern Ireland would remain within the RUK – “residual UK” … I don’t think it would change the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland – nationalists need to recognise that….
John Bruton: Re question on suspension: “I can only rely on second-hand information – Sir Josias Cunningham had received a letter of resignation – he was told he could table that letter at whatever time he judged right .. He told Peter Mandelson that if the suspension wasn’t announced by the 6 o’clock news, he would be handing the letter to Lord Alderdice… Peter Mandelson decided to suspend rather than let this happen… Because if David Trimble had resigned… Peter Weir and Pauline Armitage had indicated that they would not vote for a reappointment of David Trimble or Seamus Mallon.. .. Resignation had to be avoided and suspension was chosen as a less bad alternative… because If resignation had occurred they couldn’t have put it back together again… through suspension they can put it back again…. I believe Mandelson had no choice whatever.. I can’t understand why the Irish government appeared to be criticising him – they didn’t come out and criticise publicly, they had their spokespersons out criticising, which meant they didn’t have to answer for their criticism because it was done third-hand. I think that was not very honest. I think they should have actually said “this was an impossible position and he did all he could possibly have done”. I think that would have been a more courageous thing for the Irish government to have done – it would have enhanced their standing with the participants in trying to put the whole thing back together… …
The IRA knew that General de Chastelain was going to produce his first report on 30 January… They only met de Chastelain twice in the whole two months…. and then didn’t table anything until the final day, and even then that was inadequate. They took de Chastelain in a car … to an unknown location, where he was handed bits of paper… He didn’t actually have anything until about 5 o’clock that evening… I think that was gamesmanship on the part of the IRA. They wanted the appearance of doing something without actually doing anything of substance…
Re other organisations having guns – “I assume you are referring to the UDR and RUC and the British Army. There is a big difference between the UVF, say, and the British Army… The UVF are not amenable to the law, they don’t take orders from politicians. So I don’t think you can compare them. The RUC, British army, UDR ar subject to the law – they may do things that are wrong, but they subject to accountability which may be inadequate but which are there… the IRA, UDA etc. are accountable to no one… You can’t compare the guns held by one with the guns held by the other.
“There is a problem with the very large amount of legally-held licensed weapons in the unionist community .. That is something that should be regulated… there aren’t that many rabbits around……
“The issue was raised about 50% of the unionists voting against the Good Friday Agreement. … Many people believe that the reason the Sunningdale Agreement fell is because Harold Wilson was too cowardly to stand up to the .. .Ulster workers’ strike. That isn’t the whole story. The truth is that in the previous Westminster election, the Faulkner unionists had got 13% of the vote and the anti-agreement unionists had got 53% of the vote… 80% of the unionists were against Faulkner staying in the Executive… The truth of the matter is that no agreement in Northern Ireland will work unless it has a majority of unionists supporting it and the majority of nationalists … no agreement will work without that. That is why it is so important that David Trimble wins the day, because there will be no progress unless he wins the day and holds the majority of unionism – and he’s coming very close to losing that at this stage.. And I think that the sort of temporising we see from Sinn Fein .. is highly irresponsible.. because they know the sand is going out of the glass as far as a majority within unionism prepared to support the Agreement is concerned – and they are just sitting there letting it happen, taking some pleasure in the discomfiture of the old enemy.. the new politics is one in which the old enemy is the new friend, and they aren’t realising that and not acting accordingly… They are losing an historical opportunity of enormous proportions….
Re decommissioning issue only symbolic — “decommissioning is only important because people are refusing to do it.. If they were willing to do it it wouldn’t be an important question. But it is the fact that they refuse that makes it important… So decommissioning is an important question only because people are refusing to do it. Why do they need guns if they are in a genuine peace process? They can’t answer that question. I know people disagree with me on this point…
Questioner. The process hasn’t worked, John
John Bruton: “the process has worked – the executive was set up, Bairbre de Brun was Minister for Health aking decisions, Martin McGuinness was Minister for Education making decisions. It had been delivered… It was there but there was no decommissioning. Two meetings between the IRA and de Chastelain – two measly meetings – no decisions, no delivery. Why? It is that refusal to deliver that makes me think the republican movement is actually taking an each-way bet. They want to keep their guns, for the next round – they want to pocket all that has been conceded, keep their guns, and when the time is right, start all over again. That’s the fear a lot of us have about the IRA… the more they delay now, the less that fear is being allayed.
“I would like to address what I think is the thinking about the question re Scotland – that somehow or other this is all about catching the unionists out… If Scotland pulls out – there’s no longer a union there for the unionists, so therefore the unionists are washed out… That’s not the point at all.. This is an Irish problem. The truth of the matter is that, saving your presence, Esmond … this has nothing to do with the island of Britain at all – this issue! … It doesn’t matter if the UK were dissolved into 40 different counties – or if the island of Britain disappeared – there would still be a problem on this island.. The problem is that the Ulster unionist people feel they are different from the rest of us – I personally don’t feel they are all that different actually, but they feel they’re different, and it’s what they think that counts… And we think we’re different from them too, because there isn’t a huge welcome out there for the proposed Orange march in Dawson Street – if we thought they were the same as us, wouldn’t we be all clapping this march…. saying “this is part of our culture” – “they’re us” …But we’re not saying that, because they’re not in our minds “us”… We believe they’re different too, that’s the problem…
“It doesn’t really matter if the UK disappeared and It’s not a question of tricking them – it’s a question of finding a way of getting along with them. I ultimately believe that Ulster Unionists have more in common with us in Dublin than they have with anyone else in the world … I think for that reason I believe a united Ireland is actually inevitable but it’ll happen as long as we don’t talk about it and ignore the issue. We may evolve in that direction by stealth.. but it’ll only happen if everybody wants it….
Gary McMichael: Re new negotiations “… one of the problems with the last talks, was that Sinn Fein and the UUP essentially were more involved than the other parties – we had to take their interpretation, and we had to sell it.. .. That didn;t work … so we won’t be selling anything we didn’t negotiate ourselves…
Re problems unionists have with the Agreement:: Policing – we would have preferred if control of the RUC was transferred to the Assembly… The electoral system used in the Assembly electiosn… there was a different electoral system going into the negotiations… But the most important problem is the possibility of a referendum every 7 years, because while cross-community consensus is needed for contentious decisions in the Assembly, the most contentious decision will be based on majority rule….
Re legally held weapons – I don’t want to take the guns off the farmers. Re British army guns etc. – I want to see soldiers off the streets. Re Scotland leaving the Union – “you’re getting us all wrong – I’m a unionist but essentially what I want to see is a 32-county Ulster!”
Sean Farren: “It’s getting quite late but I’d like to deal with one or two issues.
Firstly, on the issue of decommissioning – I’ve heard all the points made here umpteen times – the question about rusty guns, and how many more would be asked tomorrow, and about how they could re-arm tomorrow – the insinuation is that the issue is a bit of a red herring.. Well if it was only a red herring it shouldn’t have been in the Agreement. But it is in the Agreement and therefore it is disingenous to try and dismiss it.. it’s there, and however vague the language, the first paragraph refers to the fact that all parties are agreed that decommissioning is indispensable – now that means it is an essential part of the Agreement, however difficult it is to achieve that objective. And it places an obligation on parties to work to achieve that end, and it does set down a time-frame for it. .. obviously we will have to look at that timeframe again in the light of present circumstances… But since I am in a religious house tonight – some of you may have learned your Catechism the way I did … in that Catechism the question is asked “what is a sacrament”? The answer I learned is is that a sacrament is an “outward sign of inward grace” .. And decommissioning is the outward sign of inward intent – the intent not to pose any threat by holding onto arms – not to threaten directly or indirectly through the continued possession of arms a return to political violence – in other words that the war is over.. There is no guarantee that if we so declare this war to be over, there won’t be other wars… Every war that has ended has ended …with remarkable declarations by all of the combatants never again to resort to arms. But you need that, however much history has demonstrated that the .. practice doesn’t live up to the promise of those words.. But we need it in order to build confidence in the present generation that at least we have a chance of going forward together.
“At the end of the day …implementing the Agreement is a confidence-building process in which there has to be a positive response to all of its elements. Maybe, as John remarked, we should have timetabled things more precisely … I would make the point that they weren’t precisely timetabled because there was confidence at the time the Agreement was signed that progress would move ahead in parallel and that indeed if we timetabled things we would log-jam by cross-referencing progress on one thing to another part entirely. But of course when there isn’t progress after a considerable period of time on one or other of the elements… it’s not surprising that people say ”hold on here – why are we continuing to push forward with the aspects we are more responsible for, while others who have a responsibility are not matching in any way the progress we are making?” … So we are probably going to .. find ouirselves required – in order to get out of the impasse and create the confidence – to so timetable things. Because having been disappointed.that the kind of spontaneity that we expected with respect to movement across all the elements was absent with respect of one key element – it’s not surprising then that specificity is required. As Seamus Mallon said.in the debate on the Suspension Bill we want to know whether or when……
“But really what we are asking for is reassurance that the threat is lifted.. we can’t be expected to implement all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement while some participants however directly or indirectly involved in the Agreement … retain arms on the scale which we believe them to hold and which the mere possession of them implies a threat….
Guns: “It’s been said, what about the police and the army and what about the 100, 000 weapons? I agree we should regulate the possession of weapons… but I was at a meeting of an SDLP branch in a rural area some time ago – I asked how many had shotguns….Most of those present had shotguns, they have them for gun clubs, for leisure activities and putting down vermin.. Those weapons are not all held by unionists… and in the course of all the Troubles not many legally held weapons were used, unless they were legally held weapons that were stolen and used by paramilitaries.. … Regulation obviously is required..
Demilitarisation: “I agree with what John Bruton said about the police and the army. The demilitarisation aspect of the Good Friday Agreement is being put into effect.. I cross the border in a number of different places quite regularly… fortifications at the border crossings are closed – those on the hills are not… The troops are not on the streets in anything like the numbers they were previously, and police patrol without flak jackets… The demilitarisation process has been progressing … it’s not complete… I don’t live in South Armagh, I’m not familiar with the security situation there… but it’s quite obvious from both Garda and RUC evidence that it was from that part of the country that the bomb which devastated Omagh came and was transported … So there is obviously some security risk
Accountability: “Furthermore we have the evidence of the Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday – evidence of an intent to make the security forces accountable in a very public way… When can I ask will those who perpetrated the Le Mans atrocity, when those who murdered six people, two from my own constituency, returning from work at Omagh on a Friday evening, when will the truth about that situation be exposed? When will what even the IRA themselves admit was a tragic mistake – Bloody Friday in Belfast when 20 bombs were set off within two hours and devastation and tragedy visited on totally innocent people. When will a truth and reconciliation commisison sit and hear evidence from those responsible for that atrocity and every other atrocity for which nobody has been made accountable?… Maybe we should draw lines – maybe we should try and build the trust and the confidence and try in doing so to allow the past to recede and the wounds to be healed through the reconciliation and confidence that we build… But we need contributions from all sides and at this particular point – and I agree with the urgency John Bruton expressed in his remarks… it will only fester if we don’t resolve it.and all the hopes and expectations of the Good Friday Agreement will recede… I believe that even if they do recede we will have to come back to something like the Good Friday Agreement next time around. Now that we have it I believe it would be almost polticially criminal for us to allow it to so recede…”
ENDS
APPENDIX: BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON SPEAKERS:
Sean Farren, MLA (SDLP) was elected to the new NI Assembly for North Antrim in 1998, and was Minister for Higher Education in the Executive set up in November 1999. His previous career in politics included membership of the Assembly for N. Antrim (1982-86), and SDLP chairman (1981 to 1986). He was a negotiator in the Brooke-Mayhew talks from 1991 to 1992. Elected to the NI Forum in 1996, he was an SDLP talks delegate in the multi-party talks which concluded in the Belfast Agreement.
Dr. Esmond Birnie, MLA (UUP) was elected to the new NI Assembly for South Belfast in 1998. He held the post of Chairman of the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee in the Executive and is currently the UUP spokesman on North-South Relations and British-Irish Council Prior to his election, he was research assistant at the NI Economic Research Centre, and lectured in Economics at Queen’s University, Belfast, from 1989-1998.
Cllr. Gary McMichael (UDP) was active in community politics at the age of 17 and became involved in the wider political arena at the age of 18 after the murder of his father, John McMichael. He was elected to Lisburn Borough Council in 1993 and became leader of the UDP following the murder of Ray Smallwoods by the IRA in July 1994. He was the principal UDP negotiator for the Loyalist cease-fire. In September 1995 he led the first loyalist delegation to meet the Irish Government in Dublin. On 8th February 1996, he became the first Loyalist to take part in a live TV debate with Sinn Fein. Elected to the NI Forum in 1996 he served as Vice-Chairman of the Political Affairs Committee. He led the UDP delegation at the multi-party talks (1996-1998).
John Bruton, T.D., Leader of Fine Gael, was Taoiseach in the Coalition Government from 1994-1997. He was first elected to the Dail in 1969, and held numerous offices in the party before becoming leader of Fine Gael in 1990. From 1982 to 1986 he held the post of Leader of the House. He served as Minister in several departments, including Finance (1981-82 and 1986-1987) Public Service (1987), Industry and Energy (1982-83), Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, (1983 to 1986). He was a Member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from December 1989 to January 1991, President of the European Movement from 1990-96, and President in Office of the European Council, June to December 1996
Meath Peace Group Report: 16 April 2000. © Meath Peace Group
Transcribed and edited by Julitta Clancy from video tapes recorded by Anne Nolan.
Acknowledgments: The Meath Peace Group would like to thank the Columban Fathers for their support and encouragement and for permitting the use of Dalgan Park for the series of talks, and we gratefully acknowledge the assistance given by the Community Bridges Programme of the International Fund for Ireland. Contact names: Julitta and John Clancy, Parsonstown, Batterstown, Co. Meath; Anne Nolan, Gernonstown, Slane; Pauline Ryan, Woodlands, Navan; Philomena Boylan-Stewart, Longwood; Michael Kane, An Tobar, Ardbraccan, Navan
No. 34. – “Policing in the New Millennium – Some Perspectives on the Patten Report”
Monday, 1 November 1999,
St. Columban’s College, Dalgan Park, Navan
Speakers:
Dr Martin Mansergh (Special Adviser to An Taoiseach Bertie Ahern)
Alex Attwood, MLA(SDLP)
Bairbre de Brún, MLA (Sinn Féin)
James Leslie, MLA (UUP)
Chaired by Brendan O’Brien (Senior reporter, RTE)
Contents:
Introduction
Addresses of speakers
Questions and comments
Appendix A: Terms of Reference of Patten Commission
Appendix B: Mgr. Denis Faul – written contribution
Appendix C: Biographical notes on speakers
Editor’s note: When we were planning this talk on the Patten Report, we invited a range of speakers, including representatives of the Garda Siochána the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the GAA, all of whom were unable to send speakers on the date in question. Msgr. Denis Faul was also invited and unable to come on the date, but he sent us a note of his intended contribution which we publish in full in Appendix A below.
INTRODUCTION
Brendan O’Brien (Guest Chair): “Two years ago I chaired a meeting here and at that stage people were wondering will there ever be negotiations, will there ever be anything remotely close to a political settlement in Northern Ireland? Tonight I’ve come down from Belfast, where as a journalist I’ve been told virtually nothing about what’s going on in the inside – which in itself could be described as a positive thing because both Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionist Party are negotiating face to face directly, for the first time since this peace process began. If George Mitchell has succeeded in anything, he has succeeded in that.
“From my perspective as a journalist looking at this over a period of over twenty years, that is quite monumental. Of course it comes in the wake of the Good Friday Agreement and the Patten Report. Almost anything I could say about policing in Northern Ireland in relation to the Patten Report – as I’m sure any speaker here will attest to – is value-laden, judgmental, political, fraught with all kinds of difficulties. As a journalist I have the luxury of being able to speak about any of these subjects freely, in the sense that I don’t carry a political party behind me or anything like that. Political parties have to be much more sensitive to each other’s constituencies and their own constituencies. The only comment I would make about Patten before starting off the debate is just to point out the one simple but huge thing inside the Patten recommendations where it says that flags and emblems and badges alike should be entirely free from any association with either the British or the Irish states. In a sense that’s an enormously big statement and depending on where you come from politically you will have a point of view that will be absolutely central to the debate we’re going to have here tonight.
“I was speaking to somebody at the centre of the peace process a few years ago, long before the Good Friday Agreement was even thought of. This person, who was one of the brokers of the IRA ceasefires in 1994 – not a member of the IRA or the republican movement, one of the people on the outside – said that if you arrive at the situation where you have a police service that people in Catholic West Belfast can join, then you have a settlement worth it’s salt. Although that may be a comment coming from a particular side of the community it is a statement to contemplate as we debate policing in Northern Ireland which is a very divisive issue.
“Our first speaker tonight, Dr. Martin Mansergh, special adviser to Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, is a man who has been at the absolute apex of this peace process, and if he would only tell us everything, it would be an enormous amount to tell! He resolutely refuses to do an interview with me or anyone like me and he holds within his head so many of the secrets of this peace process, probably from about 1990 or 1991 when the early beginnings of intermediaries and all the rest began to lead up to the IRA ceasefire and Downing Street Declaration and all the rest. ….
1. Dr. Martin Mansergh (special adviser to Taoiseach Bertie Ahern)
“Thank you chairman and ladies and gentlemen. I would like to begin by paying tribute to the contribution that the Meath Peace Group is making to public debate and information, and in particular their active and courageous chairperson Julitta Clancy.
“The Irish Government welcomed the Patten Report when it was published and see it as a fulfilment in letter and spirit of the Commission’s remit contained in the Agreement. We look forward to its full implementation. This does not necessarily mean an uncritical attitude to the whole report, but rather a judgment that, taken as a whole and if implemented in its entirety, the Report provides a basis for the fundamental reform of policing that was part of the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. The single most important element of that reform is to have a police force that is acceptable throughout the community and broadly representative of it.
“The Government here have avoided being overly prescriptive. Whilst the Anglo-Irish Agreement in Article 7 gave the Government a role in helping “to improve relations between the security forces and the community, with the object in particular of making the security process more readily accepted by the nationalist community” … the structure of policing has been mainly regarded as an internal or Strand 1 matter. Both the SDLP and Sinn Fein made detailed submissions to Patten. We have tended to press strongly the importance of tackling the problem, rather than particular detailed solutions, which, coming from the Irish Government, would for that reason alone probably not have been acceptable in some quarters.
“The purpose of the Commission headed by Chris Patten was to assemble as much expertise as possible, drawing on relevant international experience, with the aim of creating “a new police service that can draw on best practice from policing elsewhere”. Chris Patten himself could draw on experience from the Home Office and Hong Kong as well as his time as the Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office. There were experts from Canada and the USA, as well as a senior police officer from Britain and those familiar with conditions in Northern Ireland. The Government had faith in both the Chairman and members of the Commission that they would come up with imaginative and workable solutions to the problem. In no sense could the Report be described as an Establishment whitewash, but nor can it in any sense be described as showing the white flag to paramilitaries, as has been alleged in some quarters.
Criticisms of the Report: “Anyone who reads the Report will find it of a very high calibre. It comprehensively addresses the problems. That does not mean one necessarily has to agree with every single recommendation or line of argument. It has generally received a good press. Few people would accept that it deserved the very strong criticism levelled at it initially by the First Minister, but there would be some understanding here of the intense political difficulties that he has faced. It is more surprising that the Tory party should feel so rich in talent, that they can afford to repudiate out of hand the careful work of one of their most gifted and respected members, now an EU Commissioner.
“It is sad that many of the Conservative politicians who have worked constructively with successive Irish Governments in recent years are out of favour with their own party, though, except in Chris Patten’s case, mainly for reasons that have little to do with Ireland. The Daily Telegraph is running a campaign to preserve the RUC in its present form as part of its campaign against the Good Friday Agreement. Certain newspapers in Britain on a range of subjects are notorious for feeding characteristic prejudices and reactions, in a way that makes Britain’s relations with its neighbours more difficult. It is precisely this point that is made by Chris Patten writing in this morning’s London Times, when he criticises the third-rate debate on the EU in his own party. Some of the attacks on the peace process, the Good Friday Agreement and the Patten Report going on in London are carried on in a similar vein.
“Michael Oatley, former intelligence officer, who conducted dialogue with the republican movement in the early 1990s, in an article in the Sunday Times yesterday criticised the picador approach of trying to provoke the republican movement, on the basis that “if significant barbs are thrust into its flanks, the animal will, eventually, with reluctance charge”. The same negative obstructive approach has been across the water applied to a number of central aspects of the Good Friday Agreement, criticism on Mo Mowlam’s judgment on the state of the ceasefire, prisoner releases, decommissioning and now the Patten Report.
Devising a democratic system of government in a divided community:
“In conflict resolution, and certainly in this instance, you cannot simply analyse the forces involved in terms of good and evil, identifying practicaly all the right as residing in one party or community, and situating practically all the evil in the paramilitary organisations, because the difficulties and problems went far wider than their often murderous activities. The problem has been to devise for the first time a democratic system of Government in a divided community, not a task made any easier by a quarter of a century of conflict. As Sean Lemass said in Queen’s University, Belfast on 23 October 1967 – in support of the notion of separating political and religious allegiance – unless a minority had a prospect of becoming a majority and acquiring the responsibilities of government, then democracy was meaningless. It has taken a long time to assemble from different political initiatives between the 1920s and the 1990s all the elements necessary to establish an agreed framework of legitimacy, not just for peacefully regulating constitutional differences, but for carrying on the day to day work of devolved Government in a way with which nearly everyone can identify.
Policing problem: “The essence of the policing problem is that up until now one community has to all intents and purposes policed the other, and indeed the police force itself has been in substantial measure a paramilitary police force (and of course in this context paramilitary can be perfectly legal). Its character differs from police forces in the rest of Britain and the rest of Ireland. 92% of the force is Protestant at the present time.
Serious vacuum: “Few Catholics and Nationalists have wanted to join the force, and of course potential recruits would have been deterred by the knowledge that some in their community would have seen joining as a betrayal, with all the consequences that that could entail. When one adds to that a situation where the RUC are not welcome in many areas, or only for very limited purposes, then there is a serious vacuum, which is filled by crude methods of social law enforcement that involves physical intimidation, injury or mutilation and occasionally death. While strong-arm methods may find a degree of acceptance in some parts of the community, it is very hard to see how anyone could accept that battering young people even as a last resort is any sort of acceptable solution to the problem in either the short or the long-term. Hence the urgency of finding conditions, in which ordinary policing will be widely accepted.
Context for implementation: “The Patten Report was conducted in the context of the Good Friday Agreement. While Patten argues that his Report stands on its own merits and should be implemented regardless of what happens to the institutional part of the Agreement – and we would agree with that – obviously the context for implementation would be far easier if the Agreement was working, and if it was clear beyond reasonable argument that, as far as the mainstream paramilitary organisations are concerned, the conflict is finished.
Redressing the imbalance: “The 50-50 recruitment, so as to begin redressing the imbalance, was, I remember, originally put forward by Ken Maginnis in early 1996, not necessarily with the wholehearted support of all members of his party. He was congratulated by Fianna Fail in Opposition at the time, when he was down in Bandon at a conference in early February 1996. Within ten years Catholics would come to constitute a third of the force, and within four years rise to 16-17%. The reasoning for it is that in the age cohort from which police officers would be recruited there is roughly a 50-50 community balance. The proposal can be criticised for the length of time it will take to achieve the required balance, and also on the grounds that it may not be entirely consistent with fair employment legislation as it stands. But at least it provides a credible strategy for change. This would take place at a time, when, assuming the security situation allows, the absolute number of police would be reduced from 8,500 to about 7,500 full-time officers, with the full-time reserve of 3,900 being dispensed with. Generous early retirement or severance packages are envisaged, including lump sum payments, and the reduction in numbers would be effected on a voluntary basis. As we know from our experiences in the late 1980s, voluntary redundancies can work well, provided the terms are attractive.
Membership of new police service: “Patten recommends that no sector of the community should be excluded from recruitment, provided they do not have paramilitary associations or convictions (but excluding minor rioting offences when young). Republicans have argued that no one should be excluded, but given that public confidence is vital, it is difficult to see how that would be created or maintained, if former paramilitaries were serving officers. The question of District Policing Partnership Boards should in contrast not be seen as controversial. If – to be specific – Republicans, say, are being asked to accept a new police force, it is reasonable that the police force should be accountable to the whole community not excluding them. Patten has reservations about membership by policemen of organisations such as the Orange Order or the Freemasons, and recommends that such membership should be transparent and registrable.
Continuity and change: “Probably the most difficult and sensitive issue is the balance struck between continuity and change. Political opinion ranged from those who wanted the RUC to be left fully intact, especially in view of the sacrifices made by those who died, to those who wanted it disbanded as a completely unacceptable and sectarian police force. The solution proposed will involve both continuity and fundamental change. The police will, we hope be carrying out their functions in an entirely different political context, one that emphasises partnership across the community. The objection has been made that there is nothing, short of successful criminal prosecution, to prevent “bad apples” from remaining within the force. That may in a formal sense be true, but whether all police officers who have been caught up in serious contoversy would wish to stay in the new circumstances and live with a changed ethos remains to be seen. The police ombudsmen should strengthen their address of abuse and to a degree deter it.
Suffering of RUC: “I believe it is wrong to demonise any section of the community or institutions in Northern Ireland. The RUC have suffered a lot, doing their duty to the community, and most of the victims were selected for their vulnerability, rather than their individual conduct as police officers. We in this State, while conscious of some very bad experiences in the Nationalist community – about which we have made vigorous representations in the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental conference – have also had to work very closely with the RUC, to prevent cross-border attacks being mounted in either direction. The safety of the people of this State and our duty under international law left us little choice in the matter. Even at times when Anglo-Irish relations were badly strained, that co-operation continued.
“A strong emotional case can be made on behalf of any side to a conflict. But such arguments are not always harnessed to preventing such tragedies from happening again. One can be sure that the British Government will want to provide properly for those who gave good service in dangerous times, and that in most cases policemen will be honoured in the community, if not necessarily all parts of it. But, whilst acknowledging the services of all those policemen who died doing their duty within the rule of law, it is necessary to move on and to take on the challenge of devising police structures fully acceptable to the whole community.
Symbolic changes: “The symbolic changes have to be seen in that context. To argue that the crown and harp and existing name should create no problems for law-abiding Nationalists – because it contains Irish as well as British symbols – is a bit like saying to Unionists that the tricolour should be acceptable to them, since it unites Orange and Green. The reality is that symbols, whatever their original purpose, are coloured by the reality that they stand for. If I understand the Chief Constable’s position, it is that the symbolic changes could be contemplated, if they would really help to bring about changed attitudes in the community to policing.
Human rights: “Obviously, we welcome the proposal that policing should in future be based on a strong human rights culture. The appointment of a Police Ombudsman is particularly an important step forward. The replacement of landrovers by police cars would make policing less intimidating. There is obvious merit in full records being kept of stops and searches. Patten also recommends the closure of Castlereagh, Gough Barracks and Strand Road. Moving towards a situation where the police should be routinely unarmed is obviously desirable, but depends on other factors. The Patten report is critical of the lack of research into acceptable alternatives to plastic bullets, and recommends that it be undertaken right away, especially improvements in the technology of water cannon. The defence forces in this jurisdiction have disposed of rubber bullets, although the same arguments about public disorder couldn’t be made here.
Cross-border co-operation: “More cross-border co-operation, including training exchanges and liaision would be welcome, as part of the total reform. An annual conference between the police services North and South to drive forward co-operation in areas of common concern is also an excellent idea. Modern policing in these islands began in Co.Tipperary in the barony of Middlethird around Cashel on 6 September 1814, at the initiative of the Chief Secretary, Sir Robert Peel. By coincidence or not, the Garda Training College, which is by implication praised by Patten, is situated in the same Co. Tipperary birthplace of the police – in Templemore – and it would be good to see members of the Northern Ireland Police Service having access to facilities there in addition to their own college when it is built. In fact there are at the moment 70 RUC officers in training in Templemore for participation in the UN mission to Kosova.
Conclusion: “After the institutions, police reform is arguably one of the most important strategic elements in the Good Friday Agreement. A good report is obviously just the first stage. Its comprehensive implementation, without dilution, but following consultation and with maximum cross-community consensus in support, will be very important in building trust and confidence in the future, and in filling the vacuum for normal law enforcement by a mainly civilian police force. The right person, who will have oversight of the changes from outside Britain and Ireland, will help ensure that change is carried through successfully. To sum up I think the Patten Report is very important and a good part of the success of the implementation of the Agreement will depend on the full and undiluted implementation of Patten. Thank you.”
Chair (Brendan O’Brien): “Thank you very much indeed, Dr. Mansergh. A comprehensive statement there with a good strong historical base. Dr. Mansergh used the statistic that 92 % of the RUC is Protestant and he gave some of the reasons for that. Part of the difficulty I find as a journalist in dealing with things like that, when things are very bad, when there’s a very heavy conflict going on, you don’t want to do things that make it worse and when things are good you don’t want to remind people of times when things were bad. But having reported on Northern Ireland over the last 25 years, one of the strongest things that comes through from the Protestant and Unionist community is that the reason there are so few Catholics, is because the IRA targeted Catholics, specifically because they were Catholics in order to dissuade them from joining the RUC, in order that the RUC would not be acceptable. Of course if you dig back into history – and Dr. Mansergh mentioned the 1920s – that is more or less the tactic that was used by the IRA in the 1919-21 period, successfully, in their terms. It was to drive the RIC out of the local barracks into the heavily fortified barracks and eventually into demoralisation and eventually into disbandment, and I think that forms part of the backdrop as to why the republican movement sought the disbandment of the RUC coming from that kind of historical perspective.
“Alex Attwood is our next speaker. Alex is a very hardened politician at this stage – you wouldn’t think it to look at his young features – but he comes from the coal-face of Belfast politics, probably the most brittle, driven section of politics in Western Europe. …..
2. Alex Attwood, MLA (SDLP):
“Brendan started by saying that when it comes to policing it is very hard not be judgmental and that is very true especially for people who live in the North. I think that will probably come across in all that we say. I addressed a conference about two months ago – it wasn’t about policing – and I passingly mentioned the word policing and a man stood up and said “when policing comes up on TV, I know you’re coming next… ” and I thought that was very revealing – that people in the North are so characterised by the attitudes they convey and portray in relation to policing. It made me think, that whilst I say a lot about policing, as all of us do, and while I may know some things about policing, I have, in some ways, a limited knowledge of the experience of the RUC. I’ve never been to the funeral of an RUC man, I’ve never been to the family of an RUC member who has been killed in the conflict over the last 30 years. So I can talk a lot about the Nationalist experience in policing but I can’t talk a lot about policing in general because I bring to this debate a lot of baggage, a lot of experience and it tends to be one-sided. Speaking on this issue I like to issue a health warning because it tends to be judgmental, it tends to be one-dimensional, and I think it is only fair to admit that at the beginning.
RUC courage and suffering: “I also want to admit and accept what Martin said about what the RUC has done over the last 30 years because, whilst I have fundamental conflict and difference with the RUC as an organisation, I don’t deny or diminish the bravery of members of the RUC, I don’t deny their courage over the last 30 years, I don’t deny the suffering that their organisation have endured over the last 30 years. I don’t deny that many of them will be in the future Northern Ireland Police Service. I don’t think we should be squeamish or uncomfortable about saying those things about an organisation in respect of which my community have fundamental and far-reaching differences.
Law, order and justice at centre of conflict resolution:
“I want to take policing in a slightly wider context before I talk about Patten. A few years ago a man called Frank Wright came and spoke to this peace group about politics in Ireland. He was an academic at Queen’s, he’s now dead. One of the things he said about national conflicts was, whilst they arise from many different causes, once national conflicts are fully developed they revolve around issues of law, order and justice. If you cast your mind back over the last thirty years, our conflict has very often been characterised by issues of law, order and justice. Week after week some issue of that nature has arisen which reveals and exposes the difference on our island and the nature of our national conflict, and because of that those who devised the Good Friday Agreement made sure issues of law, order and justice were, together with the institutional issues, at the core of the resolution of the conflict. … That’s why in the Good Friday Agreement we have the Human Rights Commission, an Equality Commission and that’s why we have a criminal justice review that’s meant to report sometime this month and that’s why we have the Patten Commission on policing. It was to put all those issues of law, order and justice at the centre of the resolution. And therefore Patten has to be seen in that totality; the human rights, equality, criminal justice, policing. That’s the way in my view that you have to look at the Patten Report itself.
All-Ireland human rights mechanisms: “If I could suggest one thing that an audience in the Republic could do to enhance issues of law, order and justice, it would be to enhance the Human Rights Commission that is being set up in the south as well, and in particular to work up and to work up quickly and vigorously all-Ireland human rights mechanisms to ensure that there’s a common chord on this island when it comes to protection of human rights.
Response to Patten Report: “I want to make a number of comments on Patten without going into particular detail, I’ll do that later. The first is that, even though there has been understandable anxiety and difference about some of Patten’s content, when you really look at it there has been a very moderate response to Patten. I think that in the North the reason that that has happened is because people knew that the resolution of the policing issue was a difficult one. People knew that Patten and the other commissioners had a very difficult task and they did their best. People knew that whilst they would disagree with this detail and that detail, the ball-park was a ball-park around which people could begin to play a game. People knew that tough decisions had to be made and Patten at least made the decisions and I think there’s a real cross between how the community reacted generally to Patten and how the community would react generally to going into government on fair terms. People know it’s difficult, people want decisions to be made, they’re prepared to swallow hard and live with the consequences.
“I think that those who are most involved in the negotiations in Castle Buildings over the next three or four days might draw some reassurance from how the community reacted to Patten to how the community might react about going into government.
Flaws and fault lines: “The second thing about Patten is that there are flaws and fault lines to Patten – and we’ll hear from James [Leslie] later on about the Unionist perception on flaws and fault lines – and there is also within the nationalist and broader constituency because Patten does not fully and properly address issues such as emergency laws, plastic bullets, or a time frame for the correct balance for the new NI police-service and there are a number of other issues. We will continue to argue at every opportunity using every proper mechanism for those fault lines to be corrected and we believe that in time they will be corrected.
Need for public debate: “But having said that nobody should diminish that within Patten there is a base-line. Some want to negotiate up and some want to negotiate down from what Patten says but it is a base-line around which we can create a police service that will attract and sustain the allegiance and support of all which .. was accepted by the people in this island when they endorsed the Good Friday Agreement. What is crucial is that people recognise that and begin to fully engage in the policing debate in order to ensure that policing opportunity materialises and goes to fruition. This is not a time to sit on your hands, this is not a time to wait and see. This is a time to engage in debate and a debate needs to be engaged in.
Institutional resistance: “The reason, among other reasons, that it has to be engaged in is that there is immense resistance at an institutional level to Patten and a resistance that worries many of us greatly. T.D. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia, made a number of interesting comments about the nature of institutional life, one of which was that when the new world dawned, the old men came out again and took over, and remade an image of the new world in that of the old. They thanked us kindly and made their peace. There are old men in the RUC, in the Northern Ireland Office and the Policing Authority who intend to take Patten from us and remake it in the image of the old world, and that in order to pick those who have that intention, and that’s not everybody in the RUC, that’s not everybody in the AIO, although it is most people in the Police Authority; in order to fix that resistance it requires those who recognise that Patten is a base-line, it requires those to begin to engage in debate. There are immense resources who intend to minimise, cherry-pick and penny-pinch over Patten. In the Northern Ireland Office, 35 people are working on Patten, the Police Authority has 600 employees and the RUC have 28 police-officers and a number of technical people working on it. Unless we begin to argue fully with the implementation of Patten, then people will begin to remake it in the image of something that it wasn’t intended to be and there’s responsibility on everyone to not sit on their hands and to engage in debate.
Full implementation of Patten: “I agree with what Martin says that Patten has to be implemented in its totality and in its integrity, and for us that means three things. It means that Patten is implemented to the maximum of its interpretation, it means that there is no cherry-picking when it comes to any one or other of the proposals in the Patten document and there is no penny-pinching – that Patten in terms of its costs has to be accepted by the British Exchequer and implemented in the quickest possible time.
Maximum interpretation of Patten proposals: “What do I mean when I say that Patten has to be maximised not minimised? It means that there has to be in substantial part, a legislative basis for the Patten proposals. It means, for example, that the human rights proposals which is the opening chapter of the Patten Report and which Patten consistently says is the core of the report, have to be in statute, have to be maximised, have to include UN standards and should not be some minimum standards set by an association of police constables in Britain. And that’s only one example of a myriad of examples in the Patten Report which require maximum interpretation not minimum implementation.
No cherry-picking: “Similarly in respect to cherry-picking – if the British Government or any one party to the Patten debate choose to cherry-pick in relation to Patten, then Patten will begin to unravel. What I talked about earlier – namely a broad community acceptance of what Patten proposes – will begin to evaporate and we cannot create that uncertainty in the current situation and therefore the British Government and everybody else has to ensure that there’s no cherry-picking, not least when it comes to issues of symbols which are deeply sensitive … but which as somebody said earlier are necessary in order to ensure that we have a police service that is impartial.
No penny-pinching: “As I said earlier there equally needs to be no penny-pinching, that the full cost of the Patten proposals have to be accepted.
Co-operation: “There are two final points that I want to make, especially because I am addressing a southern audience. The frst is that within Patten there are 28 proposals in relation to inter-jurisdictional matters, that is issues whereby there should be co-operation between the new NI policing service on one hand and the Gardai on the other, or British police services or international services as well. I would suggest that all 28 proposals have to be implemented and what that means is that we have training, as Martin outlined, on a shared basis…between the police-services on this island and between these islands. It means long-term exchanges, it means lateral entry into the Northern Ireland Police Service by gardai in the south. It means identifying Catholics who are members of police services in other jurisdiction who might want to come back to the North. It means all of those things and all of those things need to be pursued and developed with vigour because to do so will anticipate European developments on one hand, and will be a set of confidence-building measures on the other, and it will bring about symbolic and substantial change in the early years of the new NI Police Service when there’s yet to be balance within that police service between the communities in the North. The Irish Government have responsibility to ensure that that is worked up and developed as early as possible, as fully as possible.
Conclusion: “The final point I want to make is this that the introduction of a new order on things is perilous, uncertain and difficult. We know arising from the Good Friday Agreement how perilous, uncertain and difficult it has been and the same is true and valid for Patten. My judgement is that culturally and politically, within the parties and within the communities there has been an immense sea-change over the last ten years, where the pain of the last thirty years has given way to wisdom. It seems to me that we have that wisdom that will see us go into government in the next number of days. It seems to me that we have the wisdom to create a new police service in the next number of months. Thank you.”
Chair (Brendan O’Brien): “Thank you …. Alex mentioned that he had not been to an RUC funeral …… I as a journalist have been to quite a few funerals, covering them in various ways, inluding funerals of poicemen. What always struck me, because they were inevitably Protestant funerals, was how Protestant they were. I often wondered if the IRA, who would inevitably be the perpetrators, for stated political goals and not sectarian goals, often asked themselves if the effect was sectarian because clearly the people who were at the funeral felt that it was an attack upon them as an entire community.
“Just a week ago I was reminded of quite a different side to the coin. I was at a conference in Dungannon called by the Relatives for Justice who put up a list of 400 people who had been killed by either the RUC, the British Army, the RIR, or Loyalists using alleged collusion. I come back to Alex’s point about not having been at a funeral, how divisive it is. How many people on one side of the community in Northern Ireland can name the victims of the other?
“Our next speaker is Bairbre de Brún. Bairbre comes to this particular gathering from the Republican movement who have come through all of that conflict, with all of its many sides … and if the talks that are going on now in Castle Buildings are fruitful, then the bottle is half full and not half empty. I’m going to have to be extremely deferential to Bairbre because she is going to be a Minister. That is so big, it’s hard to take in. Bairbre has been active in politics for the last twenty years but has only recently been elected as a politician, at the Assembly elections. In introducing Bairbre I could take up the line that Martin Mansergh used in the beginning which was that Patten had a balance between continuity and fundamental change and in listening to Alex I think he agreed more or less with everything that Dr. Martin Mansergh said. I wonder if Bairbre also agrees or is she more on the fundamental change side? Her party and her movement have always demanded the disbandment of the RUC and I would be interested to know if, with the prospect of being a Minister in the new Northern Ireland Executive and therefore having responsibility of a direct kind for any new police force in Northern Ireland, what fundamental change she would regard as essential …
3. Bairbre de Brún, MLA (Sinn Féin): “I must say the thought of Brendan O’ Brien being deferential to me is a fundamental change! […opening words as Gaeilge]…. I’d like to thank the organisers of tonight’s meeting for inviting me and to you for coming to listen to the panel. I’d also just like to say I will be speaking in English but if anybody wants to ask questions in Irish I would be glad to answer in Irish.
“Tonight’s talk has two titles, one is “Policing in the New Millennium”, the other is “Perspectives on the Patten Report” and I would like to spend a little time on each of those – what we want in terms of policing in the new millennium and then I will spend some time on perspectives on the report and the consultation which Sinn Fein is engaged in at the minute. I think it’s important to deal a little while we’re talking in terms of what we want for Policing with questions both of symbols and of substance because I think they are both very important.
Sinn Fein’s vision for new police service: “In terms of what we want – I think there’s a lot that people can generally agree with from a lot of different perspectives in terms of what kind of international perspectives there are on policing, and how we can draw from those in ensuring that we have the opportunity now to move into the new millennium with a police service that is created in such a way that it is at the very leading edge at international discussions about what policing ought to be. Sinn Fein obviously wants an all-Ireland policing service, we stated that very clearly in the submission we made to the Patten Commission.
“We also put forward very detailed proposals in this document – that it’s a policing service for a new future (the name of the submission which we made to the Patten Commission and which is available if people want to read it). The reason I point that out is because we have within ourselves a vision of a type of policing service that we would like to see.
Representative police service: “We obviously wanted to see a policing service that is representative of the community to which it serves at all levels; that is in terms of the political, religious make-up of the community, the gender balance of the community, and we set out within our submission different sections of our society and point out that any policing service that wants to police a society, to work with the community, needs to be representative also of that community at all levels, not just at the bottom. And that’s one of the ways in which you can tell whether or not a policing service is in tune with a community and a community with them.
Accountability: “It needs to be accountable to the community as a whole and not just some sections of it, and it needs to be accountable under the law. It needs to be, in our view, routinely unarmed and it needs to be fair, efficient and impartial.
Cultural ethos: “Obviously one of the points for us as well, in terms of our vision of policing in the new millennium, where Ireland is concerned and the North of Ireland in particular, as far as the question of cultural ethos are concerned that a policing service should reflect the culture, the ethos, the identity of the community as a whole and in this respect any force which is openly hostile to the Irish identity, to Nationalist aspirations or to the Catholic faith must be disbanded. We need to have a policing service that reflects the ethos in its way of working.
Kind of people we want to attract to the new service: “I think also, whatever your views of how we reached where we are at the moment, we need to move away from a force that sees its main job as upholding the Union with Great Britain, upholding a particular state, upholding itself as an institution resisting change, resisting accountability and keeping nationalists and republicans in check, policing communities in a very heavy, militaristic fashion. If you have that kind of a force, however you produced it, then those are the kind of people that you will attract, you will attract people who want to carry out that kind of a job. I think when we’re talking about policing in the new millennium, we need to send out clearer signals of what is the kind of a policing service that we want to have and who are the kind of people that we want to attract to it. I think that the kind of people that we want to attract, that we want to recruit are people who are willing to serve the community as a whole, impartial, regardless of whether those are sections that person feels comfortable with or feels in tune with either politically or culturally. People who see themselves as being answerable to all of those people, and don’t see any section of the community being answerable to them, that they see themselves as serving us, people who accept human rights and community awareness as underpinning their approach to their everyday work and people who can and want to contribute to a working environment which is free from sexual harassment, racist or sectarian abuse either of their colleagues or members of the public. I think these are difficulties that arise in many different areas and the one we’re talking about – Policing in the new millennium – that these are areas that we need to be very aware of, whether we’re looking at the structures; our recruiting mechanisms and training.
Training: “I think training is particularly important. I think once we have decided on the kind of people that we want to attract and have gone about attracting them in a certain way, I think it’s important then that we ensure that we have the appropriate training. You talk about accountability mechanisms and complaint mechanisms as well as on-going monitoring.
Dr. Maurice Hayes, a member of the Patten Commission, brought out a report which lays down very clear guidelines on police ombudsmen, prior to being on the Commission, and I think it clearly points out a lot of the important notions that we need to take a look at in terms of appropriate complaints mechanisms, appropriate accountability mechanisms. Alex and Dr. Mansergh both discussed questions of resources which is very important – that if you’re going to have accountability mechanisms that these are properly resourced so that you don’t have the question simply of people investigating themelves and being answerable to themselves and those investigations being monitored by themselves. We need also to ensure that we devise structures which allow the closest possible relationship between the public, the police and the community and obviously a generally local service will be more accountable and effective. Moving away from militaristic style training to human rights training, being part and parcel of everything.
Community awareness: “I think one of the important things that we would like to see in terms of training is that if you’re going to have a policing service that’s generally accountable to the community, that members of the community should play a central role in the development and delivering of the training also, that they should be part and parcel of developing the training through which a fair policing service will be developed and they should also be part and parcel of the monitoring of that training. It needs to be very clear that people going through training don’t simply take on community awareness or anti-sexism awareness training or whatever, simply as a gloss on a militaristic style training. Maybe it’s my teaching background but I’ve always argued that if it isn’t part of the exam then people won’t take it very seriously, so unless community awareness, unless awareness of the society in which you are working in, awareness of the fact that you do serve that community is part and parcel of what will decide whether or not you will become a police officer at the end of the day – if you’re not going to be judged on that but rather on fitness or physical training or on marching or on drill or whatever – then it won’t become an important part of what you take on board during your training.
New beginning: “Since the publication of the Patten Report, there’s obviously been an immense discussion in our community and in all communities, not only formal discussions and public meetings such as this, but discussions in taxis and in shops and in supermarkets and in schools as to whether or not the Patten Report touches adequately on any or all of these matters. A lot of discussion mainly crystallises into the big question “Is this a new beginnning?” and particularly from my community – and I’m obviously speaking on behalf of, like Alex, the area of West Belfast – but also about other similar areas. The question of whether or not the nightmare that was the RUC is over, is this something new, is this a new beginning? Because the promise held out in the Good Friday Agreement is for a new beginning to policing, for a policing service that can have widespread support from and is seen as an integral part of the community as a whole.
Nationalist experience of policing: “The big qustion is in measuring Patten and measuring the 170 odd proposals in it, whether or not they amount to a new beginning, even if they fail, they have the ability and the strength to point in a new direction. I think it’s important to understand why that is so important for people, why it is important that it is something new because for young people growing up in West Belfast and areas like it, the word “police” was synonymous with the word “sectarianism”, with the word “depression”; it was synonymous with harassment, with brutality, of daily humiliation and with people who showed and who still show – because the RUC are still there – total contempt for the political and religious bodies of people in the community. It’s important to understand that while we have the Patten Report, when I open my door and go out onto the street it’s the RUC that’s there and the peace at present is being policed by one of the main protagonists in that conflict and that is still an on-going problem and it is an on-going problem for people who are looking at the Patten Report, that they’re not looking at it in isolation, that they’re not looking at it in a way where you would come into a hall and say “I wonder if Patten is going to be a nice idea, I wonder is it something that will work” and then go home and think about something else because policing is such a major factor to people. It effects them every single day and there are ongoing problems still day-to-day with the RUC in the area. Therefore I think it is very difficult for people, in the context of non-implementation of a lot of the other areas of the Agreement and in the context of ongoing problems of harassment by the RUC which is still going on in many of the areas, for them to come to the kind of discussion and the kind of considerations of the Patten Report that are going to be absolutely necessary if people are to be convinced and that we have a chance of a new beginning. I think we shouldn’t forget what the RUC has meant for people. They have been challenged and criticised by the UN’s Human Rights committee, the UN’s Committee against Torture, Amnesty International, the European Court of Human Rights …. This time last year Rosemary Nelson, a solicitor, was at a congressional hearing in the US telling Congress of the threats that were made to her by the RUC and now Rosemary has since been killed and these are ongoing problems.
Nationalists not anti-policing: “For all of that, I think the wonder is not that nationalists are alienated from the RUC – because they are totally and utterly alienated from the RUC – but they are not anti-policing. Nationalists and Republican people want a policing service, they want stability, they want to have the same kind of services that people anywhere else have, when they have difficulties, when they need advice that they want to seek, when they want help, they want an actual service and I think they’re very willing to talk about the new service. What they don’t want is what they still have and that is the big question – whether or not Patten can actually produce something radically new.
Examination of Patten Report: “We in Sinn Fein are examining the Patten Report at the moment, we are examining it carefully in terms of its recommendations, in the context of the terms of reference that were set out in the Patten Commission under the Good Friday Agreement and set in the context of the hopes and the experience of Republicans and nationalists and also of the wider community. We also intend to scrutininse the British Government’s role, bearing in mind the failure so far to implement other critical sections of the Good Friday Agreement. We will look at this very carefully.
Queries: “There’s obviously some points that have been raised already in our community, quite publicly in fact, and Alex has referred to some of them already – the queries as to whether the core of Patten’s vision, which is a community policing and human rights approach, whether or not this jars totally with suggestions that you might still have emergency legislation, use of plastic bullets and a force which is armed on a routine basis. Whether or not this is possible or whether those two things just go totally contrary to each other and you cannot have one with the other.
Political will: “There’s also the question of political will, has the British Government got the [will].. to produce a new beginning in policing, will the kind of dragging out that we saw over the setting up of the political institutions only be a tenth of the kind of resistance you will have to changes in policing? So there are questions obviously being asked about who will run this new service, who will the people be?
South Africa: “In February of this year there was a very interesting conference in Belfast and there was a woman from South Africa there and she was talking about new policing and bringing about a new service and she was talking about it in South Africa but she was also talking about the time-scale for change. She had a very interesting analogy, she talked about the “Irish Coffee” effect about the policing service in South Africa, where one of the difficulties is you have a large black section at the bottom, a kind of a brown section in the middle, and a small white section at the top. I think if you’re going to hold out the idea of a new beginning in policing to the people and ask them to embrace it, I think one of the major things you should tell them is that it actually is a new beginning, that it will be accountable, that it will be something that respects their community, that it won’t have within it the seeds of reinventing what was there before and it won’t have an Irish Coffee effect. All of those things are very important.
“I think I’ve gone over my time so I’ll finish on that and take any other questions that people have at question time. We will examine the Patten proposals, we will examine not only what’s proposed there but also the big questions that aren’t dealt in there, in terms of who will run the service, how will the British government deal with these questions, what will the legislation look like? We are engaged in this debate both internally and with other groupings at present and in due course we will make our examinations known on that. Thank you.”
Chair (Brendan O’Brien): “Thank you very much Bairbre. It’s quite clear from what Bairbre is saying that she comes from a community that is about things that you see when you wake up in the morning. … Some of the points that Bairbre de Brun has made there, using pretty strong language – she called the RUC a nightmare, a sectarian force which has total contempt for the political and religious beliefs of the people she represents, ongoing harassment, and she says that the people that she knows are completely alienated from the RUC. Now Bairbre of course didn’t answer the big question which is whether Sinn Fein accepts Patten because she says that their experience of the British government in dealing with legislation leaves them to wait and see what the legislation is and how it’s handled and all the rest, something which Alex indirectly referred to when he talked about the institutional resistance coming from the NIO, the Police Authority and the RUC to change. Quite clearly when you put it in those kind of ways there is a very major debate about policing and it is quite fundamental to democracy.
Our next speaker is James Leslie, from Ballymoney in the north of the North …
4. James Leslie, MLA (UUP): “Thank you chairman, a heavily loaded introduction. I’ll do my best to deal with some of the extra items that you’ve thrown my way.
Importance of debate: “First of all I’d like to thank the Meath Peace Group for inviting the Ulster Unionist Party to send somebody to this debate and to other debates which they’ve held. We appreciate the opportunity to be able to come and participate in these talks. One of the problems that politicians, I think in all political parties in Northern Ireland have, is that they spend most of their time talking to people from their own party – that doesn’t mean to say that people agree with what they have to say. I think you only really do half the job if you don’t debate the issues with somebody who has an opposite point of view to your own. I think it’s a sign of a growing-up or maturing of politics in Northern Ireland that these things are starting to happen. I can dimly remember, but only dimly – I’d only have been about ten at the time – public meetings in the 1960s where that did happen, where quite often the two points of view would be two very dramatically different points of view of Unionism. Nonetheless, at least a debate took place. A lot of that activity was hijacked by the treatment some speakers received and it was a shame that debates in all sorts of ways didn’t occur in the interim. ….
Perspectives on policing: “First of all I would like to approach the perspectives on policing as I think that is the main theme that I would like to address and if you look at the Patten Commission Report as a whole I feel that is a great deal of what it is, this is how we would like policing to work. … The society which we have at the moment is perhaps not at the point in which you are able to operate policing in all of the ways that you would like. It remains to be seen as to whether that is going to be possible.
Common issues in policing: “I also think that in terms of being able to talk to you here, there are common issues in policing that apply on both sides of the border, in fact I think that most of the issues relating to policing are going to have a great deal of commonality about them. The same is true of other countries. Now obviously the one common issue is ongoing terrorism and the threat there-of and I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Garda Siochana, particularly in recent weeks in dealing with the threat from dissident Republicans. We are very grateful for what they have achieved there and I hope they will continue to be successful in that respect.
What society wants of police service: “I think when you look at what it is you want the police to do, I would like to think we can start in the same place, which is that the police are there to uphold the law and protect citizens from harm both to themselves and to their property. Now most of the law involved in that proposition is the criminal law and I don’t think there’s much deviation in what the general tenets of the criminal law cover and it is also crucial that that law is above us all and is interpreted fairly by the courts and is applied equally to all. In the soundings that the Patten Commission took of what society as a whole felt they wanted from the police, I think that came over fairly clearly and just quoting from the report “the solid majority of both traditions want an effective policing service which maintains order and protects their rights”.
Opposition to police: “If we look at opposition to police, it seems to me that the flavour and the places where it comes from tends to have a lot of similarities. I am representing a constituency which is predominantly or very predominantly Unionist – around 80% of the votes cast in North Antrim would be Unionist. Now most of the work that the police would do in my constituency would relate to trying to deal with loyalist paramilitaries and I get a litany of complaints to my office about the actions of the police in their efforts to deal with these loyalist terrorists. I get complaints about harassment .. and I take it a little bit further and usually I find that the person who is complaining is usually fairly closely representative of the person who is thought to be perpetrating the acts that the police are trying to deal with.
“We hear and we heard very consistently at the public hearings by the Patten Commission of an immense desire throughout society for police to be much more visible, to be on the beat, on their feet, to be relating directly with the neighbourhood. You will know that you have estates in Dublin as we have estates in Northern Ireland, not just in Belfast either, where it’s simply not safe for one or a pair of policemen on their feet trying to operate. The only way that they can operate safely in these estates is if they are present in numbers or are able to call up large numbers in their support. And those people who take issue with the police in these estates, I don’t think when they’re objecting, which they do very vigorously and often violently, it’s not in any political or religious or any other kind of distinction, they’re simply against the police and what the police are trying to do which is uphold the law and usually protect citizens from other citizens.
Armed criminals: “As we look ahead, if we can deal, as I trust that we can, with the political issues and use the Belfast Agreement as a blue-print for living together in Northern Ireland which is what I regard as being the central theme, I think we’re still going to have a problem. That is even if we can get a complete end to terrorist activities in what you might call the political road, I think it is inevitable that many of those people who were previouly involved in terrorism are going to be involved in other sorts of criminalities and you’ve only got to look at the whole drugs industry or trade to see this operating already. The problem police are having and they have this in the US, they have this in the Republic and they have it in Northern Ireland, is that you’ve got people carrying out that activity who would tend to be very violent in pursuit of what they’re doing, in defence of what they’re doing…. In Ireland, north and south, they’re capable of being very heavily armed because of all the weapons that have been imported over the years and also they’re quite likely to have been quite well trained in how to use them. It’s inevitable that the police in trying to deal with that have got to be able to defend themselves, they cannot defend society if they cannot defend themselves, so I think it’s inevitable that police are going to have to maintain some sort of paramilitary – in the traditional sense of the word – capability to deal with this threat. We saw that quite clearly two weeks ago when the gardai found the firing range [of dissident republicans] – they went in with stun grenades, they were very heavily armed because they know from experience that they might run into resistance from what they’re doing and we’re starting to see the same again in trying to deal with the drugs trade.
Community involvement: “There’s a great deal very sensible and worthy of focus in the Patten Commission Report on how you involve the community – the community having considerable say in the policing that it wants and the way that that operates. I think in the US in some states, the experience is highly relevant where they are able to elect people specifically in order to achieve particular objectives in relation to policing. One of the things that is quite noticeable is that they had to pay considerably more in order to get what they wanted on the policing front and I think that’s a thought I would put in your mind.
Costs of implementing Patten: “Alex Attwood referred to the considerable cost that would be involved in implementing the Patten Report and knowing the Treasury I dare say there will be some arm-wrestling about getting all of the costs covered. Just a general thought to you, I think we’re all quite unnecessarily squeamish about this. As crime as a whole has risen and expanded, we all tend to say insurance companies take the strain, but insurance companies make money, we take the strain because we all pay higher insurance premiums. I think if you look at the increase in your house premiums for the last ten years, the increase is very considerable, mine have gone up from £40 to £240 and it’s not an unusual example. If you were asked to pay £200 extra for policing, there’s going to be a terrible racket, but you’re going to pay it somewhere.
Problems with Patten Report: “… I said earlier I think the Patten Report is good on how you would like policing to work … Where I find the report most objectionable is that it seems to be gratuitously insensitive by the sacrifice made by at least 302 officers of the RUC murdered during the last 30 years. About 24,000 officers served in the force during that period, and that makes the death rate one in 80 and that really is a very high casualty rate. One officer in three has been injured in some way. Those are the physical casualties, there are no statistics there on the psychological casualties but I think you would assume from the physical causalties that the psychological casualties are going to be quite high. 97% of those officers who died, their deaths were attributed to Republican terrorists. It’s not therefore surprising that the police feel that they are being particularly threatened from one direction. When you go to public order policing – that’s dealing with riots – there has been plenty of that by all sides in the argument. A comment made by a police officer sticks in my mind – and he would be quite typical of a lot of policemen I know who certainly don’t have any political affiliation, they would be very a-political as a result of their experiences. He said to me “It doesn’t matter whether the brick was thrown by a loyalist or a republican, if it hits you it hurts”.
Policing an uncivil society: “The other problem that I see with the Patten report is that I think it is insufficiently rigorous in distinguishing between the circumstances that we have in Northern Ireland right now at this minute and the circumstances that we would like to have, and in which a lot of the perfectly sensible recommendations about how you would police a civil society could take place. I mean how do you police an uncivil society? I feel that the report frequently ducks that issue, it announces the issue but I feel it’s not rigorous enough in taking it on to each area of its recommendations. In this respect I think, the report having said that this is an issue, I don’t know how the authors of the report could then go on to say that the report has to be taken as a total package. It seems to me that there are some straighforward issues of commonsense, never mind anything else, that are going to have to come into play. It seems to me that there is plenty in there that you might be able to proceed with but there is also a very great deal there which you cannot in the present circumstances. It would be terrific if those changed and we trust that they will but I think that it would unfortunate if we did not acknowledge that some of the changes proposed are probably some distance down the line and I think it would be unworthy of politicians not to acknowledge that there is a very different time-scale for some than the time-scale that there is for others.
Police numbers: “I’ll just say a word or two about police numbers. I think we’re all aware that respect for the law in western society seems to have diminished. Perhaps one of the consequences of that is that the numbers of police that you need may be larger. I also think that as more and more of the population lives in urban areas rather than rural areas, this may also be a consequence of it. There were some very useful statistics in the Patten Report. In Northern Ireland when the police was established, there were 11,500 policemen – that’s one to every 140 people. In mainland UK it’s almost three times that – 1 to 390. The new size of the police service in Northern Ireland would be 1 to 220, so that’s a 50% decrease, the actual number of police comes down by a third. In New York they now have 1 for every 200. I suspect – and thowing back to my point about the cost of insurance to us all – it may unfortunately, whilst we go through this period when respect for the law seems to be diminishing in a very general way, be something that we’re all going to have to focus on.
Conclusion: “Just to wind up. If the police are the barrier between the law-breakers and the law-abiders inevitably they are going to become a target for the law-breakers. The more widespread law-breaking the more people there are that are going to make police a target. What we are hoping to do in Northern Ireland is have a much greater number of law-abiders. The law- abiders must be able to give their unequivocal support to their servants whom society has appointed to uphold that law and their servants are the police. Thank you.”
Chair (Brendan O’Brien): “Thank you … Just before I take any questions, maybe I’ll just throw in one thing that Bairbre de Brún said, that Sinn Féin want an all-Ireland police force. That question involves everybody in this hall, whether you think that is desirable or not in relation to what you’ve got in Northern Ireland and what is trying to be solved. She didn’t say what Pat Doherty said as a considered view of Sinn Fein: that they would judge Patten as to whether it would be seen to be – I’m paraphrasing here – a transition towards all-Ireland policing. So that’s a very fundamental point, not surprising coming from Sinn Fein but for a southern audience can we assume that everybody wants all- Ireland policing or can we assume that people’s views are considerably different to that….
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS (Summaries only)
Q1: John Feighery, SVD (member of the Irish Association): “I was shocked to hear Alex Attwood had never been to a funeral of a policeman and I think that shows just how radical that alienation and division is in the North…… I think we in the south have no idea of the level of aggression and alienation felt by the nationalist community. I suppose one way to look at it in a parallel way would be to think the way the black community is feeling in England; the harassment, the lack of interest, the constant accusations that they meet with and it all points to the need for a very, very radical reformulation along the lines of Patten. At the same time while we can sympathise with the Unionist community who have been profoundly humiliated – and certainly it does seem that the Patten Report didn’t acknowledge the deaths of so many members of the RUC – I can’t help thinking that the criticisms of our Unionist guest are very marginal, the Commission was an international commission run by the British Government… One particular question which I would like to address to Bairbre is about community input: we know that in America and lots of other countries the community has a big input and obviously there should be a lot of dialogue but one problem I see with that is, given the fact that partly due to all the results of the Troubles, the people – Unionists and Nationalists – are living more and more marginally away from one another, how could there be an adequate community input that would be beneficial for the whole community, if geographically the communities are living in a relatively isolated way. I’d be interested in your views on that.
Brendan O’Brien: In a sense John you’ve asked two questions – one to James Leslie about the recognition of the pain on the nationalist side, whether that is in a sense publicly acknowledged, and the direct question to Bairbre.
Bairbre de Brún: “I do think that when I’m talking about community input, I think it can be overcome. There are structures which will be overall structures, you will have local structures, you will have very localised structures, but I’m thinking in terms of community input into training – for example developing training, overseeing training, that would be people drawn from the whole community. So the fact that particular communities will be very localised, it won’t necessarily impact all the things I am saying. You will have people drawn from legal experts, human rights experts, people drawn from different local communities who would have different political perspectives but who would come together to ensure that your ordinary everyday person, your localities, your human rights people, your academics, your legal experts are together designing an input into training. When I’m talking about community input, if you’re designing training around community awareness. For example we had a series of excellent seminars, transition seminars for Assembly members. One of them was an equality seminar and all of the speakers were men which was quite amazing. When you’re talking about designing and developing there has to be people looking who can actually look at the designing and training and say “your speakers are all men”, or “your traders are all from one section” etc. In other areas, yes I think it could be quite localised.
Costs: “I think you could have a big debate on paying extra, as James was saying, for the type of policing that you want and there are sections certainly in a lot of the submissions about the differences of how you decide, the international discussion that’s going on at the moment of the budget for policing and the budget for police don’t have to be the same. For example there will be a debate around drugs .. as to whether or not all the budget for drugs needs to be in the policing budget – needs to go into specialised units – or whether some of it needs to go into education in local areas so that you have young people who are confident and able to say “no”, who have the self-confidence and self-awareness and self-esteem not to want to get into that in the first place. That’s going to be a big debate in the communities and not all communities will come up with the same answer, so when I’m talking about community involovement in terms of stewarding, whether people want the St. Patrick’s Day parades stewarded by somebody else for example and want to pay their policing budget that way.
“Different communities will come up with different answers but obviously there will be questions particularly in terms of public order but they are questions that for me the fundamental is that it’s an equal relationship. Once you have an equal relationship between the community and the policing service that’s established for that community then I think all of the other problems will be the dynamics of the cut and thrust of the debates that will take place.
Dr. Martin Mansergh: “Just one point for clarification. Patten does say as far as the cost of reducing the number of police over a ten year period would be neutral. I think you can take it that there were background discussions with the Treasury while this part of the report was being put together so actually the cost of the reform of the policing is entirely neutral over the long term. Obviously there is a higher cost as always is the case with voluntary redundancy. There is an upfront cost that once you get to the end of a period you’ve got savings for the smaller numbers. I just wanted to clarify that.
Q2: Tom Hodgins (Drogheda Ecumenical Peace Group): “Having read the report, one thing that jumped out at me was the new oath that would be taken by police officers incorporating the Human Rights Convention – that would have to be welcome I would think. The police ombudsmen facility has already been alluded to by Dr. Mansergh I think but two things that I thought were huge changes is that each chief officer appointed would be appointed on the basis of their capacity to introduce and to adapt to changes. I think that’s a big issue and I think the fact that policing board itself and the district board, I’m not sure of the exact name, would meet publicly each month. I think the Gardai could learn much from that. From what I’ve heard from people on the ground about symbols – I think that’s not the real issue, I think it could be created into an issue but I don’t think it’s a real issue. The question I have is for Bairbre and James. … Is there a danger that the Patten Report will be used as a tactic or as a bargaining tool?
Brendan O’Brien: “I presume that you mean will it be used as a bargaining tool in the political arena?
Questioner: “Yes”
James Leslie: “There’s always tremendous conspiracy theories about whether particular issues will be used as a bargaining tool in relation to some other issue. It is not our intention to go down that route. We think that the policing issue is the policing issue and therefore it will be looked at within that context. The report itself brings up a lot of issues rather than solutions and there is a great deal of work for Parliament to do in implementing much of what is in here. The point came up there about the district police partnership board and suggestions in [the report] about how these should be formed and take place. There’s going to be a lot of work for Parliament to do.
Brendan O’Brien: “Can I just bring up something that the questioner referred to about emblems and badges and symbols. I’m sure we’ve all seen the main Unionist objection on that issue and you actually didn’t refer to that at all in what you had to say, so is that real or is that tactical?
James Leslie, MLA: “I think it’s real and it relates to the issue of 300 officers who gave their lives and the 8,000 that have been injured and it’s very noticeable that in a report a year ago it specifically recommended that there be no changes in those fields. It does seem to me that the issue of the badge was dealt with in 1921 by having the harp and the shamrock. I just wonder if you’re going to do a much better job by trying to start all over again on that one. The other thing is that a police force that does work in such dangerous circumstances does need to have a sort of … police officers have to work as colleagues and as friends and the way that you normally achieve that is that they’re bound around the team or the organisation that they’re playing for …
Brendan O’Brien: “What about the point Dr. Mansergh made that you could say what you like about the shamrock and the crown coming together but the actual physical experience has another meaning altogether, that it symbolises something else for nationalists. Are you yourself against the symbolic change?
James Leslie: “Well my observation of them is they don’t seem to be demanded by the evidence that the Patten Commission took. It’s not obvious to me how better the special badge is going to be devised and so I can’t see the merit in change. There is a considerable amount of other changes in here which relate to the way in which the police force operates and I feel that is the important place to have change.
Brendan O’Brien: “There was a question for Bairbre about using the Patten report as a tactic. To come at you from this other side about all-Ireland policing; could we have a situation where Sinn Fein will withhold its support for Patten until such time it is convinced the whole drift of the Belfast Agreement is transitionary towards all-Ireland structures?
Bairbre de Brún: “I think two things; one I don’t think you can divorce a policing service from the overall political context in which it operates and I don’t think you can talk about whether or not people will give allegiance to a policing service except in that they will obviously be affected by that wider political context. We’ve said very clearly in the statement that we put out after the Patten Report was published that we would judge the Patten Report on the proposals, on the remit that was given to the Patten Commission in the Good Friday Agreement and on the hopes and the experiences and the wishes of people in our areas. So we will look at whether or not we have a new policing service and that is what we are going to judge the Patten proposals on. We are going to ensure that what we’re being offered is not a re-packaged RUC, because if it’s a re-packaged RUC people will react to the re-packaged version exactly the way that they reacted to the one that was there before. What was promised in terms of a new beginning in the Good Friday Agreement would not be forthcoming. But no, I don’t think that Nationalists or Republicans want to use the Patten Report as a bargaining tool for something else. If for no other reason than that policing is in itself one of the most important issues so there’s no question of it being used as a bargaining for something because it itself is so crucial to us and was so crucial to us in terms of the whole negotiations.
Q3: Ronnie Owen (Slane): “I think that in a sense that Bairbre is already playing tactical games with us as regards the report. She is the one who says “we will be doing that” or “we will be looking at” – even Mr. Leslie says that a lot of it is welcome, he has reservations about how it will work in some areas, but in a different context which I understand it in the event of an overall peace agreement that much more of it would be acceptable. The overall Patten Report I would suggest still uses the new police force as a kind of imperial force that is imposing peace as opposed to what Mr.Leslie talked about – a more civic society where something along the lines of our own Garda Siochana – the Guardians of the Peace – would be a much more appropriate definition of what the police force is set to do rather than to enforce peace on people. I think the context of the new police force must rest on the idea of a peace agreement being understood by all sections of the community and then this new Patten Report’s police force hopefully will then be welcomed by Bairbre de Brun.
Q4: Cllr. Joe Reilly [Sinn Féin, Navan]: “I would like to welcome James to the Royal County – I would have to say that I was a little surprised at your contribution in that from where I’m coming from you seem to have put the whole thing on a law and order issue and ignored the fundamental problems that there are around the policing issues ….. or do you recognise that there is a political problem there and the police are part of that problem and the RUC is part of that problem?
Q5: David Thompson (Portadown UUP member): “I’m an Ulster Unionist from the Portadown branch. I’ve listened to a number of the comments. Alex mentioned the fact that there’s been a quiet response to the Patten Report, in all honesty there’s a fairly quiet response in the Unionist community to the whole process at the moment…… A senior member of your party said to me about 6 weeks ago, in many ways it is sold on the basis that they deliver non-violence … In many ways the response to the Patten Commission is that same feeling, that the Patten Commission was written in the context of this new beginning and this new beginning is nowhere near. In fact it’s the old political manoeuvring between Unionists and Republicans. In that situation what we’re looking at is the destruction of the RUC. David Trimble, when he responded as he did, hit the core. I’m fairly lucky, I live in a suburb of Portadown and hidden amongst the people who live around me are members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and some of their children go to the same school as my children. Some of their children don’t know what their daddy does; they don’t see the uniform, they don’t talk about their job at all. I know them and I know they’re policemen and they are there making that contribution to our community. One of those policemen was driven out of his home because he was recognised at Drumcree in 1996. They actually came up to his house and started pelting stones, pelting eggs and he had to move.
“These weren’t Republicans, these were so-called Loyalists. Constable Frankie O’Reilly was killed by a Loyalist. The RUC have made a very strong commitment to our community and I can tell you that the ones that I know are committed to professional policing. They’re also extremely aware of the mafia element which is now growing up in our community while we try to get Northern Ireland ruled into a new future. I am totally committed to the Good Friday Agreement, but I don’t know just how we’re going to succeed in getting it, but I think there is universal acceptance that the past is a failure for everybody. But filling that vacuum at the moment you seem to be getting this mafia element. … They do tend to come under attack in the nationalist or unionist areas. Two years ago in ‘97 …the police were there [in Portadown] and the police were getting harassed by the boys, not the residents. The boys came in to protect the community, as soon as they saw me, they recognised me, they said “we want you to do this, we want you to make these complaints about the police” and I listened to what they had to say and I spoke to some of the residents and I spoke to the police and as you said the trouble-makers were the ones who were trying to get me to complain about the police ….. and I was forcibly told that there was no chance of me getting elected as an RUC lover. …
“In terms of the symbols, it was said to me by somebody ..that the way in which the Patten Commission doctored emblems and symbols was tantamount to taking the RUC …..on a regimental type parade and tearing the badge and insignias from their uniforms and dismissing them in disgrace. That’s the way it was felt. The sacrifice that they have given over the last 30 years was nowt. That hurts, that demoralises the very electorate that we rely on to get this Agreement through. What we’re looking at is the total demoralisation of the electorate in the Unionist community, in support of the Good Friday Agreement because of the lack of sensitivity. I would say to you in all honesty, if we were dealing with a new beginning where one of the most vicious, evil and sectarian terrorist organisations from the last 30 years that is now standing on the moral high ground .. and is not even willing to admit that it ……… then you’ve got a problem in sensitivity between the two traditions. I was totally appalled by the fact, we were all appalled by the fact that over the last 30 years, in fact probably going back further than 30 years, I can’t take responsibility for my father’s actions and I can’t change the past, but I do want to change the future and we’re going to have to get on with it. I was pleased to see Bairbre and James talking and exchanging smilies, it’s good to see, it’s a start. We need to start thinking about the other people and we need to start thinking about what we’re trying to achieve, not where we came from in our own constituency.
“In terms of the Patten Commission Report which is why we’re here tonight, I’ve been told that a lot of the good which is through the Patten Report has actually been taken from a fundamental review on the police force which I find very acceptable because I want to see our police force a very very professional force and I want to see embedded in it effectively real human rights because that is our future for all of us and it has to start now, irrespective of what happened in the past and why.
“But unfortunately there are elements in it which I can’t ignore, district policing boards – if we had a district policing board in Portadown or Craigavon – do you honestly believe that district policing or any supplementary policing that they took on board would be sympathetic to the .. nationalist community? I mean you’ve got a Unionist majority on the council and you would inevitably have a Unionist majority on the district policing board. I’m sorry I just don’t believe it will work. The only way we can get a proper balance, the only way we can maintain that balance is nationally and I have no problem with the policing board at all which takes Northern Ireland’s constituents and makes sure we don’t get this imbalance.
Q6: Neil Magill [Columban missionary, Dalgan Park]: “I think the implementation of the Patten Report would be a big step forward towards an impartial and fair police force which can work with the community but I have great fears about how to change the mindset, the psychological barriers, the barriers in people’s minds. They tell me I’m being judgmental because I’m from the North, and I’ll just give this example. Last week my sister, she’s living outside Omagh, Monday morning she was rushing into Omagh with her daughter who studies at UCD, to take the bus to Dublin. On the outskirts of Omagh, a few policemen stopped her, she was inside a 50-mile limit, she was over that, they asked her for her licence and asked her why she was rushing and she said “I’m bringing my daughter to take the bus to Dublin”. He fined her £40, 3 points and she said that was fine but what the policemen did then was they took her licence, sat in their police car for ten minutes, ten minutes later they gave her back her licence and said “you can go now but your bus is gone”. This is what is happening and how can we change that mindset? It’s like she was being punished because she’s a Catholic. Is that real or perceived? I think it’s very real. “
Q7: John Hutchinson [Meath resident, originally from Donegal]: “We could talk all night about our various perspectives on things but it’s basically circumstantial. Members of the RUC are born into their own area. They have their culture, they have their influences and some of them as a consequence of that end up serving in the RUC that’s why. Others end up in paramilitaries on the other side or on the Unionist/Loyalist side, that happens. Tonight we have here a wonderful opportunity which we didn’t have years ago to sit at tables together and speak and it’s happening. The circumstances have to change – three speakers here talked about status quo – we can talk about the maintenance of status quo that blinds people with hatred because of the mental and physical scars of the years. … We can maintain that status quo, James, but we have to find an alternative. … Many people are contributing, it’s time to start seeing a situation where the children of our country, when you hear a door slamming, as I do in the south of Ireland, I initially don’t here a door slamming, I hear a gun and it registers, in the last few years it gets a little easier, but there are people here who live in the south who fortunately are beyond the civil war and they hear a door slamming. Let’s work towards seeing a way to find the language of saying words that don’t cause anger. We can go back over them and over them. Finding a way where the RUC man does not have to put on his bullet-proof vest to walk out because there is a psychological impact as well. …. and you’ve got IRA men who have to live like other paramilitaries with the terrible, terrible pain of having killed someone when they get up in the morning. God has spared some of us that. Let’s work towards hearing the door slamming.”
Bairbre de Brún: “As far as David Thompson said, I agree probably more with you than with Alex Attwood on that point as to why there is a quiet response on Patten at the moment, although I suspect that the muted reaction to Patten is because it’s a consultation period and nobody is quite sure what the British Government is going to do about it and that it will be less muted when it becomes clearer what the British government is going to do about it. On the earlier question… I can assure you that I am not being tactical, I can assure you that we want a new beginning in policing and that anything that I’m doing in terms of discussing is about obtaining that…. It’s important that you do understand that I am in a way held back by the fact that the party is in a consultation period, frequently are, whether it was after the Good Friday Agreement or whether it was after various other proposals throughout the year, that we do take the time and have consultation periods and the response we give at the end of those consultation periods is sometimes “yes” and sometimes “no” but it’s always about going out, discussing, analysing, looking – that is the way we operate. So there are certain things that I can’t freely say here tonight because I am a leading member of my party and I think that other members of the party can more freely say “yes” or “no” to details than what I can do. But I don’t think you should be worried by that because James, although he’s being very positive, actually comes from a party that has set up a working party to analyse the Patten Report and my party has set up a working party to analyse it so I don’t think you can take what the two of us say here tonight as an indication of whether we’re going for it or not or the other way around.
Chair (Brendan O’Brien): “I just wanted to ask you Bairbre, given the time-scale that we’re talking about in consultation – should you become a Minister before the Patten legislation comes into effect, and Sinn Fein is seriously critical of the legislation, can you see yourself as a Minister of a government not encouraging people to join a police force?
Bairbre de Brún, MLA: “Well certainly if I am a Minister on the basis of the Good Friday Agreeent and I think that what is created runs against what was promised in the Good Friday Agreement, I would absolutely see myself in a ministerial office not recommending it, in fact very clearly I will recommend what I think is in keeping with what we signed up to in the Good Friday Agreement, but if it’s not then not only I would have no problem but in fact I would see it as an absolute duty to say it’s not what we want.
Chair (Brendan O’Brien): “Another huge debate there. James do you want to say anything to this man over here who made a rather impassioned plea to you to look to the future?
Questioner: It’s not just you I was referring to.
James Leslie, MLA: “Well I feel as though I am looking to the future, to echo the words of David Thompson, I can’t fix the past, I can only address myself to the now and to the future. In relation to Cllr. Reilly’s question; yes I do see policing as a law and order issue. I see law and order as being the business of the police, I see politics being the business of the politicians and the Patten Commission sets out objections for itself in taking the politics out of policing. I think there is less politics in policing than what is perhaps generally appreciated and that equally if we can even remove the perception that there’s any then I think that would be a very good result. Parliament decide what the law is, most of us obey it and the police have to deal with those who don’t, that’s what police forces do.
Q9: Cllr. Phil Cantwell (Chairman of Trim UDC): “I agree with Alex Attwood there about … justice. We have a Garda Siochana here that we can be proud of. We’re asking the RUC and everybody to change but are we prepared to change down here? The GAA refused to change the rules to allow members of the RUC play GAA. Can I put the question to Alex and Bairbre – when are you going to start encouraging the Nationalists to join the RUC and change it? I support that man there, let’s start from the beginning, forget about looking back. Get the Nationalists into the RUC and make the damn thing work. So I’ll put it to you and Alex, when are you going to say “let’s get in and make the thing work” or ask the GAA to change the rules?
Bairbre de Brún: “I will certainly not, under any circumstances be asking people to join the RUC, that I will absolutely certainly not do. When we have a new policing service that I am guaranteed is a new policing service, it’s a different question. My community – when I open my door in the morning what I have outside at the moment, is not a new policing service, it’s the RUC. This man’s relatives in Omagh, their experiences of the RUC. I visited on Sunday, one of my constituents whose son died a month ago, and she talked about the RUC coming into her home a week afterwards and standing laughing at his photograph.
Phil Cantwell: “I meant the new policing service.”
Bairbre: “OK, well that is a very different question. The answer then is when we’re sure that what we have is a new beginning. I want to see a new beginning”.
Phil Cantwell: “When will that be?”
Bairbre: “It will be when that’s what there is.”
Alex Attwood, MLA: “The answer is when there is a new policing order then the SDLP will encourage people to join that new policing order. When the Good Friday Agreement is implemented, when the Patten Report is implemented, then we’ll be saying to every citizen in the North you should participate in every institution and every institution set up under the Good Friday Agreement. We won’t shirk that responsibility. That can be sooner than Bairbre vaguely says. I don’t doubt that what Bairbre and David are saying are genuine because I know that they do a lot of things that are very difficult and very brave but I think that they are wrong. I do not believe that Bairbre de Brun’s assertion that the Nationalist community is totally, utterly and completely alienated from the RUC is correct. That may be the view of some, it is not the view of all, even though all of us have a grievance. I know that David says that Patten is part of the demoralisation of the Unionist community. That may be true in Portadown but I do not believe that it is true of the Unionist community in general. I think we’re much broader churches than those sort of statements suggest and therefore there is a much greater diversity of view than saying the unionist community is completely alienated or the nationalist community is completely alienated.
Phil Cantwell: “I’d just like to ask Bairbre that if the GAA rule was changed, would Bairbre endorse that?”
Bairbre: “No I think the GAA is perfectly right in saying that it’s far far too premature at present and that they need to look and see what’s happening. I didn’t hear Alex Attwood make a time-scale that was any less vague than mine to be absolutely truthful. I think that not only would I say to people that we’re not rushing to make decisions at present but I would appeal to anybody that’s genuinely interested in seeing a new beginning in policing, not to make any hasty decisions anyway. Let’s build towards something new but let’s not make the mistake that because we have a piece of paper here that we have a new beginning.
Alex Attwood: “Don’t rush to hasty judgements – let her apply that principal to the implementation of the Good Friday Agreeement . Sinn Fein are repeatedly, endlessly talking about the Good Friday Agreement not being implemented etc. and now you’re saying don’t rush judgment with respect to policing, why are you rushing judgment with everything else? Apply the same principles to all elements of the Good Friday Agreement, do not be selective with respect to one or the other.”
Bairbre de Brún, MLA: “Hold on a minute. I am perfectly capable of saying whether or not the equality agenda has been implemented, whether or not there are institutions in place and whether or not the human rights of people are better or worse than they were 18 months ago. There is a difference between making hasty judgments, betwen saying, “I’ve looking at Patten and it should be put in the bin”, or “I’ve looked at Patten and that means I’ve got a new policing service and I don’t have the RUC outside my door” and saying “I want a new beginning to policing and I will look at this to see if this solves it”.
“That doesn’t mean I’m not doing anything to get new policing or that I’m not doing anything about getting equality or that I’m not doing anything about getting human rights or the other things. There’s a difference between making knee-jerk reactions saying “I want an alternative to Patten”, when I haven’t even finished reading the three chapters of it and I’m already going to look for an alternative and I think it’s the shoddiest piece of work that was ever written, or saying “ I think it’s wonderful and it’s absolutely brilliant and therefore we now no longer have the RUC outside our doors” and saying “I want a new beginning to policing and I will work for that” and not pretend that that’s what we’ve got at the moment”.
Chair (Brendan O’Brien): “Now I’m going to give Dr. Mansergh the last say, but before I do there’s a man here who has something to say and I think our friend from Portadown also wants to speak.”
Q.10. John Clancy (Meath Peace Group): “It was very interesting listening to all the speakers but from the perspective of someone who lives in the south I find it sublimely depressing in terms of the sitting on the fence that I’ve heard here about Patten, about Good Friday and all that. But I would put forward this perspective, and it is a perspective held by a broad band of people in the 26 counties – get on with the job of implementing the electoral mandate that you were given when voters both north and south voted “implement Good Friday” and that’s addressed to you Ms. De Brun, to you Mr. Attwood and to you Mr. Leslie.
Q.11. David Thompson: “Just two comments; one, put yourself in the place of the RUC now over the last number of years. Because of the violence when the troubles started, there were certain sections, probably Nationalist sections of the community you couldn’t go into. Then there were probably Nationalist middle-class sections you couldn’t go into. Then we get to 1985 and you couldn’t go into certain Protestant working-class areas and now it’s pushed and pushed and pushed where we’re now in the sort of upper-middle-class leafy suburbs fighting. How much chance do you think they get to really get in touch with the communities they are trying to police? It makes it extremely difficult for a police service operating in that environment. We’ve almost got a police service in Northern Ireland into a third community. They’re not really a unionist or a nationalist police service, they’re actually almost separate identities now. They’re hiding and they have been hiding.
“The second point that I wanted to make is going back to that thing about emblems. If we really knew the violence had been set aside as a thing of the past, if we could be sure that it’s going to take extreme situations to occur before we will actually reach out with violence again. Then we could have at least said, we’re set in the past now, the Unionist community could have said to the RUC “thank you, job well done” and the service could have easily been changed and the emblems and badges and things being set aside with honour and we could have moved on. The problem is we haven’t got the confidence to say that ………..and I would say to our politicians that that’s what we want to hear along with the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.
Dr. Martin Mansergh: “If I could just pick up on what the last speaker was saying. I wouldn’t be too pessimistic, I think that that situation could come, and I think it’s very important so that we don’t have more policemen killed, so that they come out of what you described as limbo, is an acceptable basis to be established so that they are no longer in that limbo, so that they feel they have support or as much support as the police have in any normal community, if you remember that it will never be total.
All-Ireland policing: “There was just one theme, chaiman, which you picked up at the beginning of what I feel ..was a very constructive and calm and reasoned discussion tonight, the question of all-Ireland policing. Sometimes all-Ireland policing is used in the context of another debate like in a European army, you don’t really mean an all-Ireland police but just an element of all-Ireland policing. I remember when this came up for debate in 1982, it came up in an election context, and in fact was fairly divisive but then of course I suppose you were talking about the RUC as it has been in the last twenty, thirty years and in fact I think the RUC has evolved very considerably over the last thirty years and naturally enough thinking of the more Republican section of the community there was a very decided resistance to that idea. I think now you can imagine a situation of Patten being implemented and so on that the two police forces could co-operate very closely and could have – it’s touched on in the Patten report – training facilities on each side, have exchanges and so on. I don’t think to be realistic about it, in particular about the politics of it, that we’ll have an all-Ireland police service in the fullest sense of that term only when you have an all-Ireland policy, an all-Ireland police service if and when you get a united Ireland. I think irresepective of whether you get to that stage, I think there’s a great deal of merit – I mean we share an island together – of getting the situation where the inhibition, the barriers, the co-operation, the police services North and south can work very closely together without causing major umbrage either to Unionists or for that matter Republicans. I think we can get there, I think if we can get the institutions working, if people have the courage to go the whole hog with the report, I mean it isn’t going to work if people aren’t going to go the whole hog, then I think you could have a totally transformed situation in a few years time and relationships that were inconceivable a few years ago. I would be sort of cautiously hopeful, I mean provided that we keep up our courage and our convictions”
End
APPENDIX A: PATTEN COMMISSION (Independent Commission on Policing)
The Independent Commission on Policing was established on 3 June 1998 under the chairmanship of Christopher Patten, and after widespread consultation, public and private meetings, hearing of petitions and over 2, 500 individual submissions, produced its report (containing 175 recommendations) in September, 1999.
Terms of Reference as set out in the Good Friday Agreement: To “inquire into policing in Northern Ireland, and, on the basis of its findings, bring forward proposals for future policing structures and arrangements, including means of encouraging widespread community support for those arrangements. Its proposals on policing should be designed to ensure that policing arrangements, including composition, recruitment, training, culture, ethos and symbols, are such that in a new approach Northern Ireland has a police service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen as an integral part of, the community as a whole.”
APPENDIX B: “All I Have is Yours” – Msgr. Denis Faul, P.P., Termonmaguire, Co. Tyrone
Editor’s note: Msgr. Denis Faul was invited to speak but was unable to come on the date and sent his intended contribution in writing – we publish this in full below:
“The permanence of peace in Northern Ireland depends on the fulfilment of our Christian duties towards all the members of our community. The Semon on the Mount, the parable of the Prodigal Son and the Last Judgment scene in Matthew 25, make the essential and necessary demands on all, especially on leaders in the community.
“Partnership, co-operation, healing the hurts of the past and building confidence, trust and good neighbourly relations for the future, must be the aims of our political and social activity as Christians. Every statement and action made by politicians and community leaders should be positively tuned in to promote these four aims, healing confidence-building, co-operating and partnership, for the common good of all.. ..”
“Fascism terrifies the people in the two sides of the community and prevents trust between Catholics and Protestants. The hostility of the IRA and their political followers to the RUC and the Patten Report aggravated this division between Catholics and Protestants. An opportunity for unity was lost this year in the failure to honour and respect the 302 RUC men and women who were murdered, and the almost 9, 000 who were severely injured, defending the Catholic and Protestant parts of the community. Even the Patten Report itself inexplicably failed to pay a sufficient, decent and detailed tribute to the dead and wounded. I and the majority of Catholics support the Patten Report, but I would suggest that two names can be used – “RUC” and “The Northern Ireland Police Service” – and the Cap badge should be kept to make the relatives of the dead and wounded officers feel that their suffering and sacrifice was not forgotten and unrecognised.
“It is sincere gestures such as these which are necessary to unite this small community. The IRA do not feel the need to show genuine sympathy, mercy and good will to the victims and relatives of many people murdered and wounded by the IRA, including about 800 Catholics – for the majority of persons in Northern Ireland there was no war, just a nasty civil conflict which abolished Sunningdale in 1973 and killed for 23 years to get less than Sunningdale, leaving leaders still working a power process and not a real peace process.
“There has been enough of protest and airing of grievances in a hostile way. What ordinary people and their families want is positive co-operation and good will with their neighbours, first in the local district and then in power-sharing at provincial level. The “Acorn” principle is all important in politics – “All politics are local politics” – and we begin and build with our local neighbours. We co-operate, show generosity and respect for religious and political points of view – we must, as Archbishop Eames and Bishop Mahaffy strongly reminded us at their diocesan synod, put an end to sectarianism in thought, word and action. The people who live in Northern Ireland must achieve this in a strong resolve to change old nasty habits and traditions of domination and provocation.
“The charter for living together in peace and patient understanding and forgiveness comes from the highest source, God the Father, speaking as the father of the Prodigal Son. “All I have is yours”. We must be compassionate and kind towards our neighbour, especially if “that brother was dead and is alive again, was lost and is found”. In the small area of Northern Ireland that deep generous sense of sharing is essential. All we have that we consider worthy and admirable in our traditions we want to share with our neighbours while respecting and admiring what they hold dear. Often indeed on the local level of farming and village life that principle “all I have is yours” is manifested. Like the Acorn it must grow in larger districts, to county level, to provincial level and to the areas of the whole island of Ireland – an attitude of love and forgiveness and celebration of genuine good feeling and sharing. In this way the fear of being insulted, the dread of being attacked, of being treated in a hostile way, could be ended
“What the Catholic people of Northern Ireland long to see is Republicanism shine forth as in its original meaning in France, America and 1798 in Ireland, seeing each person as of equal value in basic human rights under God, eschewing monarchy and aristrocracy, recognising only an aristocracy of ability, virtue and service – “All I have is yours”. It is of the utmost importance that whatever steps are necessary, whatever gestures are requisite, whatever sacrifices are demanded of Irishmen individually or in groups, the moral unity of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter should be re-established by the safety of non-physical force republicanism. That would give all Irish Republicans something holy to celebrate at the grave in Bodenstown of Wolfe Tone, author of that long hoped for formula of Irish Unity, a unity of hearts – in common purpose and justice.
“One sign of this unity that would concretise that unity would be an unarmed Police Service of young Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter men and women with a dynamic of Human Rights and of compassion for the poor in the difficulties of today’s life. That would reassure all of us of balance and fair play.”
APPENDIX C: BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON SPEAKERS
Alex Attwood, MLA, is an SDLP member of the new NI Assembly for West Belfast, elected following the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement, in June 1998. Prior to his election to the Assembly he served on Belfast City Council.(1985- ), and was leader of the SDLP group on the council from 1993-1995 and from 1997 to the present. He was nominated to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin which sat from 1994-1996, and was part of the SDLP negotiation team at the Stormont talks held from 1996 to 1998 which culminated in the Good Friday Agreement. A practising solicitor, he was educated at St. Malachy’s College and Queen’s University Belfast, and was President of the QUB Students’ Union from 1982-83.
Bairbre de Brun, MLA, is a Sinn Fein member of the new Northern Ireland Assembly, elected in June 1998 for West Belfast. At the time of this talk she was Assembly party spokesperson on policing and justice, and was appointed Minister for Health on the formation of the new power-sharing Executive in December 1999. She served as Sinn Fein cultural affairs spokesperson in the late 1980s, and was the party’s international secretary from 1990-1996. Bairbre de Brun was educated in Dublin (UCD) and Belfast (QUB) and was former teacher of languages in Rathmore Grammar School, Belfast, and later at Northern Ireland’s first Irish language secondary school.
James Leslie, MLA, is a UUP Assembly member in the new Northern Ireland Assembly, elected in June 1998 representing North Antrim. He is party spokesman on social development and formerly served in the UDR from 1976-1978.
Dr. Martin Mansergh: Special Adviser to the Taoiseach and Head of Research, Fianna Fail, since 1981. His father Nicholas Mansergh was well-known historian and expert on Anglo-Irish relations, author of The Irish Question and many other books. Dr. Martin Mansergh entered the Dept. of Foreign Affairs in 1974 and joined the Taoiseach’s Department in 1981. Special adviser to Charles Haughey, Albert Reynolds and Bertie Ahern. He was nominated with Fr. Alex Reid and Rev. Roy Magee as a winner of the 1995 Tipperary Peace Prize for his role in the peace process. He has published a number of articles on the peace process and related Irish historical subjects.
Brendan O’Brien: Senior reporter with RTE current affairs: worked on Seven Days, Today Tonight and Prime Time. Jacob’s Award winner for investigative journalism, especially on drugs and serious crime. Reported on all aspects of the Northern Ireland conflict since 1974. Author of two books on the IRA: The Long War and A Pocket History of the IRA.
Meath Peace Group Report. 2000. (c) Meath Peace Group
Transcribed by Julitta Clancy and Sarah Clancy from videotapes taken by Anne Nolan. Edited by Julitta Clancy.
No. 33 -“The Human Rights Agenda”
Monday, 26 April 1999
St. Columban’s College, Dalgan Park, Navan, Co. Meath
Speakers:
Professor Brice Dickson (Chief Commissioner, NI Human Rights Commission)
Dermot Nesbitt, MLA (Assembly Member, Ulster Unionist Party)
John Kelly, MLA (Assembly Member, Sinn Féin)
Mgr. Denis Faul (PP, Carrickmore, Co. Tyrone)
Chaired by Ercus Stewart, S.C.
Contents:
Introduction – Julitta Clancy
Addresses of speakers
Questions and comments
Closing words
Appendix:- NI Human Rights Commission
Editor’s note: the decommissioning impasse provides the immediate context for this talk
INTRODUCTION
Julitta Clancy [extract] “..Listening to the radio today, I heard a young victim of the Troubles say that the Good Friday Agreement hadn’t changed anything, as far as his community was concerned. Now we all recognised in the midst of the jubilation last year that the Good Friday Agreement was not going to deliver peace immediately – the violence last summer is proof of that. The Agreement represents a unique and unprecedented compromise between the majority of people living on this island, but it will never work unless all of us who voted for it, from whatever tradition we have come, are fully behind it and behind the compromises that we signed up to, and it won’t work unless we all – but especially the parties involved – are enabled to recognise each other’s genuine difficulties and work to make their compromises easier to digest. As said to us by a loyalist member of the audience last year, this Agreement has made us all guardians of each other’s rights and we all have a role and responsibility in helping it to work, so that everyone, especially the young people of Northern Ireland, can look forward to a future free of violence and where they can all feel respected and included. Our thoughts and prayers are with the parties trying to find a way out of the difficult impasse that has arisen.
Chair, Ercus Stewart, S.C. “I’m delighted to be here. Now we have four speakers…. I’ll try to keep some limit on the time – hopefully around twenty minutes maximum per speaker. I’m conscious we’re a bit late starting and I’m conscious it’s more important to have discussion, questions and answers… So I’ll try to be a bit more disciplined than some of the tribunals that are going around! ….I’ll hand you over now to our first speaker, Professor Brice Dickson.
ADDRESSES OF SPEAKERS
1. Professor Brice Dickson (Chief Commissioner, NI Human Rights Commission) “Thank you very much for inviting me here – its a pleasure to be here. I’d just like to pay tribute to the work of the Meath Peace Group. I’ve been here before and I’ve read your publications and I think you’re a fantastic outfit so keep up the good work and well done! As the chairman said I think it’s probably better to have a discussion rather than a “jug and mug” type presentation so I’ll try and keep my presentation fairly short.
Human Rights Commission: “You should have a one-page document from me about the Commission. It sets out our duties and powers and our mission statement [see Appendixto this report]. Let me just remind you that the Commission was promised in the Good Friday Agreement along with a Human Rights Commission for the Republic of Ireland, and that Agreement, as you know, was heartily endorsed by 72% of the population in Northern Ireland and 94% in the Republic of Ireland. So there certainly is popular support for things contained in the Good Friday Agreement.
“The Northern Human Rights Commission officially came into being on the first of March this year. There are ten of us on the Commission – I’m the only full time person, there are nine part-time people. We were appointed after responding to adverts in newspapers, being shortlisted and being interviewed by a panel of people including an external assessor – a panel of people put together by the Northern Ireland Office with an external person. The names then went to the Secretary of State who officially appointed people.
Representativenessof the Commission: “There have been some remarks as to whether we are representative or not. The legislation requires the Secretary of State to appoint a commission which is as representative as is possible – or as is practical, I think the phrase is in Northern Ireland. Of the ten of us there are five women and five men. To be crude about it there are six people who would be perceived as Protestants and four who would be perceived as Catholics. There are six people who have a legal qualification, although only one of those six actually practises law – the others are academic lawyers or are working in a different capacity. If I was facetious I would say it’s just as well we’re not as representative of Northern Ireland as the Assembly members are because if we were we would never agree on anything! But I won’t say that!
“Having chaired several meetings as Commissioner I am confident that a very broad range of opinions on human rights is represented on the Commission in Northern Ireland. We’ve had vibrant debates about some things. So far we’ve been able to reach a consensus on matters we’ve wanted to take action on and I hope that will continue to be the case. We also have the power to set up committees on which non-commissioners can sit. So, for example there is no disabled person on our commission and if we were doing work on disability it would be right and proper I think, that we appointed at least one or two disabled people onto the relevant committee to help us with our work. And to the extent that we are not representative – of course representativeness has a huge number of dimensions in any society – we can try to rectify that by bringing on other people onto the committees. There’s only one person, for example. on the Commission who lives outside the greater Belfast area – she comes from Derry. There’s nobody from Armagh or Tyrone on the Commission.
Concept of human rights: “There is, let’s be honest about it, a certain chill factor at work in Northern Ireland with regard to the very concept of human rights. It has traditionally been seen as a concept that is more favourable to those of a nationalist disposition than those of a unionist disposition. Now I think that is a misconception of the concept and certainly for as long as I’m Chief Commissioner I will try to ensure that the Commission on Human Rights works for the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland because everybody does have something to gain from the effective protection and promotion of human rights. The legislation does not define what human rights means in this context. It gives us those functions which are laid out on that piece of paper that I’ve given you, but it doesn’t say what human rights are. All it says is that human rights includes the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, which, as you may or may not know, are already being incorporated into the law of all parts of the UK by the Human Rights Act 1998. What we as a Commission have decided to do is to define human rights as being those rights which are internationally recognised by inter-governmental organisations as being deserving of protection. Now there’s a very wide range of such rights – there are numerous documents issued by the United Nations, by the Council of Europe, by the EU, by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe etc., the International Labour Organisation for example. There are lots and lots of these internationally agreed documents and we have chosen in our Mission Statement [see Appendix] to measure all laws, policies and practices in Northern Ireland against those internationally recognised standards. “We think that is a safe way of proceeding. It should be an uncontentious way of proceeding.
“I’m not pretending that everything in those international documents is unambiguous – if that were the case there would be no need for international courts and tribunals to decide what the various words mean in those treaties. But they do provide a platform, a solid platform from which to work and that’s what we’ve chosen to do.
Bill of Rights: “..Probably the two most important functions of the Commission are numbers four and five. Number four is, in effect, our duty to draft a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Now I think I ‘m right in saying that every political party in Northern Ireland, including those parties that voted “No” to the Agreement are in favour of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. They may differ as to what it should contain but they are in agreement on the principle, and we see it as our job to bring the politicians together on that issue and try to draft those rights which are acceptable across the political spectrum.
Promoting understanding of human rights: “..Function number 5 on that list is to promote understanding and awareness of the importance of human rights and we intend to do that by getting out and about and discussing human rights with as many people as we can in Northern Ireland – individuals and organisations. We want to hear people’s views… We already had a number of consultative meetings, in Derry and Enniskillen and there was an event in Belfast on Saturday that a few of us were at. The overwhelming message we got – certainly from the Enniskillen and Derry events – was that the rights that people want to see protected most of all are the socio-economic rights, i.e. the right to a proper standard of healthcare in society, the right to a proper education system, rights for disabled people etc. We had lots of stories from, say, mothers of dyslexic children who couldn’t get proper education facilities for those children; we had disabled people saying they couldn’t get access to buildings; we had people saying that there was no local maternity unit and this was endangering mothers who were about to give birth. At neither the Derry nor the Enniskillen meetings were the words “police” or “criminal justice “ mentioned by any of the people attending. Now it’s true that the audience consisted mainly of people from community and voluntary organisations. They weren’t otherwise politically active, or party politically active people, but I do think the message to be drawn from those two events is that there’s a great deal of work to be done on the socio-economic front, never mind the civil and political front – the more traditional and more controversial front that human rights are normally associated with.
Promotion of human rights culture: “We will have the power to go to court either in our own name or to support other individuals who’ve got human rights disputes but I think it’s fair to say that we’re not going to be – with respect, chairman – a gift to the lawyers. We’re not there to put money in the lawyers’ pockets. If there are disputes over human rights we will try to get those disputes solved out of court, amicably by negotiation, by settlement, and in doing so we hope to promote a human rights discourse or, as the jargon puts it, “promote a human rights culture”. Now I admit in saying that that there is a danger as well. A human rights analysis cannot solve all of our society’s problems and we would be wrong to think that it could. There are problems which only politicians can solve by accommodating their differences and no amount of human rights analysis will ensure a solution. It can facilitate a solution – it can provide the right language, provide the right principles …. We as a Commission will try and facilitate the politicians and other people in society who have got disputes but we can’t promise solutions.
Examples of complaints: “The sorts of complaints that have been taken to us already range very widely (we don’t actually have the powers to take these to court until 1st June). But to give you some sort of illustration: we’ve had some people come to us and say that the law doesn’t protect their rights to custody to their child in a case where the parents separated; we’ve had people say that they don’t have proper access to healthcare – that they’re being ignored by the local health clinic or social security offices; we’ve had members of ethnic minorities coming to us saying that they had been discriminated against. We’ve had an individual coming to us and saying he wants to join the Labour Party (the British Labour Party). You may or may not know, If you live in Northern Ireland you cannot join the Labour Party – they have a rule saying you are excluded from membership so in effect you could argue in the North that we’re all governed by a party in Westminister or Whitehall that we cannot join. Some people think that’s an abuse of human rights. Whether we will be able to do too much about that, I don’t know.
Legislation against terrorism: “We have issued a consultation paper, or rather a response to the government’s consultation paper on legislation against terrorism. I can go into our recommendations on that front if you would like me to. We’ve made presentations internationally and I think we will see it as our role, given our mission statement, to present ourselves internationally not in a threatening way to anyone in Northern Ireland or the British Government but in as helpful a way as possible.
Republic’s Human Rights Commission: “We also have the duty .. to interact with the Republic’s Human Rights Commission. The heads of the Bill to create a Commission here in the Republic are currently being debated in Dail committees and I’m told that legislation should be passed in June and your Commission should be appointed in July. It is going to have greater investigative powers than we do. We can’t, for example, compel people to give us evidence, although the government did say in the debates in Parliament that they would fully co-operate with any investigation we sought to carry out. It looks as if your Commission is going to be appointed by the government rather than selected after a public advertising system… Chairman I’m going to finish there in the hope that there will be questions at the end. Thanks very much.”
2. Dermot Nesbitt (UUP Assembly Member, spokesman on the Economy and member of the Talks Team): “Thank you … It is genuinely a pleasure to be here…. But equally as the pleasure I’m also confronted with a yearning, a genuine yearning to be in a peaceful and stable environment that you living here in the Republic find yourselves in. It’s very nice to drive along the Boyne Valley, of all the valleys of all in this island … it was lovely and I yearn for peace.
“I’ve twenty minutes to give you a few ideas. What Julitta said to me was the “Human Rights agenda – a Unionist perspective”. I’ll say very briefly at the outset that all of those eight points in front of you [extract from Good Friday Agreement chapter on “Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity”] – the rights to free political thought, the right to expression of religion etc. – the Ulster Unionist party subscribes to all those rights. We wish to see those implemented.
“But what of my thoughts on rights? Well we know the world is ever-changing, we know the world has always problems to solve, and we know it’s always more easy to define a problem than it is to define a solution.
Minority rights protection: “There are times in life when there are dramatic changes that make new problems to be solved. I believe one such dramatic change was the demise of the USSR and that has brought with it many more problems in Europe. The problems are more within states than between states. It requires what is commonly known as group accommodation – minority rights protection. Indeed what was viewed as a unique problem – the Northern Ireland problem – is now a problem which finds itself in many places throughout Europe, so therefore I believe that we are not now standing in a unique situation, but rather a situation found elsewhere.
“If I can give you a brief definition – because unless we, from a rights point of view, from a unionist or nationalist point of view, can actually understand, define the problem, it is therefore very difficult to determine a solution in a rights context. I’ll quote not a unionist but a nationalist, Austin Currie, a senior member of the Oireachtas. He said about the Northern Ireland problem and I quote: “Fundamentally the Northern Ireland conundrum is one of conflicting national identities – between those who believe themselves Irish and those who believe themselves British. There are religious, social, political, cultural and other dimensions to the problem but they are only dimensions of a central issue.”
“Now I use the word “minority” – let me just say something about that from the outset because I don’t actually like using that word minority because it does connotate in one’s mind the feeling of somehow being of lesser importance than the majority. As Brice said a moment ago there are many aspects in the international community. One of them is the Council of Europe and it has defined the minority in the context of Northern Ireland as follows: people who display a distinctive ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic characteristic and they are motivated by a concern to preserve together that which constitutes their common identity and they should be sufficiently representative, although smaller in number than the rest of the population in that state or region of a state.
“That reflects what I view as a minority, merely a smaller number – nothing other than that. How have we approached this problem? We did say in our Manifesto to the Forum election that rights “were the fundamental building block of any agreement regarding the future governance of Northern Ireland”. A fundamental building block as regards the future governance of Northern Ireland. Indeed those basic rights which should be there, they are fine, as Brice has rightly said, within international human rights. They embrace many categories: civil, political, economic, social, religious and cultural.
“Our problem in Northern Ireland is how we actually manage the differences that exist within Northern Ireland and at the same time be consistent with democratic principles and practices that apply elsewhere – how we manage the conflict but also align with principles and practices that apply elsewhere in a democracy. That’s the challenge wefaced in the talks, that’s the challenge I believe we have succeeded in resolving. But I say in the same breath that’s the challenge I say to you that I believe from the unionist community we have gone that extra mile, we have put that extra effort to try and find a settlement that all can feel at ease with.
“Let’s just look at that very briefly because these rights that Brice again talks about – I quote from the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation (an Irish government event) – from one of their documents – and they state: “human rights to be protected are defined by established conventions drawn up by international agreement, as such they form part of international law and must not be thought of as bargaining between parties as to what they represent.”
Nationalism and unionism: “I want to make something very clear before we look at what I view as a unionist …. we respect nationalism; nationalism we believe has that legitimacy as does unionism. We are not about trying to trample nationalism, and I say that with all the sincerity that I can say. There is a difference in International law between nationalism and unionism as I perceive it. They are both legitimate rights. The right to be a unionist and the right to be a nationalist – both have equal legitimacy, but in legal terms there is a difference. Northern Ireland in international law is a region of the United Kingdom – the UK comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland according to international law. Irish nationalism’s right is the right – and a legitimate right – to change that legal position …..
“In the United Nations – the most overseeing over-arching international body – the ambassador to the UN from the state I live in is the ambassador from the UK. There is legitimacy to change that but that is the legal position. The principles of human rights therefore flow from that. The latest example – as was described also in a document to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation – I’m talking about the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, and it was described as “the first multi-national instrument devoted in its entirety to the protection of minorities” and it contains much more detailed provisions on such protection than any other international instrument. The party that I represent made strong advocacy within the talks that the United Kingdom Government ratify that Convention. It subsequently has ratified it and it is now in force within the UK – the Irish Government has agreed to ratify it, but as yet it is not ratified.
“Many of those rights that are protected are in front of you in those eight points – cultural, linguistic, educational and religious rights.
International standards: “There are certain other principles of international law which is the last part I wish to address .. I’m watching my time carefully… I welcome Professor Brice Dickson’s comments that it’s the international instruments, the international standards that he wishes to see practised in Northern Ireland. Let us look for a moment at those international standards and let us see how we respond to those international human rights standards in the context of the problem in Northern Ireland. The starting point if you look throughout Europe where they try and resolve conflicts like here in Northern Ireland – and there are many, Kosova is the most problematical one at the moment…. But the starting point always is that you start with in a state and you get functioning democracy within that state within that region. Unionism wished for that – a regional government in Northern Ireland. Unionism was prepared and did accommodate that we would have to get an agreement in all of its sphere before there was any implementation of any aspect, within Northern Ireland north,south, east and west – that is an accommodation from what would be an accepted law.
“The second point – and again this is established in law – where there is strident nationalism borders are to be recognised, they are to be recognised.
“Article 21 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities – remember it’s a ratified statement initially signed by over 40 nations, described as the most effective method for the protection of minorities – and in Article 21 it says, and I quote it verbatim “Nothing in the present Framework Convention shall be interpreted as implying any right to engage in any activity or perform any act contrary to the fundamental principles of international law and in particular of the sovereign equality, territorial integrity and political independence of states“ That’s a fundamental principle of international law that transcends all other mechanisms of human rights. I say to you – not in an aggressive way but in an open and frank way, I realise I’m in your country, this part of the island whatever way you wish to phrase it… The Constitutional guarantee – your constitutional change over claiming NI – is a conditional change. What you did on the 22nd of May last year was you gave the government the right to change the Constitution but your Constitution has not been changed – it will only be changed if your government is satisfied on the various governmental structures that will be set up, north/south east/west and within Northern Ireland. That’s conditional to our integrity, not found anywhere else in the democratic world, but we have accepted that and I say that genuinely. I could go on further but it’ll come up in questions as I’ve only five minutes left.
One further element that is found in international law is that where there is dissension within a region or a state regarding the validity of that state, autonomous self-government should be set up embracing as many parties within that region as possible. I believe genuinely that what we have agreed to in Northern Ireland – the automatic inclusion in government, namely the right to discharge responsibility on behalf of the executive – the higher level of government. There is a conditional right for all to participate in that – that is maximising an embracing form of government so as there will be a maximum allegiance to and affinity with it. We wish to see that implemented and I’d like to see that come up in discussion. Rights also have attaching to them responsibilities and with the right to be in Government goes the responsibility to demonstrate absolutely a commitment to peace, democracy and therefore stability. That’s a maxim in the democratic world, we subscribe to that maxim.
“Another international trait: where there is dissension across borders – like north and south Tyrol, like Czeckoslovakia or the Czech Republic and Bavaria, like Hungaria and Slovakia, like Bulgaria and Romania….. there are many examples where there is a dissension across the border because there are people living in one country and they have an affinity with the neighbouring country. Where that occurs, what is to happen is that trust and confidence are to be built up slowly and institutional links across the borders if they are to occur are to be built up over time on the basis of an already existing structural government.
“We have bought into institutional links across this border and yet there is no institutional government in Northern Ireland; we bought into it as a package. Again that is not something that is found elsewhere in the deomocratic world.
Questions for Brice Dickson: “… I just want to pose a few questions to the first speaker, Professor Brice Dickson – I have noted on at least three occasions in Northern Ireland he has made reference to the international standards of human rights, and that is what we should subscribe to. I also noted again that he made reference to international standards of human rights tonight. I do believe in that context of international human rights and standards that the Human Rights Commission could perform a very significant function especially at this present very difficult and very delicate situation in Northern Ireland. I believe he can make a significant contribution.
Question 1: “I appeared on “Saturday Live” on RTE radio a few Saturdays ago and Mitchel McLaughlin from Sinn Fein made it very clear that he was in the business of trying to create an environment by which voluntary decommissioning could take place. He added that what he wished to see was an “open, democratic and inclusive society”. Dermot Ahern, cabinet minister, responded that those conditions “are now in place”. I ask Brice – from the point of view of International rights practice – would he agree with Dermot Ahern, that the conditions are now in place and therefore decommissioning should now commence?
Question 2: “…Secondly and more generally, international human rights andstandards that apply elsewhere, as it says in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, must be within the rule of law and also respect territorial integrity. In other words … there can be no place for an illegal operation or a potential for illegality. It doesn’t square with democracy. Therefore I say again, from an international human rights point of view, do you agree that, in line with international standards, that decommissioning should now commence?
Question 3: “… Final one, the rule of law – what is right and what is wrong. Democratic government on the one hand and linkage with illegality is non-compatible. Therefore again, looking at the principles and practices and standards of international human rights law, can you agree that a political party with an inextricable linkage with illegality cannot participate in government? Hard questions.
“In conclusion, I genuinely wish to see as inclusive a form of government as is possible – I’ve said it publicly often, on the national media. I want to see unionism, nationalism and republicanism in government, becauseI believe only with the most composition of that government will we have that which is most stable and that which we’ll have the most affinity to. But I’m asking for that. This is not a question of “yes” camp versus the “no” camp in Northern Ireland, it’s not a question of unionism versus nationalism, or it’s not a question of unionism wishing to exclude republicanism. It is not that. Indeed it’s not even a question of the BeIfast Agreement. It’s much much more deep than that because it goes to the heart of international human rights standards. It goes to the very heart of democracy. That’s what it’s about. It’s about right and wrong. It’s about democracy versus non-democracy. It’s about the rule of law and illegality.
“Those are the rights from a unionist perspective I put to you. I genuinely wish to hear you question me on that. I’m delighted to be here. I believe …the Belfast Agreement does offer a wonderful opportunity for all of us on this island because it reflects both a political and geographical reality. The political reality that Northern Ireland is a region of the UK but that there is a large number within it who would wish to be owing allegiance to the neighbouring state. It also reflects the geographical reality of the British/Irish isles. When Tony Blair visited the Oireachtas in November, Ireland came of age because it didn’t view the English as coming in as some oppressor. And Ireland is of age – you have a wonderful economy. Can we not build together within the island and between these islands – unionism and nationalism? Because Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland – they’re having devolved government now in Scotland and Wales. I listened to your new consul general being appointed to Edinburgh, two days ago, where he said we’re setting up our consul office in Edinburgh because there’s much in common between us and Scotland and there’s much we can do together. You already have an implementation body … gas linkage between Scotland and Ireland, Kinsale gas. There’s a wonderful opportunity to go forward – to give us peace, stability and prosperity, for all on this island – unionist, nationalist, Protestant, Catholic, Dissenter or whatever. It must be built on solid, durable foundations of democracy, peace and stability and, yes, the rights of law to protect it. Thank you”.
3. John Kelly, MLA (Sinn Féin Assembly Member)
“Good evening … Some people say, in Stormont do you ever meet unionists and talk to them. We do occasionally, and Dermot Nesbitt and I have a common problem with a bad back so we sometimes discuss our bad backs with one another but that’s about it! Outside, before we were having our photograph taken, Dermot said he was the only unionist here having his photograph taken, but I reminded him that I was also a unionist – a unionist who believed in the unity of the island of Ireland as opposed to his unionism. It was a facetious remark but nevertheless it captured the very kernel of the problem that has beset us over the last eighty years …
“When I was asked to address you it was to give a republican perspective of human rights. By the way I’m glad to see an old friend of mine here Sean Mac Stiofain in the audience.
Minorities: “I’m an old-fashioned republican who believes in the idea of Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter living under the common name of Irishman. That brings in the question of minorities. I don’t like the word minority either because it conjures up ideas that there is and continues to be a deprived section of any society whether it’s Irish society, English society or universal society. I also believe in the 1916 Proclamation which, when you read it carefully, was a very well thought out and well-constructed document. And particularly when it talks about “cherishing all the children of the nation equally”. Dermot said when he came down, driving along the Boyne, how glad he was to see the kind of peaceful society that exists on this side of the border. As he said that I wondered – is it peaceful by default? Is it peaceful because people have excepted or resiled from the idea or the concept of the 1916 proclamation which said you should cherish all the children of our nation equally. Because I don’t think by any judgment, nationalist or unionist … that the children of the 26 counties are cherished equally in this society. So I just wondered that perhaps while the violence is in the Northern part of the state – and we get all the bad publicity from it, all the bad press, people in Dublin when they see something on the news about the North of Ireland they want to turn off their televisions. So it’s a cosy existence and Fulton Sheen once said, talking about the east and the west, that the east had the Cross without Christ and the west had Christ without the Cross…. I sometimes think that we in the North of Ireland suffer unduly for the problems that were created by the island and the islands as a whole or as a totality.
“In paragraph 4.15 of the New Ireland Forum – I read this today and it was going through my mind and I thought to remind ourselves and to remind myself of it certainly – it says that “the solution to the historic problem and the current crisis in Northern Ireland and the continuing problem of relations between Ireland and Britain necessarily requires new structures that will accommodate together two sets of legitimate rights. The right of nationalists to effective political, symbolic and administrative expression of their identity and the right of unionists to effective political, symbolic and administrative expression of their identity, their ethos and their way of life.” It goes on to say “so long as the legitimate rights of both unionists and nationalists are not accommodated together in new political structures acceptable to both, that situation will continue to give rise to conflict amd instability.” I think those words are worth repeating because the absence of those structures gives effect to the continuing conflict that lies at the heart of our problem – the reconciliation of two sets of cultures, two sets of ideas of what this nation should be and how we should arrive at an accommodation that fulfills all our expectations, that fulfills all our yearnings for human rights, for equality, for basic dignity.
Human rights: “We talk about human rights. I just wondered when Brice was talking, it becomes a kind of charter for lawyers in many ways and I agree with all that he said in the points that were laid out, but in many ways it becomes a very legalistic way of looking at human rights. What are human rights if they are not an attempt at dignity of the human being, if it’s not to aspire to a society that gives and enhances our dignity as human beings?
“Indeed the most fundamental human right of all is the right to life and yet we, not just us from the six counties, have murdered one another in the name of human rights or in the name of an ideal, in the name of a concept, in the name of freedom indeed. And that applied to the whole island – I’ll come back on this that we all had a responsibility in this, not just those of us who are prisoners, or captives of the political situation that was left to us to solve.
“Prisoners have human rights, but prisoners are not free. We could all have human rights and still not have our freedom. I accept that everyone can’t have absolute freedom, we must have certain constraints in our society and the societies within which we live. Dermot spoke eloquently from a unionist perspective and I’m attempting to speak to you from a republican perspective.
Treatment of minority in the Northern state: “…I don’t wish to provoke an argument, or to provoke a row with Dermot or to any other unionist that is here, but it’s undeniable that since the inception of the state of Northern Ireland rights were denied to those who were considered to be the minority. They were denied to them because those who formed that majority …felt that to treat us as equals would endanger their majority, endanger their rule.
“So we had the perpetuation of this monolithic dictatorship in the six counties. We had one-party government for nigh on 60 years and no way of changing that government, no way of changing it in a democratic fashion, no way of changing it by the ballot box. There was nothing in nationalist minds to convince them that the political process was the way forward to achieve what they considered to be their fundamental and basic human rights which they were denied. I don’t say that to be dissentious …Those are the facts that existed within the sociey in which I grew up as a young republican – I don’t say nationalist which is different in many ways for me as I’m a republican, I still hold to that concept, I still believe in the Presbyterian concept of liberty, equality and fraternity of the United Irishmen. That was the thing that imbued us as young men and perhaps people would say that we were misguided, who’s to say, but it was our way of expressing our independence, it was our way of expressing our resentment and our rejection of the state of which we felt prisoners and we were prisoners.
Historic opportunity: “We have now come to a new plateau, we have now come after 30 years of inflicting suffering, pain and hardship on one another. We’ve now come – I hesitate to use the word “crossroads” because with Terence O’Neill it conjures up bad memories – but we have come to a crisis and we have come to a point where we in the Northern part of this island and we in all of this island and in Britain have an historic opportunity to resolve once and for all, and for all time, the ongoing conflict that has beset this island, not just for 30 years or 50 years, but for 800 years. We have an opportunity – and Dermot mentioned this in the last part of his address – to remove once and for all, to take out once and for all the gun from Irish politics, to make obsolete any reason by any group, by any section of our society to resort to physical force as a means of achieving a political objective. We have at this time now an historic opportunity to grasp that victory and it would be a victory, not for us, not for me and my generation or indeed for Dermot’s generation but for our children and our children’s childrenand those coming after them because I see us as just being caretakers of the present political process. I see us in a caretaker capacity and we will not be forgiven lightly by those who come after us, if they look back on history and say in 1999 we set of politicians in the North of Ireland, in the south of Ireland and in Britain, had an opportunity to bring to an end the bloody war that is the Irish Question.
Decommissioning: “And so Dermot, it’s not about decommissioning as far as republicans are concerned. Republicans are anxious and eager to take the gun out of Irish politics. I don’t know any republican who wishes to continue the armed conflict. If the political structures are in place that allow us, all of us, to work within that political structure, to work within that political framework, to work towards our differing political objectives, free from censorship, free from harassment, free from all the things that a Bill of Human Rights entails, that should and must be afforded us now.
Leap of political faith: “We all have to be courageous and I think republicans have been very courageous. Dermot I think made light of Articles 2 and 3. It wasn’t easy for republicans to swallow the bitter pill of resiling from Articles 2 and 3. Neither was it easyfor republicans to give recognition to a 6-county state, a six county political parliament if you like, and that’s only two aspects. So republicans have come a long journey in a short time and they were successful, by and large, in that journey because they went to their grass roots and they took them with them and they educated them politically on the wayforward and the grass roots accepted it by and large, apart from those who one might term dissenters, and we were all dissenters at one stage. And so I say to Dermot – and I’m saying this as honestly and openly and sincerely as I can – Sinn Fein cannot deliver on decommissioning. Sinn Fein should not be asked to deliver on that which they are unable to deliver…
“Sinn Fein entered this Agreement and have pursued it honestly and sincerely for the last year, attempting to find a political accommodation amongst all of us. To erect this barrier, this impediment now at this stage can only be seen as another way of exercising the unionist veto. I’m not saying that that is the case for Dermot, but I’d ask you to consider – as we are attempting to consider the very genuine problems that face unionism – to consider the very genuine problems that confront and face republicanism and nationalism. And surely if we can reach out with some degree of trust….this is a holy place I suppose here in Dalgan – if we can make a leap of political faith and say “let’s go for it, let’s give it a chance, forget our fears”. I mean nothing was ever achieved on this earth by people who were afraid to try. What was it Kennedy said? – “We have nothing to fear but fear itself”. That’s my honest belief at the present time – that we have nothing to fear except fear itself. I believe that there is sufficient goodwill between both our communities in the North of Ireland and between our communities throughout the island of Ireland to make that leap of faith and I would say to Dermot, let’s make that leap of faith. Thank you.”
4. Mgr. Denis Faul (PP, Carrickmore)
“Thank you…. Now I’m a republican too, just like Bertie Ahern and John Bruton. But I’m also an Irish unionist which means I’d like all the people of Ireland to be united in charity, generosity and courage. I’m not particularly interested in territorial unity because I don’t see much of it, all my parishoners in Carrickmore get their diesel and petrol from the south, so there is no economic border there, and politics tends to follow economics. If the Celtic Tiger keeps going I’m sure some of the Belfast people will come down to get some of the money. I would think the Catholic people in Northern Ireland – and I base this on surveys in the Belfast Telegraph – are not particularly worried about the border. Everybody’s worried about their rights. In that survey in the Belfast Telegraph it says: “want border to go” – 30% say “no” and 40% say “we don’t know” (you ask the Irish a difficult question they say “I don’t know” !)
Education: “I think the majority are happy enough because they have a marginal advantage in education, and in health you’ve somewhat more money to spend. Education is the great weapon of liberation and it is the great weapon in Northern Ireland for it has liberated the Catholic community. I think outside our churches and schools we should have a statue of Rab Butler, he was a politician as you may know in Mr. Churchill’s government during the war and in 1944 he passed the Free Education Act and it came into force in Northern Ireland in 1948, and you only have to say 1948, 1968 when the civil rights came – 20 years. It just took three generations of Catholic school children to go through the grammar school and university system then stood up and said “we want equality, we want our rights, we’re as good as you are”.
“John Hume, Austin Currie, Bernadette Devlin…all got their education free and went to university. So education is what liberates people, not violence. I wish we could apply it to the Third World. Things happened. When we looked for human rights, as you know, the Catholics were met with violence. In 1969 they burned down the Falls Road and killed eight eople and a policeman…. So one thing led to another, and violence is a spiralling thing – a spiral of violence creates another spiral of violence. That’s why we have to get rid of it.
Human rights and human rights bodies: “Human rights worries me a great deal because it’s very often a phoney thing. Human rights bodies can do a great deal of good and can do a great deal of damage. Many of the human rights bodies that I know of and many of the people associated with them for example are in favour of abortion. The “fundamental right to life”, as John Kelly just used that expression – if a human rights bodies deny the fundamental right to life, either for the unborn or the elderly, and I’m an old-aged pensioner myself so I’m worried. So I’ve no respect for a lot of these human rights bodies, I’ve no respect for the people who are in them ..because I know that they are in favour of those kinds of things. The fundamental right to life, from the unborn baby to the old person who needs nutrition.. It’s all been passed in the laws of the Republic which to my mind brings the laws of the Republic of Ireland into contempt and the judiciary are in contempt and I’ve never had any respect for the judiciary since. Other people don’t seem to like them at present! So we have a lot of human rights politicians who are involved in the destruction of the lives of the weakest and these rich countries who are controlled by human rights bodies, they interfere radically with the poor nations to engage in birth prevention. It would be a very good point to leave with Brice that at the moment we strongly suspect that the Labour Government in England and Mo Mowlam and so on, are going to bring in abortion into NI through an Order in Council …and it will be brought in and I wonder will the Human Rights Commission take it up and fight it. It’s fundamental, absolutely fundamental. I’ll have no respect for the Human Rights Commission if they’re not prepared to fight abortion.
State terrorism: “Amnesty International would be one of the ones that I would have great respect for because it fights against governments. Most governments control the human rights situation. From the 15th to the 17th of October 1998 the EU Parliamentary Union held a conference in Strasbourg on terrorism. I was at it, as a representative of the Holy See, and it was rather extraordinary, there was nobody there from the Irish Government, nobody there from the British Government. The nations who were there all talked about the rights of governments to fight terrorism. The Spanish had their minister there, the French, the Israelites, the Turks who were noted for torture – they were there in large numbers, all the government officials were there and they all spoke eloquently: “We’re all democracies, we trust each other, there’s no chance of any ill-treatment of prisoners.” The only ones who spoke against it were Kevin McNamara from England and Conor Gearty from Co. Longford. There was no mention of State terrorism which in the 20th century has been the most frequent form of terrorism – you can go back to fascism in Germany and so on.
“To give you an example of the way that works – since 1968 not a single RUC man has served a day in jail for killing persons with plastic bullets, for ill-treating or torturing persons .. where are the rights of all those people? It was all documented – the British government paid out £3 million in damages but the State does not convict its servants when they commit acts against human rights. The same thing for the British Army – about four of them went to jail, they got out after a year or two. And yet I can give you a list of around 150 innocent, unarmed people killed by lead or plastic bullets and I could give you a list of 2000 people who were tortured and ill-treated. So much for human rights and governments, governments just use human rights. Mr. Dickson here has a very difficult task ahead of him.
“They say you can work through the law, well the law is open to everyone like the Ritz Hotel, the richest people get the best lawyers to defend themselves. Lord Patrick Devlin was a distinguished British judge whose father came from Arboe, Co. Tyrone. He owned a pub in Dungannon, went over to England and made a lot of money and sent his two sons to school at Stoneyhurst. One became a Jesuit priest, Fr. Christopher. Patrick lost the faith but nevertheless was a distinguised judge who contributed a good deal to the release of the Guildford 4…. He said that “the law gives you the minimum” – like the Ten Commandments,- they state the minimum, but “to live properly you need the maximum which is the Sermon on the Mount.” In my opinion that is the only solution to the problem of Northern Ireland – the Sermon on the Mount. The law is concerned with the minimum not the maximum. .. So if you can get an impartially-created human rights body, bound to the sacredness of human life from conception to natural death, that would help to stabilise NI….
Removing the threat: “The big problem in Northern Ireland at the moment is that people all feel under threat in different ways and therefore the solution must be based on removing the threat from the people, individual groups within the two sides of the community and between both sides of the community. People want to feel security and to love each other. Catholics feel threatened by the IRA on their own side of the community, by the police and the British army in the middle, by the Loyalists and the extreme Orangemen on the other side. The Protestants – and I prefer to use that word, Protestant, Catholic, because it is religious – I saw that last week when Mr. Trimble went to see the Pope and all the old stuff surfaced again. Protestants feel threatened by the IRA, their own loyalists, and some of them even by the police. The least sign of trouble and everybody gets into the trenches.
“How do we remove the threat? That’s the problem. Can we remove it by a Human Rights Commission? I’m not too sure. We had an Equality Commission established, it was put together by the merger of 3 commissions …. I was at the meeting and the impression I got was that this was a bureaucracy, an unmanageable bureaucracy …. I hope that doesn’t happen to Brice Dickson’s Commission. I noticed there’s no one in it from west of the Bann – nobody from South Armagh, Tyrone, Fermanagh or south Derry, so I don’t know whether we have any human rights in those places!
Loyalist violence: “We want to try to remove this threat from the people and it’s a very real threat. We have the pipe bomb – you know the UFF, they’re really behind all the pipe bombs. That’s going on and that seems to be tolerated. That can’t go on and something will have to be done about it …. One “law” in Northern Ireland that you must remember is this … whenever the Catholics show any signs of advancing in legal, political or civil rights they are assassinated and burned out. It happened in every decade, it happens every time. The idea for example of two SDLP men or two Sinn Fein men going into the Assembly and the executive of the Assembly – that will immediately produce from the fanatics assassination of Catholics and burning down of Catholics until they are second-class citizens. That’s a very very big problem – it seems to be impossible to deal with. It comes up in every generation. A lot of it stems from the second paragraph of the Loyalist ceasefire of October 1994. Gusty Spence read this out – that they will start fighting again if the IRA started fighting again or they would start fighting again if there was a danger to the Union – Catholics getting into important positions to these lunatics, and they are lunatics these people on the fringe of loyalism…. and they have the guns and they have the bombs … They think any advance by Catholics – Bertie Ahern appears half a dozen times in Belfast in one week and they think “my God, Dublin is taking over” and out they go and they feel justified for this and they can even give phoney religious reasons for doing it! That all has to be tackled and that’s the responsibility of the British Government. It’s built into the core of certain sections of the people and until that is removed Catholics will feel the threat.
“Both sides feel the threat but how do you remove the threat? It takes patience to do it – patience and the spirit of seeing that things are done right. That is essential for democracy. The richer people can look after themselves but the poor people will be bullied at the point of a gun….
IRA intimidation: “I’ll give you an example from the other side. About 4 weeks ago a young man in South Armagh – only 25 miles from here – he was an excellent footballer, heading for the Armagh team, an excellent electrician, 25 or 26 years of age. He had a row with another family who happened to be what they call “republicans”, IRA with a gruesome reputation, some of them. He had a fist fight with him at a wedding and a fist fight with another brother at a football match, young people tend to do that. 8 or 9 men came into his house and broke his two legs and arm – he’ll never play any more football, they broke his arm in several places. His parents were terrified, wouldn’t tell the RUC, wouldn’t tell the press, wouldn’t allow anybody to do anything. There is an intimidation of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland because the IRA still have their guns. That’s why you’ve punishment beatings …and 400 inadequate poor people have been expelled from Northern Ireland…. A lot of them are people who have just criticised the IRA or got in a row or got involved in some family feud. That’s the reality. So it’s not just the UFF, it’s the IRA because they have the guns, they know they’ll use them. They beat you up with hurley sticks and bats and break your legs, if you complain to the police they will use the guns. … This thing about the IRA guns are silent, that’s not true. People are under threat and as I said the threat must be removed from all the people in Northern Ireland, from whatever side it comes or whatever particular paramilitary groups have the guns and are prepared to use them. These are poorinadequate people who have nobody to speak for them because everybody is afraid to speak for them… They probably won’t arrive at Mr. Brice Dickson’s doorstep.. they’ve nobody to show them the way….
Human responsibilities: “When you use the term human rights you must use the term “human responsibilities” for every right carries a responsibility. People are too fond of shouting about their rights. A right to this and a right to that – we all have responsibilities to each other. In the modern Ireland – and I note it very much down here – people tend to avoid responsibilities, they tend to avoid making any decisions that might help another person – they hide behind rules, vast numbers of rules, and they say, well, it was against the rules…You need charity, generosity and kindness to get past the rules and deal with these problems…It’s very important.
“The attempt to bring the extremists in from both wings has not worked, they’ll be there as long as they get their own way which is “my way or no way”. They hide behind the rules, they’ll not make the necessary decisions. Thanks be to God there are some merciful, humanitarian exceptions to these rules but we would be worried that government commissions set up so far are there to protect unionism – to protect that sort of privileged part of Northern Ireland, not here to help the poor and the oppressed.
“It’s not easy to be democratic… you must listen to all points of view and all the rights of all persons must be considered. The popular way is show me a grievance and I’ll march in protest…..One wonders how many politicians extinguish the hope of peace because the strife suits them …
“I would love to see the Assembly meet, I would love to see 110 politicians who are taking £30million away from hospitals, schools and the executive taking another £90million away – they’re just after closing the hospital in Dungannon – now you can’t get your baby born they’ve closed all the baby clinics in Co. Tyrone, they say they’ve no money. Throwing money out to this assembly and executive. If they had to go in there and work the way the TD’s do in the south and the way the MP’s do in England and assume their responsibilities to be fair and just to all sides…..
“At the moment I think, we haven’t got a peace process, we’ve got a power process. It’s like a poker game they’re playing their cards, seeing how much power they can get. People are not interested in the letter of the Good Friday Agreement. What they voted for was partnership, co-operation and an end to guns, bombs and murders. Personally, at the referendum I was very tempted to write down, I prefer direct rule – another 10 years of direct rule is what we need in Northern Ireland. Only the removal of threats of being shot, of being beaten up, or expelled, or having your house burned, can bring peace and security to all the people and open up the future of calm and security.
National security certificates: “Can I make one practical suggestion to Brice now that he is here – could he please deal quickly with National Security certificates? I brought this up at the Equality Commission and they said that it’s a matter for the Human Rights Commission, so I hope Brice won’t say that’s a matter for the Equality Commission.
“Take a lad of 16 way back in 1968 – John would understand what I am talking about. He was arrested and brought into the police station and beaten up in the usual way, signed a statement saying he was a member of Fianna Eireann, he may not have been a member of Fianna Eireann. Now he is banned, whether he was convicted or not, he is banned from holding any job under the government, in any branch of the civil service, any government job… He also cannot get compensation, if he’s shot by loyalists he will get no compensation. When Bernadette Devlin was shot by loyalists … she got no compensation because she was convicted of rioting in Derry and served 6 months for it. It’s most unjust…You had the same thing down here but it was removed by a case in the Supreme Court, the Cox case. It was a school-teacher called Cox from Longford … but it happened to a lot of poor people down here too in the early part of the Troubles. School-teachers and others who got mixed up in support for the IRA or whatever, once they lost their job they were banned from all State employment. That’s a terrible thing and it affects thousands of young people in Northern Ireland, both Catholic and Protestant. The same thing would apply for loyalist youngsters who got mixed up, were brought in, probably forced to make false statements, tortured and all that, and then they were banned…. and that’s something that will have to be removed and I would like Brice to do that.
Conclusion: “I’ll conclude by saying I think at the moment that it is the duty of every patriot – and we should all consider ourselves patriots – and every Irish Christian, to work for peace, partnership, cooperation, the building of trust and confidence among the one and a half million people who live in Northern Ireland. To heal the wounds of the victims: 3,500 murdered, 40,000 injured. Now too many substantial groups have turned their faces against understanding other peoples point of view. The only merciful procedure that has taken place really has been the release of prisoners which I supported very much because of what I said at the start. There are no policemen or soldiers in jail, there shouldn’t be any prisoners in jail.
“What we see in Northern Ireland at the moment, I’m afraid, is a rising sectarianism, a “no surrender” attitude, the mailed fist and the unbrotherly face – those who should be neighbours and brothers in peace. It’s all very disappointing – a year gone by. Honestly I don’t think the change will be brought about by laws and rules. Only if the Sermon on the Mount is proclaimed and lived in the spirit of the One who preached it can there be sufficient generosity, kindness and charity necessary for a lasting peace in our community. The final point – in Northern Ireland we are one community, not two communities. Thank you.”
Chair (Ercus Stewart): Thanks to all the speakers – now it’s up to you. I’m going to open the floor for questions
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS (Summaries)
Questions 1-4
Q1. Arthur O’Connor (Trim). To Dermot Nesbitt re unionist dissidents: “Is there any chance of bringing the rest of your people with you – Jeffrey Donaldson and others?.. There are a lot of dissidents… I see you on TV a lot – you seem to be more liberal, there’s a bit of daylight coming through ….”
Dermot Nesbitt: “Thank you very much for your complimentary comments. All I can say is what I reflect and what I present is the policy of the Ulster Unionist Party in 1999. I abide by it and subscribe to it and the policy is a modern policy. It is a forward thinking policy. There could have been in the past those who viewed us to be bigoted, hard-line sectarian, and in fact dyed-in-the-wool, “not an inch” type mentality. Yes there are dissenting voices within Unionism, yes there are those who state quite clearly even if the IRA decommission all weapons of war they still would not support Sinn Fein in government. That is not the policy of the party. So all I can say is – will they come along with us? I think we have, as John Kelly said, a glorious opportunity. … Those who dissent in Unionism, that will dissipate if we can get a functioning democracy in Northern Ireland that subscribes to the genuine principles and practices of international standards that apply elsewhere. We do want to go forward. I can’t say that more strongly, and in front of you tonight I believe we can go forward.”
Q2.Dublin resident: re discrimination: “I associate myself with the remarks made by the previous speaker about Dermot…. But would he like to comment on the views of the Unionist party regarding the discrimination that took place in Northern Ireland over the past 60 years?…”.
Dermot Nesbitt: “I may be giving a cop-out but I prefer to look forward than to look back, but in saying that there were wrongs on both sides….No community was the sole preserve of right or the sole preserve of wrong. There are statistics that will demonstrate that the Catholic population – and I don’t like using that term, but the unemployment and employment statistics are based on Catholic/Protestant headcounts – even way back in 1971 the proportion of Catholics in work was about 3% less than Catholics seeking work. That 3% difference is still there almost 30 years later. Now I remember very clearly Patrick Shea’s autobiography, “two wrongs don’t make a right”. He was the first head of the Northern Ireland Department of Education who was a Catholic, the first permanent secretary. He wrote that as he participated in the State he felt somewhat alienated by his community – they were his words, not mine. So all I’m saying is – yes there were wrongs but the wrongs were on both sides. I prefer to look forward not backwards and all I can say is that where the unionist government is supposed to have done what it has done, it’s almost 30 years since there was a unionist government. Unionism hasn’t had power to either use it properly or as some might think abuse it. They haven’t had that power for 30 years. …Mgr Faul made a comment which I say in his presence I found most disturbing, genuinely, most disturbing, where he said when Catholics get economic or social advancement they are then assassinated or beaten up. That does not reflect reality – there are 9 socio-economic groups in the employment perspective; 40% of those seeking work today are Catholic, they have 44% representation in professional and administrative grades. I don’t say that in any disparaging way, the Catholic population is extremely well represented in the professions, in academia and in education generally. I just want that to be recognised and let us build for the future and not look to the past.
Q 3 – Could a similar question be put to Brice as to what his view is?
Q4. Frank Duff (Dublin solicitor) [to Dermot]: “.. I am very familiar with the biography of Patrick Shea. You’re a little selective now in what you quote from the story, there were a lot of down sides to the situation too. We won’t discuss Patrick Shea at length here….He was the son of an RIC man, but it says a lot for the situation that he was the only man who rose to that rank in the Northern Ireland civil service…if you want to quote from the book there would be a lot of other things you could quote which would not be very complementary to the unionist tradition…. You picked one thing to suit yourself….”
Chair (Ercus Stewart): I’m going to let Professor Dickson and Mgr Faul in here.
Brice Dickson: “There was clearly discrimination throughout the unionist period, but I think that David Trimble himself has admitted recently there were mistakes made during this period. … I think the consensus amongst academics, Protestants and Catholics, is that there was discrimination during that period. But I couldn’t agree more with Dermot – the need now is to look to the future and not to the past and put in place proper safeguards and mechanisms to ensure that no one in Northern Ireland can abuse any one else’s rights.
Mgr Faul: “There was serious discrimination in employment in Northern Ireland and there still is…. Of the eight or nine chief secretaries in the civil service at the moment only two are Catholics….Most of the Catholics who are high up in the professions got there because of their Catholic education, the Christian brothers and the nuns and priests….Good cheap education…Look at the inspectors in Northern Ireland schools – I met many of them, very few were Catholics … The thing is it’s getting better undoubtedly but it’s slow enough and then in the semi-state bodies, the rate of Catholic employment is not up to scratch. Mr. Cooper says there is 2.5 times more unemployment among Catholics than Protestants. The wholesale business in Northern Ireland is entirely in the hands of Protestants – except for drink which is naturally run by Catholics, unfortunately. Even the banks interfere very substantially…… it’s a very unfortunate business. Things have improved simply because the Catholics have money, they got the education now they have money, now the business people want to keep in with them, it’s as simple as that….
“Just could I say on the point I made about Catholics being assassinated and burned out, that is the lunatic fringe but you can see it happening. 1969 was a classic example – the Catholics looked for civil rights and the population was attacked and burned out on the Falls Road and in Dungannon and other places …. I said it to Patrick Mayhew – it seems to pass without much action on the police side,,, they have improved substantially since 1986, that is true. …We Catholics also have our suspicions maybe unfounded, that there is a conspiracy against us from Orange men and free masons to keep the Catholics down in Northern Ireland.
QUESTIONS 5-9
Q5. Cathal Courtney (School of Ecumenics student). “We [in the Republic] very often have a tendency to look at Northern Ireland and see all the abuses there. .. I’d recognise quite a great deal of disrespect for children’s rights in this state. Some of the areas where I teach I doubt very much that those children will ever receive a third level education and I think when we’re looking at the situation in Northern Ireland as people living in the Republic, we have to particularly examine our situation here. I take the point the speakers have made already about looking to the future.
“But the situation that strikes me as being particularly important at the moment is the situation in Portadown where there is what I perceive as 2 very legitimate rights – people’s right to assert their culture and heritage is in conflict with another group’s right to live in peace. I’d like to ask John Kelly in particular would he have any recommendations for the situation in Portadown – how can both rights be accommodated and respected at the same time?
Q6.Tom Hodgins (Drogheda Ecumenical Peace Group): (I) for Dermot Nesbitt: “….There have been linkages between the democratic wing and the armed wing on all sides in their formative years, on both sides of the divide. I just wonder is the Unionist party not prepared to accept the republican promise to make obsolete the use of force?
(ii)for Brice Dickson – “If there’s only one full-time person being appointed to the Human Rights Commission, how seriously are human rights going to be taken?
Q7. Mary Humphreys (Dublin): re decommissioning: “I’d like to thank all the speakers for their excellent presentations, in particular Dermot Nesbitt for coming. My point is to do with the decommissioning of arms… I think both groups, unionists and nationalists, have come a long way, they’ve made a great effort, the Agreement is in place. I think the people of Ireland will find it very difficult to forgive the politicians if the Agreement is not pushed forward…. The decommissioning of arms is something that has arisen at this point – there are two years for decommissioning to be dealt with… I think the important thing is the guns are silent. Surely it is within the ingenuity of the politicians to find some way out of this impasse?… There is an impasse. There’s good will, it’s quite evident that Dermot Nesbitt and John Kelly are both men of good will. We hear Seamus Mallon speaking about it, John Hume, we hear men of good will trying to find a way out. It has to be found, the people of Ireland will not forgive this generation of poltiticians if a way is not found around this.”
Q8. David Thompson [chairman of Portadown branch UUP] “I listened with interest to your speakers tonight … Fr. Faul, there were some things which you said which I find difficult to agree with. But that I think is a matter of detail and as you properly pointed out we’re not going to make a future by rules. I would agree with you totally that we need to find a way of removing the threat and there is a threat. I can assure you, having being born in Portadown and having been baptised in the Church of the Ascension in Drumcree, I’m well aware of the fact that it’s not people with my economic success that suffer in Portadown. It is actually the weakest in our community and that doesn’t matter whether it’s the nationalist or loyalist community .. it is actually the vulnerable, the insecure who are actually being damaged.
“I want to address a point that was made earlier on. In 1972 I wasn’t old enought to vote for Stormont because you had to be 21 and it was gone before I had the opportunity. I don’t know about the rights and wrongs of the Unionist government before that, I can’t do anything about that. Equally, nobody’s asked my opinion since 1972 because I’ve been ruled by the government of England … and I’ve had very little voice in my own community in Portadown. As Fr. Faul said, when violence or the threat of violence occurs, what do people do? They don’t hold out the hand of friendship, in fact if you do that you’re likely to get shot by both sides. So the problem is violence or the threat of violence. If you look at Ireland, Ireland doesn’t seem to me to be a success, north or south. When I look at privilege being exercised and misused in your State, and when I look at privilege being used and misused in the past and the present in my own state in the UK, and that doesn’t mean just Northern Ireland, then clearly there is a problem with privilege… and I agree with Fr Faul that there is probably a failing in Christian duties somewhere which allows us to justify some of these things….
Opportunities: “I listened to John Kelly and I heard him say that he was hesitant to use the term “crossroads”. I remember Terence O’ Neill. In fact, because I wasn’t successful in education, I went to a technical school and it was integrated and I remember debates in the late 60’s with my classmates about civil rights … and it didn’t seem to be such a bad thing and I could understand a lot of what Terence O’ Neill was talking about, and yet it didn’t happen. Maybe it was a crossroads then and an opportunity lost too. Because maybe as unionism was starting to change and become weak, nationalism was starting to become strong. And somehow or another we lost the opportunity because we were both moving but in different ways. John, I would say to you at the moment we are going to succeed, because we are not on a crossroads, we are on a motorway, the problem is that it is being built and there are detours and there are slip roads if people wish to leave, but you can’t turn back on a motorway. I don’t know how we’re going to solve this problem.
Addressing each other’s constituency: “One of the things Fr. Faul said was we have not yet addressed the problem of addressing each other’s constituency – that’s not quite how he put it, but that is true. On the 30th of June last year I said to Daire O’Hagan (SF Assembly Member for Upper Bann) “our problem is that you have to persuade our constituency that the war is really over and we have to persuade your constituency that we are really interested in an accommodating, inclusive, equitable, peaceful future.” We cannot persuade our electorate that the war is over and you cannot persuade your electorate of our interest in a totally inclusive, accommodating, peaceful community. That’s where we’ve failed, we haven’t achieved that and I don’t know how we will. And I say to you in all sincerity, John, sitting as I am with a branch that supports David Trimble, with a branch that voted “yes” in Portadown, with members in it who voted “no” but are still included in that branch, in an Orange hall that is clearly associated with the protest at Drumcree, a branch that stood in that situation supporting the party policy as Dermot has outlined. I will not be able to take that branch with me and with David Trimble if he tries to move without decommissioning starting and that is unfortunately what I find throughout the unionist community. We just can’t do it. I’ve heard the word surrender used, I’m not interested in surrender, the only thing I want to surrender is the past. If I can offer you some suggestion, if you are or can or somebody can persuade those associated with all terrorist groups, I don’t just mean the republicans, to start to get rid of the armaments by however they could I would consider it as an investment in the future but I don’t know how we’re going to achieve it. We have to persuade everybody…..
Answers to questions 5-8:
CHAIR (Ercus Stewart): “I think, David, judging by the audience’s reaction you may regret you spoke because you’ll be up here the next time! Now the responses are in this order, John Kelly will respond first, then Dermot, then Brice, then Mgr. Faul and then I’ll take more questions.
John Kelly: re Garvaghy Road: “It’s almost surreal now… looking from above at this confrontation between Orangeism and nationalism over a stretch of road, we’d almost wonder what kind of people occupy that part of the island, but unfortunately that’s the way it is. It’s about consent basically, it’s very simple. If the Orangemen in Portadown would talk to the nationalists in Garvaghy Road and sit down and talk to them about both rights. From a nationalist perspective Orangeism and Orange marches are territorial – they’re saying to nationalists that “we do not require your consent because you have no territory, this is our territory” wherever it might be in Northern Ireland, that’s the difficulty and that’s how Nationalists perceive it. And that’s the way it has been…. It’s difficult to understand why we can’t accommodate one another in such an almost simple exercise of one tradition vying with another tradition or attempting to accommodate another tradition and I think it is by dialogue, it is by people on the Garvaghy Road, from whatever form of nationalism they come, they sit down and they talk and they attempt to gain consent or consensus, I think that is the only way forward. If it’s done in a triumphalist way as it seems to be from the nationalist perspective then you’re going to have this confrontation….. Can I just say to the last speaker [David Thompson] that I very much appreciate what he said…. The unfortunate thing is that you cannot bring your branch with you if the IRA doesn’t decommission and Gerry Adams can’t bring his branch with him if the IRA do decommission. So how do we resolve that dilemma? It is a dilemma for Trimble and for Adams, but resolved it has to be. Thank you.
Dermot Nesbitt: [reply to Q6(i)“democracy working hand in hand with the swordat an earlier time”] -“that is correct – no country in the world was formed by peaceful means, they were all formed by the movements of people, by warfare, by breaking treaties, that’s the history of civilisation. So it’s not new. You only have to look at the history of the United States… whenever an American says to me “Go home, leave Ireland to the Irish” and I say to him are you going to go home and leave America to the American-Indian? All modern countries are formed by the movements of people, so our history is littered with warfare. I think it’s true from an historical point of view that more Irish have been killed by the Irish than the English have every killed. What we’re saying now is that there are certain norms and maxims laid down by the UN in 1948 and all other principles fall from that….. The EU says to those 9 countries who want to join – “stabilise your borders where there is dissent”.
Decommissioning: “Now that leads to this aspect – because the Belfast Agreement has got those essential ingredients….. – the question do we as a Unionist commjunity accept the promise? I was very conscious of the clap that the lady received when she said that “politicians will not be forgiven” – that is correct, they will not be forgiven if they do not get it right. But I don’t see it as an equal position. David Thompson and John [Kelly] said exactly the same. Gerry can’t move if there’s decommissioning, David can’t move if there isn’t decommissioning. There’s an impasse. The lady said it’s just now it has arisen. It hasn’t just arisen now. Two years ago unionism said “there must be decommissioning before there are talks”. The republican movement said “let’s see what the settlement is before we consider decommissioning” – in other words, decommissioning after the Agreement. Senator Mitchell and the international arms decommissioning body came up with a compromise position – decommissioning during the talks. Well, we didn’t have it before the talks, we didn’t have it during the talks, it’s over a year since the completion of the talks and we still haven’t had a commencement to that process. Sean Farren in the SDLP has written quite eloquently about this as a nationalist. …
“The unionist community has moved beyond the norms of democracy… Yes there were many things wrong in history, I don’t deny that, but I say we’ve moved byond those norms. We’ve accepted a conditional position on our border, we’ve accepted an automatic right to government – I don’t believe that’s anywhere else – we’ve even accepted the aspects of inbuilt cross-border co-operation. It’s not found anywhere else, we’ve moved to the norm and beyond the norm and we agreed to implement that. Sinn Fein – yes it has moved a lot, yes it has recognised Stormont when it said it wouldn’t, yes it had to change it’s constitution and yes it is sitting in a building it doesn’t want to be in. But it still hasn’t moved up to the norm of democracy … and we’re not looking for surrender, we’re not looking for humiliation, I’ve said it on RTE – we’re just looking for an outward sign of that inward commitment that is there for peace. … Even then it’s not unionism wishing to exclude republicanism. The gentleman rightly questioned me at the start – there are some dissenting unionists who wouldn’t want republicans in government, but that’s not our position. It’s a question of what are the principles of democracy. What we’re asking is for Sinn Fein and it’s linked armed organisation to subscribe to the principles of democracy that operate elsewhere and to begin that process, we’re not asking for its completion until that time. I believe that’s a genuine request.
Dermot Nesbitt [Reply to Q7] “Finally, yes politicians will not be forgiven. There must be a way out. … If the two people have a difficulty – Gerry Adams and David Trimble – it has been suggested that if they both have difficulties they both can jump together, or both blink together. In other words can a way of sequencing or a way of finding a procedure be found ? Because if Sinn Fein sees, as we see, that there has to be some form of decommissioning, and there has to be an inclusive form of government, .. then there is a way of getting to that, the Hillsborough declaration before Easter gave us a possible way of doing it… It wasn’t us who said no, it wasn’t even the SDLP that said no, it was your prime minister and my prime minister that advocated it as a way through the impasse, but it was Sinn Fein who said no. The Belfast Telegraph said in an editorial about 10 days ago – and I say this straight to John – it asked why will the arms not be given up? It can only be for two reasons: 1) The IRA wish to use them again or, 2) they wish to use them as a means of trying to influence the outcome of certain situations. So yes we’ll not be forgiven, yes unionism I believe is there willing to do it and John say let’s jump together because I believe we will jump together.
Brice Dickson: [reply to Q 6(ii)re Human Rights Commission] “It’s true I’m the only full-time member, and there are 9 other people who travel to the Commission one day a week. We will of course be appointing full-time staff, we will probably have within a few months 15 full-time staff and that will go all the way towards meeting any problems we might have.
“Could I just take a few minutes to answer some of the other questions directed to me by the speakers. Dermot is quite right in saying that international human rights standards require those who are claiming human rights to themselves give human rights, that is quite clearly laid down in Article 17 of the European Convention. Unfortunately human rights are not absolute and I think they do have to be accommodated – my right to free speech has to be accommodated … even the right to life sometimes has to be accommodated. We decide to allow the speed limit on the roads to be 60 or 70 miles an hour knowing that there is a statistical certainty that people will be killed as a result. That’s a compromise society makes.
“The Commission will certainly try and do something about the national security certificate position Fr.Faul mentioned, it will also be doing more work on sex discrimination, including discrimination by private organisations such as churches. We will be seeking to celebrate diversity rather than to seed dissension in diversity…. I would take issue with Fr. Faul when he said “we are one community in Northern Ireland” – I think we are lots of communities in NI. There are people who want to be Irish, who want to be British, people who want to be both, people from ethnic minorities who don’t identify with either country in particular, there are people who don’t think they’re a political identity at all who just want to get on with their own lives and be good citizens. The Human Rights Commission want to work with all those different sectors.”
Chair (Ercus Stewart): “Fr. Faul has graciously given over his right of reply… Now it’s getting late …The speakers have travelled a long way and a trip along the Boyne is less comfortable going back…. I’ll take the next questions together…”
QUESTIONS 9-14:
Q9: John Keaveney (Kilbride teacher) [re decommissioning]: “… I just want to thank the speakers from Sinn Fein and the Unionist Party here – It’s a step in itself to see them debating together here tonight…Sinn Fein favour the word “demilitarisation” and the unionists favour “decommissioning”… The two prime ministers are kind of sitting back and trying to let the two who I think are kind of holding up the process – Sinn Fein and the Official Unionists – sit and sit and get nowhere. … If the IRA could decommission some weapons then maybe the legal weapons could be got out of circulation as a quid pro quo, or maybe the British might withdraw some troops. I know this is very dangerous for the unionists but if it was a way out that the whole military set-up in the North could be reduced – how does Sinn Fein feel about that and how would Dermot respond to that as a way out?
Q 10: Cllr. Phil Cantwell (Independent, Trim UDC): “..In the south we have our own skeletons in the cupboard and the same happened in the North. I think it was a bit disingenuous of Dermot Nesbitt to say that there were problems on both sides, there was a little bit more on one side than on the other, and there was a little bit more murders on one side than on the other…. The threat to the Good Friday Agreement is not decommissioning – it’s politicians who have come up with road-blocks…. People on both sides are afraid of each other, people of the unionist persuasion are afraid of the IRA, people of the nationalist persuasion are afraid of the RUC and the army. It’s a question of trust – and as far as I’m concerned it’s an unreal situation in Northern Ireland and you must put the idea of decommissioning to one side. I would say to Dermot Nesbitt – please you’ve come a long way, you should go the extra mile. Forget the decommissioning, make the Agreement work and in due course the decommissioning will take care of itself….
Q11: Ray Kelly (Dublin): [Q. to Dermot] . “By the time this Meath Group meets again, the Scottish elections will be over – in the event that the Scots begin to march out of the Union where will the unionists of the six counties march to?”
Q12: James McGeever (Kingscourt, Cavan): [Q to Dermot Nesbitt]: “You’re more or less refusing to admit that there has been discrimination in the north. If you admit there’s discrimination and if you admit it publicly, that’s a confidence- building step towards the resolution of the problem in Drumcree. The Drumcree problem is essentially a struggle against inequality, injustice and bias in employment. That’s what the Garvaghy Road Residents’ Coalition claim is the basis of their struggle. If the unionist party were to admit that there has been discrimination and if Mr. Kelly were to admit that all the children of the nation are to be cherished equally – which means that he has to cherish Mr. Gracey the Protestant Orangeman [tape ends] ..I urge that Trimble and Sinn Fein would work for a resolution to the problems at Drumcree”
Q13: John Clancy (Meath Peace Group). [to John Kelly]: “…The Agreement was affirmed by the majority on the island – part of the deal was decommissioning – why don’t the IRA acknowledge the wish of everybody on this island to move forward? You have another year left for decommissioning, or the IRA does, why do they not they start it now? We all on this island voted democratically. Or are you laying down another foundation for another generation to disregard the democratically elected government, the democratic wishes of the people of this island?
.
Q 14: Arthur O’Connor (Trim) [to Dermot Nesbitt]: “Is it or is it not Sunningdale Mark 2 and what exactly does the “Irish dimension” mean? Is it two delegates coming in to Dail Eireann and vice versa, two from Dail Eireann coming in to the House of Commons? … The difference between the current negotiations …is miles ahead of 1921, because there was a truce in 1921 in July and there were Irish delegations going back and over and Lloyd George was always one-sided …and he said there would be an immediate and terrible war unless they accepted. The current situation, bad as it is, at least everybody’s talking…..
CHAIR (Ercus Stewart): “Thank you … Oddly enough there were no questions to Fr. Faul or to Professor Dickson but I’m going to give Fr. Faul the right to reply and remember the tea’s getting cold!”
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 9-14:
Mgr. Denis Faul: “As you know peace is based on good will … we’ve got to have good will in Northern Ireland – that means the removal of the threats, and that eventually means the removal of all guns, bombs and explosives. The Catholic communuity after Omagh and the murder of Rosemary Nelson are most anxious to have all guns or bombs removed. The same goes for the lunatic fringe of the Protestants who are attacking Catholic communities at the moment because there are Catholics in the Assembly and maybe in the executive .. then there is a temptation to hold onto arms. However there are three problems we were discussing tonight – Drumcree, decommissioning etc. I think the British have sold us a pup – they always do… The Assembly itself has nothing to do with security. The defence of the people has nothing to do with the Assembly. The British are responsible for my security and Mr. Nesbitt’s and Mr. Kelly’s security. The British government, are in control of the police, the judiciary and the army.… When I see Mr. Blair coming over and landing in Ireland with a big smile on his face I say “beware of the smiling Englishman”. They’re laughing at us you know. ….We should get a proper and impartial police force, regulate the army and negotiate all this stuff about arms. I think really we’re dealing with something of a false problem. I know Mr.Nesbitt and Mr. Trimble have a problem with the fears, this is again coming back to the fears of the Protestant people and the fears of the Catholic people, how do we remove the threats? …There are continued attacks by the loyalist people on the Catholics, that is the responsibility of the British government. The whole problem should be pushed back to Mr.Blair and the Assembly should get on with its work….Either that, or if Mr.Adams were to do a De Valera in the Assembly and bring the 90% of republicans with him – I don’t think the remaining 10% would get much sympathy, they wouldn’t get safe houses after what happened in Omagh …
Re Drumcree: It’s terrible to see the town torn asunder, the Catholics are being locked into Garvaghy Road, they’re being squeezed out like tooth-paste. They’re burning down shops and they’re burning down the Catholic houses and they’re forcing down the markets. It’s a tragedy and I think it should be solved by a compromise. The compromise in 1995 was very desirable – it allowed about 300 Orangemen, that’s the content of the Church, and remember it is a church parade in memory of the battle of the Somme, now that’s something serious for Unionists, it’s important… I would like to see the Catholic community, all in good-will, allow 300 Orangemen go down the road at 1pm, after the Catholics have gone to Mass. I put this to the Garvaghy Road residents and they said “oh we’ll be out praying in the grave-yard when the parade is on” …. Let them come down the road peacefully. I don’t like this stuff – “no Orange feet on Garvaghy Road”…
“The dispute is always tied up with all the other inequalities in Portadown … they are things that should be solved separately by the Assembly. There should be a compromise there, it’s the same with the decommissioning issue. No one will lose by a gesture, especially if it will save lives and cause goodwill. …There are all sorts of hidden agendas in Northern Ireland as some speakers have remarked – political ambitions and arms deals instead of peace deals. I think it’s essential … that Mr. Trimble or some of the Portadown people speak to the Garvaghy Road residents, after all they are residents of Portadown and therefore they should have dialogue. Thank you.
John Kelly: “I think I will just take the question on decommissioning and demilitarisation and John Clancy’s question on the referendum and perhaps include Dermot’s remarks vis a vis the Good Friday Agreement and decommissioning. Sinn Fein has been at the peace process not for the last two years but since 1985. It’s important to remember that, that the Hume-Adams initiative dates from 1985. John, there’s no way in which SF or the republican movement is laying the foundations for another go at what you call the democratic process by not decommissioning. Sinn Fein – it’s important, without being contentious – Sinn Fein and the republican movement want to see the gun removed from Irish politics forever – finished and done with – so that not another Irishman or Irishwoman would have to suffer, martyrdom or death or whatever. One remembers the hunger strikes, the drip drip drip of death. Denis Faul was there. So no one wants to envisage another generation going through what my generation and the generation before me had to go through.
“As to the referendum – remember John, Sinn Fein accepted the verdict of the people north and south of the border. One very critical issue for the republicans was Articles 2 and 3. It was a very critical issue for republicans to accept and …….the history was written in the very traumatic debates that went on within the republican family to arrive at the position that we are at today. It’s not really about decommissioning. The argument about the Good Friday Agreement as Dermot has said, what should have happened a year ago whenever the first and second ministers were appointed – the executive should have been formed. That’s what the Agreement said. It didn’t say it had to have decommissioning before it could be formed. It said it had to be formed. That’s what the governments agreed, that’s what the lawyers agreed, that’s what everyone agreed. Mitchell agreed, De Chastelain agreed….that that was the procedure in the Good Friday Agreement, that was the way it was structured, and then we had this prolonged, false debate about decommissioning, and nationalism generally, not alone republicanism, began to see it as a tactic as a way of stalling the procedure of the Good Friday Agreement, as a way of denying to nationalists and to republicans an accommodation in a power-sharing government. That has been the perception of decommissioning not alone in the republican community, but in the nationalist community generally. And as I said at the outset, can one just imagine where we would be at today had the Good Friday Agreement been followed in the spirit and the letter, had the executive been allowed to be formed? I guess we wouldn’t be sitting here talking about decommissioning.
John Clancy: “Would there be decommissioning if an executive had been formed?”
John Kelly: “I think so, I also think that unless the structures of government are in place, the scaffolding, the platform of government whereby nationalists and unionists can feel secure in pursuing their political objectives, then no one’s going to feel secure. And I think that to use this argument – this false argument of decommissioning – is to impede the implementation of the Agreement, that’s how nationalism generally sees it. Again I don’t want to say anything that would crush the fragile flower that we have now but that’s the reality as far as nationalists are concerned.
Loyalist violence: “There also is the factor, the increasing factor that inhibits any movement apart from it not being a pre-condition for the formation of the executive, there’s also the continuing attacks on nationalists and republicans either by renegade loyalist groupings or those who are acting in the name of official loyalist paramilitaries and while that continues and while that is ongoing, it makes it increasingly difficult for the IRA to decommission and that’s what I’ll be saying.. Implement the Agreement to its full as it is then I think that decommissioning will take a back place in our discussions.
John Keaveney : “Will there be decommissioning if there’s a quid pro quo on legal arms or british army withdrawal?”
John Kelly: “Sinn Fein believes that there should be total disarmament or demilitarisation, whatever word you want to use. That is the Sinn Fein belief…. If you make decommissioning a pre-condition that doesn’t exist within the Agreement – it’s not in the Agreement that the formation of the executive is predicated on decommissioning. The formation of the executive is free-standing, it’s there in it’s own right. Now that’s agreed by Bertie Ahern, by Blair, by Bill Clinton, even Bob McCartney accepts it.
John Keaveney: “Don’t you see the dilemma? If you don’t show good will, you’re throwing away the flower. Would you decommission as a quid pro quo if legal arms were removed?”
John Kelly: “I’m saying to you that the decommissioning argument is a false argument. I’m saying to you that what we signed up to, what the referenda were about, was about the Good Friday Agreement and the implementation of that Agreement and there was nothing in that agreement to which Sinn Fein acquiesced and signed up to.which stated that predicated decommissioning …The executive was part and parcel of the Good Friday Agreement and should have been in place a year ago and that’s why we’re still arguing today.
Dermot Nesbitt: “I’ve five questions, the first two are related, on the aspect of decommissioning. It’s interesting that John did not say whether or not they would ever decommission. You mentioned the words decommission versus demilitarisation. What decommissioning probably means is the paramilitary weapons – which is what is the actual phrasing in the Belfast Agreement. Demilitarisation as I would understand is, as John has stated Sinn Fein want to see the gun removed from Irish politics forever. Let’s look at the balance of those, because the legal arms as it were – because I’ve seen it written that the IRA view their fight not with Protestants not with unionists but with the British military…. When the British military presence is demilitarised as is the Irish military presence – I came down here tonight, unlike many other times I did not see a soldier, a policeman, a check-point or anything, from when I left home till when I reached here. I drive across the border, there’s no ramps or check-points. There are no armed militia of either the Garda Siochana, the Irish army or the RUC or the British army at the border – the troops have also gone back to barracks and are going back… they haven’t all gone but the process of demilitarisation has commenced on the part of the army aspect.
“Now this aspect of the Belfast Agreement. The way we see it there were very clear obligations – there is a clear chronological link between decommissioning and the release of prisoners and the link is very simple – that the law to permit release of prisoners and the law to permit decommissioning was to be in force by June of 1998, a clear chronological link. By year of June 2000 all qualified prisoners that were not released, the remainder were to be released. By June 2000 all decommissioning that had not taken place was to be completed because it talks about a completion by the year 2000 of decommissioning. The word completion implies that there was a beginning. Now take those two chronological sequences – both to be completed by 2000, law in place by June ‘98 to enable both to commence. Prisoner releases have commenced, in other words the demilitarisation, the return to family and loved ones of those who viewed themselves as political prisoners …. That process has commenced. ….There is only one element of the obligations contained in the Belfast Agreement that has not commenced, and that is decommissioning. Now “out of commission”, “decommission”, “put beyond use” – we are not getting into the semantics. That is the only one element that has not commenced.
“Now where would we be today if the government had been formed? The question was asked but it was not answered. … We got the First Minister, Deputy First Minister formed in June, we got the government process up and running. We had to agree the departments of government. We weren’t sure whether there were going to be six or whether there were going to be ten. You couldn’t form ministers until you knew how many departments you’re going to have. Some wanted six, some wanted seven and some wanted ten. But over that long summer period of two to three months, the prisoners began to be released. I hoped, I wished, I believed, that decommissioning would commence and then government would be formed and north/south bodies. But that obligation wasn’t being fulfilled. That’s how unionism sees it. Not as preconditions, not as pre-requisites, but as an obligation to be fulfilled clearly from a chronological point of view.
“Now the aspect of legal arms – that is an important point, but as someone said a lot of those legal arms are shotguns owned by Catholic and Protestant, unionist and nationalist. The other aspect of legal arms – they are all ballistically tested – they are not illegal, they are legally held – and if any legally held weapon was used to murder it would lead straight to the person legally entitled to hold it, because they’re all ballistically tested before they are licensed. So that’s why we say obligations, all other aspects have moved, especially on this demilitarisation aspect – it’s visual, you see it coming across the border, there is no border.
“The lady said put decommissioning to one side. ..It’s about building trust. I want to believe that the war is over. As I said to you, I yearn for the peace you have, the stability you have, I yearn for that. I want to believe it. What I want to see is that process starting. Now John says – I listened very carefully – that there’s intimidation, shootings going on. But we’re not asking for all weapons today to be handed in – we’re asking for a commencement to a process of credibility, decommissioning – that’s not much and I still say it to Brice – and he didn’t answer me – that international principles and practices say that should happen, not unionism. Because you must operate legally within the law…
Referenda: “Another aspect was about the referendum in the South and the referendum in the North. I believe – I could be wrong – but the IRA did say that part of its legal position, and I look and I know who’s present, Mr. MacStiofain, part of it I believe – and I’m trying to convey my unionist perspective – was that the IRA said we are pursuing what is the constitutional imperative to reunite the island of Ireland, in other words “we are the soldiers of destiny and we’ve a legal right to continue the war because Ireland is to be united”. Now it could be phrased differently. There was a referendum on the 22nd of May where the people of Ireland spoke and therefore the constitutional and moral authority as perceived by the IRA ..in a sense could have gone, so the IRA could even say “we begin this process because the constitutional position is now settled, there is no need for us to continue”. I’m trying to phrase it as a unionist and I mean it, as perceived by the IRA and republicanism perceives it, and I’m genuinely trying to understand and to try and see that there’s reasons why you could begin to do this because the constitutional moral authority that republicans perceive to wage war is now no longer there – the people have spoken.
“As to the third question – if the Scots march out of the Union where will the Unionists go? That’s a good one. .. In international law there is technically no right to secession, no part of a state can secede – right or wrong, Brice?
Brice Dickson: “In principle, correct. “
Dermot Nesbitt: “In principle correct – it’s as near to saying yes as he could. What he means maybe is – in practice correct, but if a government permits you to secede you can secede but you don’t have a right of self-determination yourself within that region to secede. You know Quebec has the right, but it’s a federation, to say we wish to leave the federation.
Ray Kelly: “But Dermot you’re using lawyer speak …”
Dermot Nesbitt: “No I’m not. I’m using reality. The Basque region in Spain wishes to separate but it can’t. In fact the funny thing about it is the Russian Federation could go into Chetsnya … from an international legal point of view the Russians were permitted to go in there, but not to go into Afghanistan because it’s a separate and sovereign nation….”
Ray Kelly: “I asked as a serious question, I’m not being flippant”.
Chair (Ercus Stewart): “I think in fairness. Can I just say, the agenda tonight is the human rights agenda, I’m going to exercise my prerogative now…”
Dermot Nesbitt: “The Human rights agenda – have you or have you not the right to secede? It’s a very important human rights agenda in the context of Northern Ireland and this island of Ireland. The question was whether Scotland has the right to secede. I was giving the background. I know you’re a lawyer but I’m putting it in that context, and the right to secede, it’s a fundamental right whether or not we have it.”
Chairman: “We’ll have another night on that!”
Dermot Nesbitt: “Can I just finish these few points? If the Scots go – well I do believe that they will not go because what we’re having is a new British/Irish Isles of Scotland, Wales, Ireland – north and south – and England. There’s far more Gallic spoken in Wales than there is Irish spoken in Ireland. I want to be Irish, in fact I am Irish in my nationality and British in my citizenship, and you can be both. I believe that operates and opens up a whole new era of co-operation within these British/Irish isles, so that’s my answer. If they do go and Westminister says they can go, then so what?
Discrimination: “Yes there was discrimination but I can assure you there was discrimination on both sides. I would take you to legal cases in the North where Protestants in the North were discriminated against…”
Re question on Sunningdale Mark 2: “… Yes but I think it’s a better one, for many reasons. First of all I do believe this time, compared to ‘74, we have a recognition of the constitutional position of Northern Ireland because for one of the first times the status is defined., of what Northern Ireland is. Your referendum accepts that the status of Northern Ireland remains as part of the UK until it’s changed by peaceful means. Secondly I believe that the new North-South co-operation is founded more on the basis of mutual benefit to each other, and thirdly, unionism …fundamentally has learned and wishes to see genuine participation within Northern Ireland between unionists, nationalists and republicans. So I believe we’ve all learned from Sunningdale, we’ve all learned from the past and therefore we’ve all given and we’re all trying to take and therefore I believe this is a better opportunity….
“Final point – the Conservatives used to tell us unionists “oh you must have devolution because it’s good for you, it’s good for you to stay in the Union”, and then they’d turn and say to the Scots “oh you don’t want devolution because that will lead to the break up the Union” that’s what the Tories said. To us devolution seemed to be making us different from the rest of the UK whereas now I see it in quite the reverse. It’s a mechanism whereby all of us in the British/Irish isles can flourish, have separate identities and co-operate and live in the latter part of the 20th century and the new part of the 21st century when practically all borders are more diminished. When I say all I don’t just mean North/South, I also mean East/West.
CHAIR (Ercus Stewart): “One last contribution from Chief Commissioner Dickson and then I’m going to close”.
Brice Dickson: “I think the agenda has moved on somewhat from what the topic was meant to be tonight. I’m perhaps more glad than ever that we don’t have politically active people on our Commission because otherwise our meetings would never end! … The Good Friday Agreement already commits the parties to go beyond international law because there isn’t anything in international law giving minorities the right to participate in government – in governing a divided society. The D’Hondt mechanism in the North gives that right to a minority in the North, that is innovatory. That is already going beyond international law and the Human Rights Commission may well have to devise other mechanisms for going beyond international law when it is devising principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and for parity of esteem, that’s one of our obligations……
Dermot Nesbitt: “May I just ask you is that a signal that unionism has been more accommodating by having an inclusive form of Government?”
Brice Dickson: “Yes I think it is.“
David Thompson (UUP member):[re Portadown]. “.Can I just say something? ..Portadown has two minorities in it … There’s the nationalist majority which is very much focused in one part. There’s also a unionist working-class minority … which is actually spotted in a number of estates and which to some extent is surrounded by the better-off unionists and they are sometimes forgotten. …Unfortunately the conflict in Portadown is between two sections of two parts of the community in Portadown, the Garvaghy Road residents and the Orange Order, and I’m not a member of either. During the summer I was David Trimble’s envoy to the Garvaghy Road residents and I’m also the chairman of a cross-community inter-relations body in town, the secretary of which is actually a Jesuit who lives on the Garvaghy Road.
“Before I came out today I had a long conversation with Orla Maloney, one of the negotiators on the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition. [Editor’snote: – Orla Maloney addressed the Meath Peace Group public talk on Parading Disputes held in October 1998]. Tomorrow we’ll be bringing together a cross-community group in Portadown to try and start building and healing and doing a little of what’s called dialogue, actually listening, because that group has almost been decimated as a result of the summer. At some stage later this week I will speak to Brendan McKenna. Brendan and I would speak to each other probably once every two or three months. It’s not a part of any process but it’s an opportunity to exchange views… There are positive efforts being made in Portadown. One of the problems we have is we have virtually no space where we can listen to one another, there’s no safe space for listening – not talking – we’re very good at talking at each other but we don’t often listen. There are positive things going on and listening to Orla, talking to Brendan and listening to other people like Harold Gracey… It’s a very complex problem. Portadown is my town. I would say to you there are people trying to resolve it. It’s not just a simple thing. When I was living in Portadown it was integrated, by the time I came back from university in the mid-70’s it had become segregated.
CLOSING WORDS
Chair (Ercus Stewart): “Thank you for that last contribution. I want to thank the organisers tonight and I want to thank you the audience for your patience, but most importantly I want to thank the four speakers here, you must realise that they have a long distance to travel … I saw no chauffeur-driven stretch limousines outside so they have a long journey and I’m grateful to all four of them.
On behalf of the Meath Peace Group Julitta Clancy thanked the speakers for giving so generously of their time. Special thanks were due to the Guest Chairman, Ercus Stewart who had kindly stepped in, replacing Michael McDowell, S.C.who was called away on urgent business. She thanked the audience for their attention and patience and acknowledged that some of the audience had also come long distances. As always she thanked the Columban Fathers for the use of the facilities at Dalgan Park.
ENDS
APPENDIX: NORTHERN IRELAND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
MISSION STATEMENT
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will work vigorously and independently to ensure that the human rights of everyone in Northern Ireland are fully and firmly protected in law, policy and practise. To that end the Commission will measure law, policy and practice in Northern Ireland against internationally accepted rules and principles for the protection of human rights and will exercise to the full functions conferred upon it to ensure that those rules and principles are promoted, adopted and applied throughout Northern Ireland.
In carrying out its functions the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will be independent, fair, open and accessible, while maintaining the confidentiality of information conveyed to it in private. It will perform its functions in a manner which is efficient, informative and in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
DUTIES
1. To keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of law and practice relating to the protection of human rights
2. To advise the Secretary of State and the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly of measures which ought to be taken to protect human rights.
3. To advise the Assembly whether a Bill is compatible with rights.
4. To advise the Secretary of State on the scope for defining, in Westminister legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights (such legislation, when conjoined with the European Convention, to be called a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland).
5. To promote understanding and awareness of the importance of human rights in Northern Ireland by, for example, undertaking or commissioning research and educational activities.
6. To do all it can to ensure the establishment of a Joint Committee with the proposed Human Rights Commission in the Republic of Ireland.
7. To make recommendations to the Secretary of State within two years on how the Commission’s effectiveness could be improved.
POWERS
1. To assist individuals who apply to it for help with proceedings which involve the protection of human rights.
2. To bring proceedings itself which involve the protection of human rights.
3. To conduct such investigations as it considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of exercising its other functions.
To publish its advice and the outcome of its research and investigations.
ENDS
Meath Peace Group Report: June 1999. © Meath Peace Group
Transcribed by Sarah Clancy from video tapes recorded by Anne Nolan. Edited by Julitta Clancy. The Meath Peace Group is a voluntary group founded in April 1993. 33 public talks have been held to date. The Meath Peace Group gratefully acknowledges the assistance given by the Community Bridges Programme of the International Fund for Ireland.
Meath Peace Group committee 1999: Julitta and John Clancy, Parsonstown, Batterstown, Co. Meath; Anne Nolan, Gernonstown, Slane, Co. Meath; Pauline Ryan, 112 Woodlands, Navan, Co. Meath; Philomena Boylan-Stewart, Longwood, Co. Meath; Michael Kane and Paschal Kearney, An Tobar, Ardbraccan
No. 32 -“Victims are Part of the Peace Process”
Monday, 24 March 1999
St. Columban’s College, Dalgan Park, Navan, Co. Meath
Speakers:
Marie Smyth (Cost of the Troubles Study)
Billy Stevenson (Head of the Victims’ Liaison Unit, NI)
John Wilson (Victims’ Commission, Dublin)
Don Mullan (Author of Eyewitness Bloody Sunday, and member of “Justice for the Forgotten” group)
Chaired by Kitty Harlin (Irish Countrywomen’s Association, Secretary on Agriculture and Rural Development)
Contents:
Summary of main points
Addresses of speakers
Questions and comments
Closing words
SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS:
Marie Smyth, project director of the “Cost of the Troubles Study” outlined research into the emotional and physical scars of the Troubles. Over 3, 700 people were killed and as many as 60, 000 were injured in the violence of the past 30 years, she said. This meant that “about 150,000 people were living in families where someone had been killed or injured”. The full scale of the problem is still unknown – in one study over 50% of the bereaved had trauma symptoms 22 years after the event. Access to services was non-existent in some cases, isolation and self-medication are major problems, and in the worst affected communities the social fabric of the community has been severely affected. “Young boys and men are most likely to be victims and perpetrators – so there was a double risk for males”, she said. 91% of the victims were male, with the age group 19-20 accounting for the highest death rate. The Catholic death rate was higher than the Protestant death rate. Republican paramilitaries accounted for over 57% of the deaths, including 25% of Catholics killed. Loyalist paramilitaries were responsible for almost 28% of the deaths, including 19% of Protestants killed, while the security forces were responsible for 11% of all deaths.
Billy Stevenson, Head of the Victims Liaison Unit, NIO, outlined the work of the unit since it was set up following the Bloomfield inquiry report. 30 years of “virtual neglect” meant that an enormous amount of work had to be done, he said. The peace process has allowed people the space to talk. “For the first time victims have a voice and they are determined they won’t be left behind …we need to listen, even if what they say is uncomfortable”. Initiatives carried out by the Unit since last summer include a 5-month consultation exercise with victims, an educational bursary scheme, a Compensation Review Body, a survey of support groups and funding for pilot schemes to meet the needs of local communities.
Don Mullan: Calling for a tribunal of inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings – the single biggest atrocity in the history of the Troubles – Don Mullan said the families in the “Justice for the Forgotten” group wanted the whole truth – “only then will they find personal peace”. The families felt they had been forgotten over the years. The Omagh bomb had brought it back into sharp focus and now, 25 years on, many questions remained unanswered. There was a belief that the loyalists had not acted alone. “It’s not just about who did it – it’s also a question of public accountability”.
John Wilson: “A focus on victims strengthens the peace”, said John Wilson, Head of the Victims’ Commission set up in 1998 to conduct a review into the needs of victims in the South. Mr Wilson said that two themes kept recurring – acknowledgment and empowerment. Many victims feel a great sense of isolation and of loneliness, they can feel worthless and unwanted. Each case is unique – for many, “issues of truth and justice can be paramount”, for others “practical support is what they need the most”. Empowerment is about helping victims become survivors. The Victims Commission hoped to “give victims a voice”. “Victims more than anyone want to see peace” he said, but “putting the past behind them is no easy matter because these are people who will always carry with them the physical and emotional scars of that violence”.
ADDRESSES OF SPEAKERS
Guest chair Kitty Harlin introduced the first speaker, Marie Smyth:
1. Marie Smyth (Project Director, “The Cost of the Troubles Study”:
“Thank you very much. I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to come here this evening and to talk… Just to take up on some of the opening comments – far be it from me to defend politicians but I would just like to note at this point some of the politicians in the North at the moment are in very, very difficult places indeed. Some of the politicians involved in the negotiations can’t walk out their own front doors without an armed guard because their lives are in danger from their own constituents…. The second thing I would like to add is that there were two people killed last week. The second person was Frankie Currie who was a former member of a paramilitary organisation so some people don’t see that he’s qualified as a victim. What I would say is Franky Currie had children, a mother and a family and all the rest of it and those people are bereaved this week as well as the family of Rosemary Nelson. So unfortunately the deaths have gone on from Rosemary’s death and I think we really have to hope and have courage.. and see if we can manage to turn this thing around.
Cost of the Troubles Study: “…For those of you who didn’t have the dubious pleasure of meeting me the last time I was here [1995] I’m a sociologist as well as a psychotherapist …however I just do research nowadays. I’ve been involved with a group of people in the Cost of the Troubles study all of whom were eloquently qualified to speak about the impact of the Troubles on the North of Ireland by virtue of the fact that they all had personal experience by either a bereavement or an injury in the Troubles and they composed the board of directors on the Cost of the Troubles study and I was responsible to them for the research I’m going to tell you about this evening. I was informed by their expertise, by their sensitivity to issues… I’m very fortunate as a researcher as I have real experts advising me, people who have actually been there and suffered and who are advising me on what not to do….
Statistics: “I just want to start by going through some of the facts and then I’ll tell you some of the things we’ve done. To date we’ve got in the North – and in the Republic of Ireland and in England and in Germany and in various other places – over three thousand seven hundred people have been killed as a result of the conflict in Northern Ireland. The official figure is lower than that, and we’ve got somebody here from the government side, who could correct me but it’s about three thousand three hundred …… About three thousand seven hundred is the total figure including the Dublin and Monaghan bombs, including all the other things that weren’t traditionally counted because traditionally the government only counted the deaths in Northern Ireland. Now I reckon that that makes about 7000 people living in nuclear families, i.e. mother, father and children – it doesn’t count grannies or uncles and aunts, just mother, father and children – living in that type of a family unit with direct experience of bereavement for somebody who has been killed in that unit. Now the official figure is 40,000 who have been injured. That we know is definitely too low because that’s only within Northern Ireland, when you include the people outside Northern Ireland that’s going to go up I reckon probably to 60,000 people who have been injured in the troubles. Again you can do the same type of calculation out that means that there are about 123,000 people who are living in families where there is somebody who has been injured by the troubles.
“If you add those two figures together you’re pushing up towards 150,000 people … that’s 150,000 people who are living in immediate families – that’s not counting next door neighbours or eyewitnesses and all of the rest of it – those are people who are just living in families who have very severe effects of the Troubles. We don’t know anything at all about the numbers of people who are permanently disabled either physically or emotionally as a result of the Troubles. There are many people who we have talked to who can’t go out of their houses, they are too scared to go out or who have panic attacks under certain circumstances.
“There are also people who have lost limbs and are in wheelchairs and all the rest of it, they are permanently disabled as a result of the troubles. That’s what we know about.
Research: “I’d just like to tell you what we’ve done in the last while and I’ll give you a little sample of what we found out. The first thing we did was we compiled a list of deaths in the troubles from 1969 and unfortunately we had to add to it last week. We keep it right up to date. On that list we have (for each death) the name of the person who was killed, their age, the date on which they were killed, their home address, the address at which they were killed, their religion, their status in terms of whether they were civilian or whether they were a member of the security forces or a member of a paramilitary organisation, the agency or organisation that killed them. In some cases we have their marital status and in some cases we have their occupation. So we’ve got all of that for 3,700 or more cases. It shows some of the result you’ll be looking at this evening but if we don’t get through it all there are several publications here … Now that’s the first thing we did. Through doing that we were able to classify the country into three kinds of areas. We had areas where the violence level was very high, because remember we had the home address of everybody who was killed and we also had the address at which they were killed. So we looked at how those deaths were scattered throughout the country and we found concentrations of deaths in particular areas and so we classified the whole country into three kinds of areas – areas where there was a lot of trouble, areas where there was a medium amount of trouble and areas where there was very little trouble.
People’s experiences: “Having done that we then undertook a survey – we knocked on 3000 doors right across Northern Ireland and we asked people a whole range of questions. We actually sent people out to people’s homes to talk to them and they all had the opportunity to tell us not to come if they didn’t want to talk to us and the interviewers were trained people .. who were able to deal with distress if the people got distressed. We collected all this information about people’s experiences of the troubles whether they had been eyewitnesses, whether they had got depressed as a result, or whether they had been injured themselves or whatever, whatever they’d seen or whatever they’d done, and also the effect it had had on them – had they moved house for example as a result of the Troubles, had they sleepless nights as a result of the Troubles, had they made changes in their political attitudes as a result of the Troubles and I’ll tell you a little bit about the results of that particular exercise as well…. We have interviewed now 78/79 people in-depth.
Methodology: “If I were to interview you I’d sit with you and I’d ask you really just those two questions, 1) “what’s your experience of the Troubles?” and 2) “how has it affected you?” and we’d talk until you had finished talking, until you had said everything you had to say. I’d tape-record it and we’d give you back the transcript and then we’d edit the transcript to take out all the names that you don’t want in it or ones that are too sensitive or maybe put in things that you forgot. I take the transcript back and I boil it down. We have an exhibition composed of a selection of those interviews right across a whole range of experiences of the Troubles. It’s in twelve sections and it’s currently in Armagh and we’re hoping it will be in Dublin in May. We’re taking it round the country and it’s also going to go to Westminster so the politicians can benefit from the wisdom of the people we’ve interviewed. So that’s the overview. .. We have a publication called Do you see what I see? and it’s done by children and young people. We interviewed young people and we asked them the same questions, we tape-recorded them, gave the transcripts back to them and took excerpts, then we gave them training in photography and they took photographs, and their photographs and their words are in the book and they’re telling us their experiences of the Troubles.
Impact of the Troubles: “So that’s the kind of work we’ve been doing and now I just want to zip through some of the results of what we’ve done. Don Mullan who’s here tonight knows very well the Bloody Sunday families and one of the first pieces of work that I did in this field was actually with the Bloody Sunday families.
“But if we were to ask a number of questions about the overall impact of the Troubles on the North – some of the first answers that I got was from talking to people who had been bereaved at Bloody Sunday ..
“Now first of all I have to say that the scale of the impact is not really known, nobody knows what the impact has been really and truly. If you’re asking about the economic impact, it’s very difficult to measure because of all sorts of other things that come in – like for example the British government put lots of money into industrial development… So in order to get a notion of the real effect you’d have to take that money out of the economy and look at what would have happened had it not been there. So it’s very difficult to measure, we don’t really know what the economic effect has been…
“As a result of talking to the Bloody Sunday families I discovered that roughly half of them had some severe symptoms of one kind or another, either severe sleeplessness or panic attacks or something that really disrupted their lives in some very important way and that was 22 years after it had happened. So roughly half of the people over 20 years later were still suffering as a result of what had happened 20 years previously. That’s kind of frightening when you think about the number of Bloody Sunday type incidents where there’s been multiple deaths, Omagh is the most recent example but there’s many others…. There are single incidents and we forget about them we don’t even remember them but you take them into account as well and what might be going on with people.
Isolation: “The other thing I first came across on Bloody Sunday but we found over and over and over again is isolation. I’ve forgotten how many times I’ve gone into a house and I’ve interviewed somebody and they’ve talked to me for a couple of hours and at the end of it they’ve said “you know you’re the first person who’s sat and listened to me until I’ve finished”. Now that again is a terrible indictment. I was having a conversation yesterday with somebody who’s been working in the Omagh area and he was telling me that one of the things the Omagh victims have had to learn to cope with is how to handle all of the offers of help that they’ve had, people are coming out of the woodwork wanting to help in Omagh.. they’ve been terribly, terribly sad because these people have enough to worry about without having to field offers of help. Whilst those people are inundated with offers of help many thousands of people have no offers of help whatsoever. So I think that’s another thing that is worth bearing in mind.
How people coped: “Lastly in terms of how people coped one of the things that concerned me is the whole business of medication, the use of the drug alcohol to cope with their feelings. Particularly for women in the 70’s – GP’s were one of the few sources of help for people and what GP’s routinely did was prescribe tranquillisers and as we now know valium is an addictive drug and so we’ve very many people in communities who have been badly affected by the Troubles who have had long-standing drugs problems, they’re not on heroin or anything like that, they’re on prescribed medication. Similarly in the areas worst affected the level of alcohol consumption is phenomenal and the beginning age of drinking is very, very low. Kids are beginning to drink at the age of 10, 11 and 12 years of age in the worst affected areas. So again these are things we are worried about.
“We’ve interviewed a lot of people… let’s say for example a woman who has lost her husband, her husband is shot dead and she’s left with young children to rear. The woman is traumatised and is not able to cope. She’s very depressed, she’s antisocial, she’s just completely out of it. She’s been to the doctor and he’s given her tablets but they’re too strong I’d say. She’s unable to cope with her children. Typically the oldest child has to start rearing the younger children, and so we have a situation where those children not only have they lost one parent whose absent because he’s dead but they’ve lost the other parent because they’re psychologically absent because the person is traumatised and unable to care for them.
“So you have situations where apparently children have only lost one parent but in fact if you think about it they’ve lost both. We’ve interviewed women who have been in this situation – they will say with great regret and sorrow and a lot of guilt as well that they have no memory of rearing their children after their husband is killed or they’ll say things like “I wasn’t the mother of those children my eldest daughter was the mother” or “my mother was the mother”. There’s a great deal of difficulty of that kind.
Social fabric: “In the worst affected communities .. the social fabric of the community is damaged very badly. For example if something goes wrong in the community the community has lost the capacity to deal with that in a reasonable way that we would see in other communities that haven’t been heavily militarised. The resources within the community for example, particularly in communities let’s say in North Belfast where they’re surrounded on all sides by the other sort, where there’s maybe been a lot of sectarian assassinations where there’s been a lot of deaths in the community, people are very suspicious of outsiders they’re also very angry about what’s happened in the community and quite a lot of people in the community have a very short fuse. And that compromises the ability of the community to deal with things in a way that you would expect communities to deal with things. Violence is tolerated at a level which is really probably not good for people and of course people have had to tolerate violence because they’ve had to look at violence so it’s kind of a double-edged sword.
Males: “Finally, young boys particularly – it starts around the age of 10,11, 12 and it peaks around the age of 19 or 20 – males in those age ranges are most at risk from 1) being killed in the troubles and 2) taking up arms as a result of what’s happened in their community. So we’ve got a double risk that’s specifically for males in terms of being killed – and injured of course – and also the other side of that of killing or injuring other people. Do you remember my list of deaths? I was saying we had all this information on people… 91% of the people killed in the Troubles were male so death, the most extreme experience of the Troubles, is predominantly a male experience. That isn’t to say that women don’t suffer but they tend to have a different kind of experience completely of the Troubles than men have. So for example when I was a young person, when I was working in Belfast I had a team staff that were responsible to me in community work; I knew for example that I would send male workers only into the areas of their co-religionists, but with female workers I could probably afford to send a Protestant into a Catholic area or a Catholic into a Protestant area. With males that was a really risky thing to do because males were much more at risk from attacks in the Troubles as a whole. The other side of it is if we’re thinking about how we perceive the Troubles – males will see things very different to females in terms of what’s risky and what’s not. They live in two different worlds, where the risk when you’re a male is very different to the risk if you’re a female. .. If you’re as old as I am and you moved to Belfast or you lived in Belfast in the 1970’s you had a very different experience of the Troubles than say kids that I’m working with around the age of 19 or 20 or even 22-25. Those people have really experienced this part of the Troubles here and this is the deaths over time … the peak death rate of the Troubles was in 1972 when 495 people were killed in one year and we made a graph – and if you go to the exhibition you’ll see it .. each line of the graph is a death and we stacked them by year and it looks like this: 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 is 6ft 9 inches tall it goes straight up into the sky; so after that it comes down here to what is referred to as the “acceptable level of violence” – totally unacceptable but it is a lot less than what it had been in the early 70’s. So if you look at this time [graph showing early 70’s] your experience of the Troubles – the worst period of the Troubles – is much different to your experience of the worst period of the Troubles if you’re younger. Of course what I was already saying about ages is showing here ….. and you can see that the peak is around 19 – 20.
Cause of death: “Most of the deaths in Northern Ireland have been caused by shooting incidents followed by explosions and assault, people being beaten to death and that’s the lowest. Generally speaking fire-arms are responsible for the largest number of deaths.
Religion of victims: “Then we get on to the contentious one which is the religion of the victims [graph] – you can calculate this in various ways and I don’t want to get too complicated with you here, but if you take my word for it that no matter what way you calculate it … the Catholic death rate is higher than the Protestant death rate. That includes if you take for example some of these “not knowns” are security forces – if you take those out of that category and you attribute roughly 90% of them to the Protestant religion because roughly 90% of the Security forces are Protestant and you add them to the Protestant column it still doesn’t get any higher than the Catholic death rate.
“If you’re a Protestant in Northern Ireland that doesn’t square with your experience and it doesn’t square with your experience because we live in a very divided society where quite a lot of us don’t know a lot of the other sort – if we’re a Protestant living roughly in a Protestant area we don’t necessarily know about the experiences of a Catholic community.
Protestant and Catholic deaths: “We’ll look at Protestant deaths and who’s killed Protestants [graph of Protestant deaths by perpetrator]. You’ll see here immediately that 70% of Protestants were killed by Republican paramilitaries so if you’re a Protestant that’s your experience of what the Troubles is about. You might be aware of a few other bits and pieces but generally speaking that’s the predominant experience. For Catholic deaths that 70% becomes 25%, so if you’re a Catholic you see Loyalists as the most responsible agency for deaths in the troubles, 47% of Catholic deaths are by Loyalists. You can see that it depends on who you are, how you live and what your identity is, your overall picture of the Troubles will be.. If you’re a male you think this is very risky going into this area whereas if you’re a female you think this is OK and if you’re a Catholic you think Loyalists are the ones who are most responsible, if you’re a Protestant you think it’s the other way round.
Overall figure: “Take all deaths – never mind if they’re Protestant or Catholic – the Republican paramilitaries are responsible for 57% of all deaths in the Troubles so over half the deaths in the Troubles are due to actions by Republican paramilitaries. If you think about that and what I was saying about the two death rates, and that the Catholic death rate is higher than the Protestant death rate, then the conclusion that you must draw is that Republican paramilitaries have killed substantial numbers of Catholics. The other side of that point is of course that Loyalists have killed considerable numbers of Protestants. Overall the agency responsible for the largest number of deaths are Republican paramilitaries, followed by Loyalist paramilitaries followed by the British army, then you have the UDR, the RUC and civilians. Civilian deaths are deaths that are caused by, for example, in riot situations when you can’t attribute to a particular organisation and then there are some which we are not sure about and those are shown there [graph].
Political status of victims: “This [graph] shows the political status of victims and this shows overwhelmingly that over half the deaths in the Troubles were deaths of civilians – not members of paramilitary organisations, not members of the security forces but ordinary people going about their lives being in the wrong place at the wrong time or being the targets of sectarian assassinations, so overwhelmingly people who have been killed most often have been uninvolved civilians. Now can I say that internationally that is actually quite a low figure. .. Most casualties in the world now are predominantly civilians, it’s no longer where the soldiers went off to war – warfare has changed and this is now what is happening. In fact it’s low in comparison with other countries.
Help received: “I’m going to skip ahead and say a couple of things about a survey that we did. We knocked on doors and we asked people how the troubles had affected them and who had helped the most. Over two-thirds of the people we talked to said that their best help came from their spouse, their family or their neighbours. Half of them said that help was sympathetic and helpful, 15% said that it was just about adequate, 6 cases said that the help they got was harmful and 34 cases had help from no one. When we looked at what the people told us about the impact of the Troubles, we asked people – if you remember we had divided them into three kinds of areas, areas where there was a lot of trouble, areas where there was a medium amount of trouble and areas where there was very little trouble – we asked people first of all how much experience did they have of the Troubles here. These people here [graph] have a lot of experience of the Troubles, these people have a little less but quite a lot, these people have some experience of the Troubles, these people have a little experience of the Troubles, these people have very little and these people have none. [Pointing to chart] Then we asked them how much change the Troubles made in their lives. Some people said a complete change, some people said a radical change, some people said some change, small impact and none at all. Now let’s look at these people who have a lot of experience of the Troubles – they say that the Troubles have completely changed their lives, but actually they’re not actually much more than the people who say they’ve a lot of experience. The highest scores for all the groups are in the middle where they say the Troubles have changed their lives somewhat, not a complete change, not no change at all but most of the groups said that they were somewhere in the middle.
Stress levels: “I’m going to finish off by telling you about something we did with the data. You’ve heard about post-traumatic stress disorder – we did a little test within the questions and we put together a measure of the stress levels of the people we interviewed and then we analysed it. The first one was by gender so we looked at men’s and women’s experience of stress – and you can see that actually even though 91% of the people killed in the Troubles were males, and males were a higher risk and all the rest of it, their stress levels with females were quite similar. There’s not a whole lot of difference between them. Then we looked at stress levels by religion. What we find is that there is actually quite a significant difference in stress levels amongst the Catholics we talked to compared to the Protestants we talked to and again I’ll just remind you that the areas where we see the worst troubles are more often Catholic than they are Protestant. So that kind of explains why the Catholic stress levels are higher than the Protestants. Of course, as was to be expected, the stress levels in the areas with the highest intensity of violence were much higher than either of the other two areas.
Professional help: “The last thing we did was ask people where they got help from in terms of professionals. We found that 14% of the people we talked to had seen a psychiatrist and I would say that a lot of those people had seen a psychiatrist because they had to – because they wanted to sue for compensation from the Northern Ireland Office so it wasn’t that they were necessarily going for help just that they were going for a court report. Look at the figure for the local doctor which ties in with what I was saying earlier about the people going to their local G.P. and still to this day getting medication, getting drugs of one kind or another. Almost half of the people we had talked to had been to their GP as a result of the effects of the troubles. Nurses and social workers were much lower. Ministers and priests were quite high and again if you think about bereavement the minister is usually there when the person is being buried so you’re in contact with people. Community workers were very heavily relied on and other voluntary organisations as well. Thank you very much.”
CHAIR (Kitty Harlin): “Thank you very much Marie for all that information. It was an enormous amount to get through in such a short space of time but very useful and it must have been a huge task. Our second speaker tonight is Billy Stevenson and he is head of the Victim’s Liaison Unit in the Northern Ireland Office. This unit was set up after the Good Friday Agreement and follows on from the Bloomfield inquiry.
2. Billy Stevenson (Head of Victims Liaison Unit): “Thank you very much for the invitation to come here tonight. I hadn’t heard much about the Meath Peace Group before I came but I did read some of the literature that you’ve produced and it’s very impressive. It’s very important to promote dialogue in Northern Ireland, healing will come through dialogue. This and many other groups are very worthwhile and for that reason I’m very pleased to be here tonight.
“I’ll be using the term “victims” and I hope it’s not offensive to anybody but it’s the simplest term. “Survivors” is a better word and an even better phrase is “people affected by the Troubles”. It’s a difficult issue. It’s only just being looked at, there have been over 30 years of neglect of people who have suffered and therefore we have an enormous amount of work to do to try and make these people feel part of the peace process which is what your talk is about tonight. Victims are very much part of the healing which must happen in Northern Ireland.. They have in effect paid the price for peace…
Victims Liaison Unit: “Tonight I would like to tell you a bit about who we are, what we’re about, where we come from, what we’ve done and what we’re going to do in the future. Just a few dates to get the whole thing in perspective:
“In October 1997 the Secretary of State asked Sir Kenneth Bloomfield to look at the impact of the Troubles on individuals and what needs to be done to help them. He produced this report in April and it was launched in May and it was generally well received. For those of you who have read it I hope you will think it is one of the most sensitive government reports I personally have ever read. It doesn’t satisfy everybody all the time but I think it’s a very good start. It highlights a lot of very important issues which vary from individual cases of compensation right through to memorials, right through to truth and justice…It’s a massive agenda, a complicated mosaic that we’re trying to put together. The Victim’s Liaison Unit was formed in June 1998 to take forward the report which was accepted in its entirety by the Government. Somewhat naively probably we launched a consultation exercise as Sir Kenneth had asked. He wanted us to fill out a consultation on what he had recommended. We thought three months was about right. How wrong we were! The demand and the level of grief and hurt and pain and people just wanting pure recognition for what they had gone through is enormous, and we have been overwhelmed by the reaction we have received. Therefore we have taken longer to complete and finalise the consultation exercise.
Good Friday Agreement: “We must also not forget that as well as Sir Kenneth’s report the Good Friday Agreement is quite an important document in all of this. For the first time it lays down what needs to be done for the victims and the part that they must play in the process and again that goes back to the theme of your talk tonight. That brings us on to the questions of the future, the future Assembly, our politicians and how they will deal with the victims because it’s not going to go away. So the Good Friday Agreement and the Bloomfield report are the two base documents I would say… In our consultation exercise .. we started working with hundreds of individuals who have themselves been affected by the Troubles. People from all walks of life, from all situations. It has been a very privileged position to be in but also a very challenging one. Those of you who know Marie [Smyth] will know that she has worked for these people for years and they have my entire admiration. These people have a story to tell whether you like it or not…
“I say again that I think we’ve only touched the tip of the iceberg. The peace process has allowed people the space to come forward, to open their doors for the first time, to get some freedom to speak on what was done to them … even telling their story appears to be part of the healing. Telling their story is very important and it’s also important not to deny someone their story…….Some people did get appropriate help, I mean it’s not a case of noone getting help but generally speaking people did not get help they wanted when they wanted it at the local level. So there’s a need for people to come together to help each other ……. Counselling is a much used term, befriending is very often what happens at these meetings, in similar situations they can help each other along.
“What we have done:
Compensation: “Compensation is an enormous issue especially for people who are injured or bereaved in the 70’s.. The compensation scheme set down a certain amount, some people felt it was alright others feel very aggrieved at the process. So compensation is a very big issue and Sir Kenneth recommended that it should be looked at. He was then asked to go and do the review himself and he is now making the report which will be out I believe by June of this year and that will be a very important report.
Trauma Centre: “We established a new trauma centre in Belfast. This trauma centre is not going to be open to most people. It’s for people who have been very seriously traumatised and it will have a family therapy service and that centre is expanding it’s training outlets in all parts of NI and that will take some time. It’s going to be based in Belfast.
Pilot projects: “We funded some pilot projects – Marie’s probably been inundated with the amount of research that’s going on. I think Northern Ireland has been in a state of denial over the past 30 years, I mean look at all the research that’s going on about these people. We’ve given small amounts of money to some pilot projects on housing for the disabled and house-bound elderly and the young who were affected by the Troubles that are on-going. We’ve also funded victims groups.
Educational bursary: “We have introduced an educational bursary scheme. Many people say to us “please think about the children and the way it’s affecting them” and also people who had their education interrupted because of something that happened years ago and they have no jobs or dead-end jobs. We have just received over 500 applications for the educational bursary and this will help these people in many ways whether it’s to take a small educational course or go on to university or do their O-levels, just to advance their education so that they can someway move forward.
Funding of groups: “We set up another fund which is going to look after the funding of other groups and it’s also going to be a fund-raising and a fund distributing organisation as well. It’s going to look at the needs and come up with ideas such as the hardship fund etc. – those sort of things which will need ongoing sustained funding.
Touchstone Group: “We’ve also set up a group called the Touchstone group. It is a group of people who represent the interests of the victims’ groups from across the range of interests. It doesn’t include all of the groups but it represents the interests and that’s for the first time again the coming together of people from very different backgrounds, disabled police-officers working with relations of people who were killed by the security forces, and that is very important in terms of dialogue and that group meets once a month and it’s becoming quite a powerful programme.
Assessment of needs: “We’ve also tried to get a picture of where we are …Marie’s work has been very important in terms of where we are. We’ve also asked Marie to do another bit of research for us in terms of the needs of the groups – interestingly funding, counselling support services at community level are all coming out very strong. So we’re trying to get a picture of our needs and how those needs will be met… there are lots of funding bodies in NI at the moment using European money…. We’re trying to figure out who’s getting the money, where we are, what we’re doing, where the gaps are… so we’re trying to assess the need.
Future: “What about the future? Well I think I have indicated earlier that this thing will not go away and why should it? For the first time people are beginning to have a voice and they’re entitled to use the voice. Very often they are filled with absolute rage and hurt about what has happened to them and they’re determined that they will not be left behind in the peace process. So we need to listen to what they’re saying to us , even if what they say is sometimes uncomfortable, challenges how we go about doing things, challenges what we have done in the past. We each of us has a role and we need to try and build solutions. … We have much more to do in the future. We have much more to do in terms of recognising funding, just being more inclusive about these people. What you’re doing tonight I think is important that you’re basically educating yourselves about the situation which I suspect is not what you thought it was. It wasn’t what I thought it was and I lived there for 30 years through it all. These people have been hidden and they’re now becoming visible and that’s what the challenge is now.
“… So that’s really the frame of what we’ve been doing and there’s much more to be done which we’re very committed to doing in the future. Thank you.”
CHAIR (Kitty Harlin): “Thank you very much for that information Our next speaker is John Wilson. He is head of the Victim’s Commission in Dublin. The Commission was set up last summer as part of the Good Friday Agreement and he is due to report on his findings after Easter. He was a former Minister for Education and Tanaiste and we are delighted to ask him to speak.
3. John Wilson (Head of Victims’ Commission): “First of all I want to thank the Meath Peace Group for the invitation to come here and to speak. The government appointed me Commissioner, I never had ambition to be a commissioner but I am commissioner for victims and I think it’s an appropriate place to come, the Boyne river flows through Navan and that has a certain significance, more significant in some parts of the country than Co. Meath. I want to say that this particular place where we are speaking [Dalgan] has a strong relationship with victims and victimhood because the first and last time that I was here it was at the funeral of a man who was a victim of the Chinese revolutionaries in 1948. So this particular institution is not without knowledge of victimhood both in China and in Chile and elsewhere. I think that you deserve great credit for having started this peace group and informing yourselves about the problems in our own country. We go to Church every Sunday and we hear the words “My Peace I give you, My peace I leave you” and we go away. We agree with it of course and the peace group here in Meath informed it with action and played a part in letting the people know what was happening, the importance of peace. And we know what happened when there was a referendum North and South – an overwhelming percentage of the people in the south accepted the Good Friday Agreement and over 74% in the North accepted it and it was through people being informed about realities of what was happening that that came about. Since I’ve been appointed I’ve had great help, great assistance from various people, not least from people in Belfast, from South Africa, from Archbishop Tutu who showed wisdom and commitment and …succeeded in making great advances in that country….
“I think I will have to make a special mention of Marie Smith who spoke here tonight. The last time I met her she had published 40 different papers on the situation in Northern Ireland. Now it’s some time since I counted, it may be 58 by now!
“I have to make recommendations to government as a result of the studies that we’re doing, people that we’re meeting, the people that we’re listening to. We’ll shortly have the report ready but I have to make recommendations to the Government so I’m not going to anticipate it by outlining to you what the recommendations are here tonight.
Good Friday Agreement – Context for the Victims Commission:
“For most of us the Peace Process is about the future and hope for the future. It is about putting the conflict and violence of the past behind us; it is about building a new Ireland, an agreed Ireland in which all traditions on this island treat each other with mutual respect and in which there will be prosperity for all. Maybe that’s a large demand but it’s what we should be pushing for. Those who have been affected directly by the violence of the Troubles have more mixed feelings. Putting the past behind them is no easy matter because these are people who will always carry with them the physical and emotional scars of that violence.
“For most of us, also, the Good Friday Agreement and the Peace Process are synonymous. While the Agreement states “that the achievement of a peaceful and just society would be a true memorial to the victims of violence” it also recognises that this is not enough and that – “it is essential to acknowledge and address the suffering of the victims of violence as a necessary element of reconciliation”. The Taoiseach also recognised this when he said, in May last, that “there is a moral obligation on those of us in a position of political leadership and on the wider public to be particularly sensitive to the needs of victims”. While, as I have said, the agreement gives us hope for the future, it has also to be recognised that it would not be a real agreement if all parties agreed 100% with everything in it. This is particularly true for victims. As the Taoiseach himself put it “this time of hope is also for some a particularly painful one and it is apparent that certain aspects of the Good Friday Agreement, in particular those relating to the release of prisoners cause some victims very substantial difficulties”.
“It’s true, we have met a large number of victims and the strange thing about it is those who are most severely affected themselves, both physically and mentally, were the people who tended to say “if this Agreement stops this from happening to someone else, however much I hate the release of prisoners I go full along with it”. That was very encouraging to me also. The Taoiseach also, at that time, acknowledged the feeling of isolation felt by many victims and pledged that the Government would in consultation with the victims themselves consider what further steps should be taken to address their particular needs.
Victims’ Commission: “It was in this context that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, John O’ Donoghue TD, obtained the approval of the Government to set up the Victims Commission to conduct a review of services and arrangements in place in the South to meet the needs of victims. Needless to say I was deeply honoured to have been invited to carry out this review. I believe that not only is the job I was asked to do a very important one in its own right, but it may also be a very valuable adjunct to the Peace Process. I believed then as I do now that a focus on victims strengthens the peace. By focusing on the human tragedy of the victims of violence we see the full cost of the alternatives to peace. My conviction in this regard has been strengthened by the aftermath of the horrible tragedy that was Omagh. This horrendous act, which was intended to wreck the Peace Process has only strengthened the resolve of those working for peace. I hope that recent deplorable murders will have the opposite effect to that intended by their perpetrators.
Terms of Reference of Victims’ Commission:
1. “To conduct a review of 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 thirty years, and to identify what further measures need to be taken to acknowledge and address the suffering and concerns of those in question. This would include, in particular, consideration of the following:
• the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement in relation to victims
• the needs and concerns of persons, who have sustained serious injury, and members of the immediate families of those who have died or sustained serious injuries in the services of the State as a consequence of violent acts ensuing from the conflict
• the needs and concerns of victims and the families of victims of major outrages including those of the Dublin, Monaghan and Dundalk bombings. That particular list includes the greatest number of victims of any single atrocity since the troubles began North and South.
2. “To advise on how the support given to victims by their families, in helping them to cope with the immediate aftermath and continuing consequences of violence, can be acknowledged and sustained.
Work of the Commission: “You will see that no target date for the completion of the review has been fixed in the Terms of Reference. We intend to impose our own target date and that is in the very near future… I believe that it is important that all victims get a chance to be heard and I did not wish to compromise the thoroughness of the consultative process, which is a key element of this review, by setting a fixed target date. I have run well beyond the original target date I set myself precisely for that reason.
Consultations: “The work I am carrying out involved extensive consultations both within this jurisdiction and in other jurisdictions. These included consultations with various agencies of central and local Government who are responsible for providing services and support to victims e.g. the Department of Health, the Department of Social Welfare, Health Boards, County Councils, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and the Criminal Inquiries Compensation Tribunal. They also included consultations with voluntary groups or agencies working in the field, not only in this jurisdiction but also in NI and in other jurisdictions beyond that.
The victims: “Last but definitely not least are the consultations with the victims themselves and their families. These consultations formed the greater part of my consultations. I have met victims from all four provinces, from Donegal to Wexford, from Antrim to Cork and from Galway to Dublin. This has been a very humbling but also enriching experience. One cannot but be moved by the tragedy that has been inflicted on so many lives, on the victims themselves and on their families. It has been quite harrowing at times to feel the lasting sense of loss which these victims feel – even as much as a quarter of a century after the events. A mother whose son was in the whole of his health was admitted to the mental hospital the day before yesterday, having gone through hell since then, a loyal and loving mother who has suffered even more than the actual victim himself. A woman who would like to lay a bunch of flowers on her son’s grave but doesn’t know where it is. In this particular job I suppose one must control one’s emotions but one cannot be totally legalistic, cold in the face of tragedy itself.
Courage of victims: “I have also been deeply impressed by the courage and determination shown by many of the victims and their families in dealing with this loss and in dealing with the disabilities which have been inflicted on them as a result. I have been particularly impressed by the courage and determination of the women involved. It was pointed out, by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield in his report, that while the majority of the victims of violence, particularly those killed, are men it is the women who are left behind to grieve and pick up the pieces and to get on with life and in some cases bring up families after these events. I have also been struck by the role of women in the voluntary organisations dealing with victims. I have been deeply impressed by their efficiency, their commitment, their understanding and their sensitivity.
Needs of victims: “In looking at the needs of victims it is important to recognise from the outset that each case is unique and, as the Taoiseach said in May last, “There can be no predicted or prescribed way to come to terms with loss and pain. The equal reality and validity of each individual experience must be fully respected. For many, issues of truth and justice can be paramount. For others, practical support is what they need the most. These practical needs can be many and varied, including such things as counselling, moral support and financial support. Many may need continuing specialist care in such areas such as psychological and psychiatric medicine, plastic surgery, management of pain, prosthetics. The disabled will need rehabilitation and may also have special housing and transport needs. You can see from this list that many victims will have to deal with a number of different local and central Government agencies as well as voluntary groups in order to get the help they need. So it is clear that there is a need for practical help, particularly immediately after an event, in helping people to get the help they need.
Recurring themes: “While each victim’s case is unique and their need are different, it is also clear that there is much they have in common. It should be quite clear to all of us from the aftermath of the dreadful events in Omagh that grief and suffering transcends all differences, religious, political or otherwise. Grief and suffering are not the unique property of Protestants or Catholics, Unionists or Nationalists, Irish, English or Spanish. From my experience with victims and with people working in that field, two themes keep reoccurring. The first is acknowledgement and the second is empowerment. Many victims feel they have been forgotten about, that they have been swept under the carpet. As a result they can feel a great sense of isolation, of loneliness, they can feel worthless and unwanted. I said at the outset of this job that I hope to give victims a voice. I have redoubled my determination to do so and I ask you to listen to that voice both for your own sake as well as theirs.
Empowerment: “Empowerment is one of those buzz words we hear a lot nowadays and we are not entirely sure what it means sometimes, but I will tell you precisely what it means in this context. Empowerment is about helping victims become survivors. Paradoxically in helping victims we can do too much and, at the same time, not do enough. The best help we can give victims is to help them to help themselves. It is clear from talking to victims that there are many areas in which they receive no help. It is also clear that when they did receive help it was often given on the giver’s terms and the victims had no say in how it was applied to them. The wrong type of help can do more help than good.
“It can often happen, after a major disaster, that people can get a rush of blood to the head and great efforts are made to organise disaster funds and immediate relief. In the immediate aftermath there is lots of help and the victims are insulated in a cocoon of carers or deluged in a wave of sympathy and media attention. Then when the story disappears from the front pages, this flood of help and attention suddenly dries off and they are left to fend for themselves. It would obviously have been better if they were perhaps given less help and attention in the beginning, if the help they were given were geared to getting them back on their feet, and help were to continue for as long as it is needed and not drawn away suddenly.
Loss: “Another thing which is common to all victims is the nature of the loss. This is an irretrievable loss and it is very important to remember this. There is no way we can make good the loss no matter what we do. This is illustrated by a group of the mothers of the disappeared who still parade around the Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires demanding of the military – “you took them away alive, take them back alive”. If you are tempted to feel that the demands of the victims are unreasonable remember that.
Victims’ Own Views of the Peace Process: “Victims more than anyone know what it means to have peace. Victims more than anyone would not wish the suffering they have endured on anyone else so you can take it that victims more than anyone want to see peace. Like the rest of the population what they see as the prerequisites for peace is determined by their political outlook. How trustworthy they think the various parties are also depends on their political outlook. Consequently there is, I believe, as wide a spectrum of opinion among victims as among any other group. This is not to say that the circumstances of their victimhood have had no influence on their political outlook. However the effect is not always predictable. In some cases it seems to reinforce existing opinions sometimes to the extent that victims go on to become perpetrators themselves. In some cases – and I think this is the majority of cases – it gives people pause for thought and prompts them to re-examine some of their ideas.
Release of prisoners: “One aspect of the Good Friday Agreement which causes difficulty for some victims is the release of prisoners. In the south this is particularly sore for the families of murdered Gardai who are seeing the very people who murdered their loved ones walk free from jail. There are others who have great difficulty with this even though no one was ever caught for murders of their loved ones. This is a major issue for victims of the Troubles in the South. For the most part no one has been caught or convicted for their maiming or the murder of their loved ones. Consequently, most of them tend to be quite sanguine about the release of prisoners. “If it is a part of the deal and the deal brings peace, I am all for it”, they say and “We cannot keep them locked up forever”.
Truth: “For this group truth tends to be a prominent issue. Because no one was ever prosecuted they have never been officially told the whys and wherefors of their loved ones’ deaths. In some cases, this vacuum of knowledge has been filled with much speculation. Some of these victims feel that both the British and Irish Governments would like them to go away and stop asking awkward questions. They fear that, with the focus on the future, their concerns about the past will be pushed to one side and forgotten. Others suggest that with the new spirit of North-South and East-West co-operation the time may be right for a proper joint investigation of their cases. They are hopeful that, in more politically settled circumstances, there can be more openness about what really happened.
Disappeared: “This applies not only to those who believe that there may have been a hidden hand in the murder of their loved ones but also to the families of the disappeared. They are hopeful that a political settlement may make it possible for them to get loved ones’ bodies back. Vying with their fear of being forgotten yet again is a hope that, in the coming to a close of the conflict, it may also be possible for them to get what they need to bring some sense of closure to their personal ordeals.
“I’ll conclude by saying thanks again to the Meath Peace Group. Thanks for your organisation, thanks for your efforts to inform and thanks for your full commitment to the ideals of peace and reconciliation.”
CHAIR (Kitty Harlin): “Thank you very much John …We will hear questions later. The fourth speaker we have is Don Mullan and he is from Derry originally. He is here tonight to represent the group “Justice for the Forgotten” made up of some of the families of the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974. He is perhaps best known here for his work of the victims of Bloody Sunday and for his book Eyewitness Bloody Sunday.
4. Don Mullan (Author of Eyewitness Bloody Sunday;speaking here on behalf of the Justice for the Forgotten group):
“I want to extend my thanks to the Meath Peace Group for inviting me here tonight. …. One of the things that has been concerning me over the last number of months – and maybe in some ways it has been brought into focus with a group called “Relatives for Innocent Victims” – I think there is a great danger that we categorise various victims into good victims and bad victims. I think the reality is that every human life is precious and irrespective of what background they come from, what religion they belong to, at the end of the day they are human beings and they have families and loved ones and we all suffer and feel the same way.
Inclusiveness: “That’s so important that we bear that in mind. I suppose I’m always concerned about this idea of isolating different people because this peace process has to be about inclusiveness, it has to be about listening to unpalatable truths even though we may not like them. I have been appalled by many forms of paramilitary violence as much as anyone here as well as many forms of State violence and I think we’ve got to find a balance there. I worked in Brazil with the very famous Brazilian Archbishop called Dom Helder Camara and he wrote a book called Spiral of Violence and he talked about there being basically three levels of violence. The primary violence … is the violence of injustice, the denial of basic civil or human rights. I think that’s something we’ve got to focus on. I grew up in a Cregan estate. I remember hanging out the window of my home in the early days of the Civil Rights movement and hearing in the distance the voices of angry men engaging with the RUC, I could hear the CS gas and I remember thinking would this ever reach here, and indeed it did reach my street and many, many sad stories could be told by neighbours and friends and indeed many of my neighbours and friends ended up joining the paramilitaries. But the one thing I have to say, and I think this is very important, the community which I belonged to were not born with a genetic defect which made them prone to violence.
“They did not become violent because that was part of their nature and I think that, as part of the process that we’re involved in now, politicians and law-makers and commentators also have to look honestly at the corrupt institutional violence which in a sense contributes to corrupting human beings. That’s one of the things that I feel very angry about, when I see how many lives have been wrecked, maybe not actually physically injured but just in terms of the impact of the Troubles particularly in small communities.
Bloody Sunday.. “I was there, I saw it happen, I know the people were unarmed, I know they were innocent, I know they were murdered and yet for so long those soldiers were never brought to justice and indeed we often thought they never would be brought to justice and still the jury’s out as far as we’re concerned.. .We’ll wait and see because we cannot forget the impact of Widgery – in the face of murdering innocent people, he went on to murder the truth. The alienation that that created in my community, a loss of respect for law and order, for the institutions of law and so on. The impact in terms of the decisions people made …
Gary English: “And I often look at young men caught up in violence and I think but for the grace of God there go I. So I think it’s very important that we remember that. Let me tell you a story of a neighbour of mine, Martine, and she had a boyfriend called Gary. He was a lovely man and I often stopped and spoke with Gary – a great supporter of Manchester United and we often talked about various things that interested us. But one Easter Sunday around 1979 there was an Easter commemoration, a Republican parade up to the cemetery, there was a huge security presence, helicopters, armoured vehicles, troops and so on, tension was high. Often inevitably when that happens the tension would eventually break up into a riot.
“You may be surprised when I say that for many people a riot can be very entertaining. People go along, not to participate, but simply to watch and on this particular Easter Sunday a large group of people were standing near the cross-roads where the Cathedral is and, unknown to those who were watching, two armoured vehicles came down the hill and just at the last minute people heard these engines coming towards them but two bodies got hit in the back and were thrown like rag-dolls across the cross-roads. What I’m going to tell you now is something which others will testify to…. the second vehicle reversed over one of the bodies in order to finish him off. The guy who was reversed over was Gary English – Martine’s young boyfriend. Now for two years his father tried to get those soldiers brought to justice, for two years the system closed down and tried to protect itself and protect the soldiers. Eventually he did get the soldiers into a court of law in Belfast and not with a charge of murder or manslaughter but on a charge of reckless driving. I can remember that day being in Dublin and hearing the 1.30 RTE news on the radio and hearing the voice of Mr. English on the radio and hearing very clearly his disillusionment, his bitterness, his anger that the soldiers who murdered his son and another young Derry lad were allowed to walk scot free. The story didn’t end there, two years after that court case – four years after the murder of young Gary – a young provisional IRA volunteer is standing in the streets of Derry with a rocket launcher waiting to attack an army vehicle, a mobile patrol coming along. He’s standing with his face down and looking around the corner and clearly the safety catch wasn’t on, it must have been a very sensitive trigger and he touched the trigger and launched the rocket and it blew up in the street and killed him and the name of that young Provo was Charles English, Gary’s younger brother. This was a family who had never been involved with the Troubles before, never any record and who were drawn in. So I think it’s very very important that we just don’t talk about isolating people like that because very often they are people who have a story to tell themselves. I’m not in any way trying to justify them and I often say to people when I tell that story I don’t agree with the decision taken by Charles English to join the IRA in order to get revenge for his elder brother but what I can say is from the community into which I was born I can understand it. I can understand why a young man in that category as Marie had up there, people who are the most vulnerable – the 19-22 age-group – can make those decisions.
Dublin and Monaghan bombings: “Can I just also say that I think it would be presumptuous of me to say that I’m here tonight representing some of the families of Dublin/Monaghan because as Mr. Wilson well knows the families are very capable of representing themselves. But I have, thankfully with the invitation of many of the families, become part of the “Justice for the Forgotten” campaign and it was suggested that I look on it on the basis of my work in terms of Bloody Sunday. That campaign actually represents over half of the families who have lost their loved ones. There were 33 people killed, I think it was 31 families in all who lost members in that tragedy. There are now 18 families, and it’s growing all the time, who are now part of this campaign. Let me just very briefly run through some of the memories of that day because again it’s become blurred. Mr. Wilson again pointed out that this still remains the biggest single atrocity in a single day in the Troubles, bigger even than Omagh. 33 people died on that day – an entire family (the O’ Brien family), a young mother of 21, a father of 22, a 9 month and a 17 month old baby were wiped out that day. A mother who was nine months pregnant was killed with her unborn baby on that occasion… [tape ends]
Unanswered questions: “This atrocity remains an open wound. There are many, many unanswered questions. The three bombs in Dublin all detonate inside the space of 90 seconds and that was either tremendously professional, or it was very lucky, but when you look at the consistency and the mix of the explosives used, it detonated almost 100%. Again that was either very lucky or very professional but when you put the timing and you put the chemical mix of the bombs together, this was not an amateur job and there’s a very strong belief that the Loyalist paramilitaries who delivered the bombs were not acting alone.
“Indeed no one claimed responsibility for those bombs until 1993 when Yorkshire Television brought out a documentary in which they linked Loyalist paramilitaries with British intelligence and members of the British Security forces. Now we know that within a very short time 8 names of prime suspects were known to the Garda detective branch and the Garda Special Branch. It would appear that when those names went northwards the trail ran cold. There are questions as to whether the Guards informed the Irish Government of their difficulties with the RUC. I have spoken to a very senior former member of An Garda Siochana who told me that at the very least the Minister of Justice would have been appraised of those names.
“That means at a very high level, within cabinet level, in the Irish Government at that time they would have known those names. Did the Irish Government make representations to the British Government if the Garda Siochana were having difficulty with the RUC? …. There are many many unanswered questions and understandably the families believe that there is a cover-up for whatever reason. They believe that they have been left in a limbo of suffering and they have a campaign statement part of which reads “Closure will only come once we have been told the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.
“All the things that Marie talked about: isolation – they felt that terribly over 25 years; trauma – one only has to meet the families and indeed some of those who are survivors of that date are unredeemably traumatised and were never given proper help at that time or since. There was no counselling available to them. The Omagh tragedy brought it all back to them in very, very sharp focus for the victims of Dublin and Monaghan. They’re left looking at this and thinking… like “it’s very important that people are responding to Omagh, that they are reaching out to help the victims but why isn’t there or was there not a similar kind of reaching out to us?”. It’s almost like, and I don’t mean this in an offensive way, that Omagh has become kind of sexy and safe whereas the people of Dublin and Monaghan you know talk in terms of “we’ve been abandoned, we’ve been treated like lepers”.
Truth: “So their campaign now is focusing on trying to have a tribunal of inquiry established in order that the truth might eventually be told. But at this point almost 25 years later it’s not just about establishing the truth in terms of who murdered their loved ones and who was involved in the planning of the operation and the delivery of the bombs and so on, but also in terms of public accountability, in terms of the politicians and police authorities at that time with regard to many of the questions that I’ve already raised with you tonight. It remains as with many many of the victims who feel that they have never been properly listened to or responded to, it remains an open wound, there is no closure. It’s almost as if they’ve been condemned to a perpetual wake.
Tribunal of Inquiry: “Closure will only come when they know the truth. I think therefore that anyone who wants to help – particularly during this 25th anniversary year the victims of Dublin and Monaghan – I think that the best way is to listen to what the victims want. What do they want – not what do I want, I’m not interested in pushing anyone else’s agenda. I’m only interested in pushing the agenda of the truth and particularly the truth that the families want and it’s very clear they want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and I believe the only way that can be established now in terms of the biggest mass murder case in the history of this island is through a tribunal of inquiry. I think only after they know the truth, will they find personal peace for themselves and will they be able to allow their loved ones to rest in peace which is the wish I think of all victims of the Troubles. Thank you very much.”
CHAIR (Kitty Harlin): “Thank you Don. Certainly listening to everybody it seems that the healing process is going to take a long, long time, so much damage has been done.
Bridge Centre, Omagh: “The next speaker was to be Sean Collins but he’s unable to be here. Sean works at the Bridge centre in Omagh. He is part of the trauma and recovery team set up immediately after the Omagh bomb of the 15th of August 1998 which claimed the lives of 29 people and two unborn children. Over 370 people were injured at the time, 60 very seriously. The trauma team was set up to address the immediate welfare needs and the longer terms psychological needs of their own population and comprises social workers, nurse therapists, psychiatrists and pschiatric nurses, psychologists, occupational therapists, an art therapist and a bereavement consellor. The team has funding for two years and also receives support and practical assistance from voluntary groups…. The Bridge centre is named after a poem of one of the young victims Sean McLoughlin aged 12 from Buncrana:
“Orange and Green it does not matter
United now don’t shatter our dream
Scatter the seeds of peace over our land
So we can travel hand in hand across the Bridge of Hope”
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS (Summary)
Q1. Julitta Clancy: “I’d just like to thank you all for coming and I’d like to ask Don – how far have you got with the tribunal of inquiry? Also, Don spoke about the need to know the truth … how much does this apply to all the victims and should there be a Truth Commission at some time?
Don Mullan: “What I can see happening in the families in the last six months is a growing belief in themselves, a new found confidence. Quite frankly, at this stage, I don’t believe it’s a question of will we get a tribunal of inquiry, I believe it’s a question of when will it be, because I think they are entitled to it. I have no doubt there will be a battle and there will be very strong political opposition to it in the same way that the families of Bloody Sunday experienced it. But I believe there’s a determination there. It’s more difficult … Bloody Sunday was an attack on an intimate community whereas this was an atrocity that happened in a big city with the families spread out across the city, across the nation and indeed across Europe. But they’re coming together now and certainly in the last three or four weeks from what I can see they are becoming much more focused, much more articulate and indeed they’re meeting the Taoiseach next Tuesday and I believe it’s the first time in an official capacity that the Taoiseach has met with the families so again I think that is a sign that the political powers in the country know that this campaign is gathering strength and gathering support and I think around 40 TDs have actually supported their call for a tribunal of inquiry including the leader of the Labour Party. In the absence of something like the Truth and Reconciliation committee which was so ably chaired by Archbishop Tutu I think that families would have no other option but to go this way, particularly in relation to Dublin/Monaghan and I support their demand for a tribunal of inquiry.”
Marie Smyth: “A couple of things I’d like to say. First of all the need for truth. One of the things that concerns me in my professional capacity, somebody who’s supposed to deal with emotional upsets, mental illness and all that kind of thing, that the danger of confusing the righteous and proper anger of people who have been denied the truth and indeed also been denied justice, with emotional upset and mental illness, is a grave one.
“I think many people who have been affected by the Troubles have proper and righteous and understandable anger at what’s happened to them and at the fact that they haven’t had any sense of closure because they haven’t known or been told about what’s happened, nor have they had any sense that justice has been done or been seen to been done and I think that that will make anybody crazy and I think that the cure for that in fact is not counselling but it is the proper provision of information and justice for people. I think that that is something that is very important.
“Now if I could move to the question on whether or not there should be a truth commission in Northern Ireland. The difficulty about a truth commission in Northern Ireland is the difficulty that a truth commission has anywhere. It’s particularly pointed in Northern Ireland. It’s a supply and demand problem. There’s plenty of demand for the truth but there’s a bit of a problem on the supply side. A lot of people want to hear truth but there’s very few who will stand up and speak it in terms of telling what they have done, what they have been responsible for and indeed we have a major crisis about responsibility in Northern Ireland. … You know people who have gone to South Africa and said that the Truth Commission there was great – and I think that’s not entirely true by the way but even if it was true I think you had in S.Africa a very different political situation where you had a complete change of Government where the former terrorists moved into the new Government. That is not the case nor will it be the case in the forseeable future in Northern Ireland and therefore a radical gesture such as the establishment of a Truth Commission, I really can’t see it being feasible in Northern Ireland, if indeed it’s desirable, and I have some questions about its desirability because if you look at the South Africa experience, the experience of friends of mine who went forward to give evidence about their victimisation in South Africa was not an entirely satisfactory one. First of all it was traumatic for them and secondly they were left nearly in the position they started out on after the Truth Commission was over ….
John Wilson: “Could I comment on that? First of all the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa wasn’t 100% successful but it achieved a great deal and it achieved a great deal through the wisdom of Archbishop Tutu who said that the if people – the apartheid people – were put through the courts it would take years to do so and the wounds in society would be opened wider and wider and it would be impossible to run the place. The second point which I think is very important is that the native African people are a forgiving people and I doubt I can say that about my fellow countrymen who take up opposing sides in the North of Ireland or indeed in the South of Ireland. I don’t’ think there is the same forgivingness in their character. I don’t think the Truth and Reconciliation Commission would be effective in our circumstances for the reasons Marie just gave and the reasons I’ve just given now. Perhaps down the road it might be possible but the fact of the matter is that the big complaint that I have is that all the perpetrators of the violence in South Africa had to admit what they did and admit fully and then they were pardoned. They didn’t have to say they were sorry and that went very hard on some of the victims.
Billy Stevenson: “Could I just say that the people we have met, the desire for the truth is what a lot of them want. Not all – some people say “I don’t want to know, I want to move on” but a lot of people want to know the truth. Some want the complete truth and that means everybody needs to tell the truth about what they did and whereas it’s easy to open the files on one side, the files aren’t going to be open on the other side and what is the truth anyway? …. Courts work on the balance of evidence and they make decisions on what is available. The longer you leave it the more difficult it is to get evidence, 25 or 30 years ago. So anyway there is a need for truth but the mechanism I don’t think will be like South Africa – it will be something different if it ever happens. Perhaps the truth is beginning to filter out in Northern Ireland. People are telling their stories, people are listening to them in a non-judgmental way. I think the truth will drip slowly and I can see that happening.
“But I admit that not to know the truth – like the people from the Dublin/ Monaghan bombings, the Omagh bombings and the people from the single incidents who have been long forgotten about, and let’s not forget them as well. After the Omagh bomb I remember people saying it was the biggest atrocity in Northern Ireland, and a woman said to me “the biggest atrocity was the day somebody planted a car-bomb and murdered my eight year old daughter”. It’s a personal atrocity they were talking about here….”
Q3: “You were talking about the truth – if any of you heard the programme on Loyalists a couple of weeks ago, most of the loyalists interviewed had absolutely no regrets for what they’ve done. Martin McGuinness has also expressed no regret for what he’s done. In a sense we’re all victims of our history… Presumably if I lived on the Falls Road I would have no understanding of Orangeman. I think if the truth is important we have to sympathetically try to understand our enemy. If there is to be reconciliation in Ireland I think it is to come from the Nationalist side, understanding the symbols of our tricolour which expresses an all-embracing nationality of Protestant/ Catholic perception ….
John Wilson: “The most important thing in the tricolour was the white for peace. Green white and orange. The white actually signified peace.
Questioner: No, it symbolised an all-inclusive nationality.
John Wilson: “That’s the same thing.”
Questioner: “No the nationality was to achieve the legislative independence of Ireland. In that way it meant peace because you couldn’t have orange and green winning Irish freedom unless there was peace.”
Q4: “I just wondered about the juxtaposing of prisoners and victims. It’s just for the consideration of John and Billy. I just wondered whether it was in the remit of the work you’re carrying out at the moment and the work that Billy’s doing to consider prisoners as victims. Don has gone into detail about how easy it is for an impetuous young man to join a paramilitary group as a result of something directly affecting his/her family. I’d like to ask either Billy or John to comment on that and maybe for Marie – are there any statistics available about those who have been in prison in the North and those who have been directly affected by the Troubles?”
John Wilson: “…The prisoner is a victim, the prisoner is deserving of my consideration..”.
Billy Stevenson: “We have certainly met many prisoner’s groups. I think there is a controversy here and I think that’s why you’ve asked the question because some of the people who would class themselves as victims do not class prisoners as victims. I think the prisoners can be victims. I won’t say that all prisoners are per se victims but I think there’s something in there…
Marie Smyth: “This is something I have to think a lot about because obviously we have to decide who we are going to interview and how we are going to classify them. First of all I’d like to say that there has been a confusion in my mind about perpetrators as a population and prisoners as a population. They’re not the same thing. There are many, many people in Northern Ireland who have committed acts of violence, who have ended other people’s lives, who’ve damaged other people, who have never been charged or convicted of anything and have never been prisoners but they are perpetrators of acts of violence. So I think there has been a scapegoat on prisoners and they have been made responsible for everything that’s happened in the Troubles. But in fact they’re not, there are lots of people who got off scot free who have never been charged with anything.
“The second thing is, on my money, a victim is somebody who has been personally bereaved or injured in the Troubles, and you can interpret that any way you want. So there are victims who then make a choice of going forward and joining a paramilitary organisation and doing something and they get caught and get put in prison. The two events are connected and maybe qualify but they’re not the same thing, in my view. I think a victim is somebody who has been bereaved or injured and there are certainly prisoners who have been bereaved or injured but they’re not victims by virtue of being prisoners, if you see what I mean. They’re victims by virtue of being bereaved or injured so I think that will be my answer.
“One thing that is very important to say is that there are many, many people who have been bereaved or injured and who have never taken up the gun or the bomb or harmed any other people, in fact I would say most of the people who we have talked to have been very severely affected by the Troubles say exactly the opposite – that they would not do that because they don’t want to inflict the pain that they’re suffering on other people. So I think you have to have some way of differentiating between the choice people make not to reproduce violence and the choice to reproduce violence.
Q5:Cllr. Phil Cantwell.(Independent, Trim UDC) “Just to tell the meeting and Mr. Mullan that I’m happy that Trim Urban Council actually passed a motion that the Taoiseach will have an inquiry into the Dublin/Monaghan bombs. The second point is that I have met somebody in Derry who was a victim and, like you mentioned, he didn’t respond. His shop was blown up in 1972. His wife is now dead, he lost his business, he lost everything. He was awarded compensation about 20 years ago, but he still hasn’t got a penny. I went into the compensation agency, they’ve lost his files. I don’t think they can tell the truth. … The British Government haven’t even addressed the relatives of the people who were killed in the helicopter going across the Mull of Kintyre. So this is where we look at the Unionists at the moment, they don’t trust the Irish, they don’t trust the British. So it’s a big, big problem of knowing where to turn to get the truth. .. People are hurt, but worst of all they don’t know where to turn to get the truth and that’s a big problem…
Q6: … . “The peace process has to some extent now come together with Governments working together.. with a formula for working together. Should there not be much more emphasis – I know Billy talked about it – on community groups, on touchstone groups, in other words much more recognition and substance and resources being put into them so that the communities on the ground can rebuild, giving the local victims a place to speak at which they can account for the pain that they went through but also help those communities to rejoin together, to rebuild communities for the future. That’s ultimately the cornerstone on the foundation of future communities that will live together as opposed to the institutions which have great difficulty in establishing the truth or acknowledging the truth but maybe individuals on the ground may do it more effectively, more efficiently and in the long term with more results.
Marie: “I think you’re absolutely right. There’s two things I’d have to say. …basically, in my view the paltry resources that have been delivered to servicing the needs of victims is a disgrace and there’s no doubt about that, and I think the resources need to be increased and … the priority has to go to the agencies and the places where victims have their best help. Victims have had their best help from their families, from their communities. Not the people like me, not the people like Billy, not doctors or anyone else, but from their own local people and their own local communities and I think part of that has to be about equipping those communities to do better what they’ve done so often in the past and to supporting them in doing that.
“The second thing I think that’s very important – and we’ve learnt from experiences elsewhere …. in the period of coming out of violence of the past, when we’re in transition, the level of criminal violence in communities that have been worst affected by the Troubles goes through the ceiling.
“In South Africa at the moment we have a major, major problem with criminal violence and the murder rate is higher than its ever been because basically one kind of violence is being replaced by another. There’s an explanation for that, I think, and that is that in a lot of these communities, violence in the past has been, in the eyes of the community, a legitimate way of pursuing political goals. One of the major jobs that has to be done in communities immediately is a de-legitimisation of violence – right across the board. That’s a job that only local communities and local people can do with their young people and their community leaders and I think that that also has to be supported and that’s a great service to the victims because it prevents more victims being created.”
John Wilson: “I think in the North voluntary organisations are better organised than here. But I do know that it would be very difficult to depend on the communities of say South Africa to do anything effective because they don’t trust the police and there are whole crimes to which the police don’t react. I was in a place near Cape Town and on the Cape Times the following day there was a photograph of a native man being paraded through the village by the citizens, by the local community, being whipped because they accused him of rape and they reported him to the police and the police did nothing about it. So when you have a community like that you don’t see how the community would be effective in developing relations between the two groups.
CLOSING WORDS
Chair (Kitty Harlin): “Thank you all very much. I think it is a huge subject. I will close the session now and I would like to say that on community and voluntary groups, our own organisation [Irish Countrywomen’s Association] has for the past eight years been involved in exchanges with the Women’s Institute from all over the North, we’ve had groups of them coming to the South. Just a week after the Omagh bombing here in Co. Meath, we were expecting a bus load of 48 women from the WI and we did not think they would come but they did and we were delighted to receive them. We listened to them, we talked, they stayed overnight with us, we enjoyed having them. We felt helpless listening to them. Everybody knew someone, extended families, neighbours or whatever so I’m afraid at that stage all we could do was cry with them, but they went away and we are happy to say they have invited us back up on the 23rd of April. Now this has gone on for the past eight years. It’s our small way of talking to the women, of trying to get them to see that we’re not all bad and that some of us have the same aspirations and the same concerns and are just as upset when those things happen as they were. So I’d like now to thank the speakers who came so far to talk to us and to all the trouble they have put into their presentations. Thanks to all of you for coming. I would also like to thank the Columban Fathers for giving us the room here tonight. And to the Meath Peace Group – well done, good luck, keep up the good work. I would now like to ask you to give a minute’s respect to the people who died in the bombings and in the Troubles in the last couple of years. Could we stand and have one minute’s silence.”
ENDS
Meath Peace Group Report: August 1999. © Meath Peace Group.
Transcribed by Sarah Clancy from video tapes recorded by Anne Nolan. Edited by Julitta Clancy.
Acknowledgments: Meath Peace Group would like to thank all who came to the talk and all those who have given continued support, encouragement and participation through the years. Special thanks to all who assisted in the planning, organisation, publicity and recording of the talks, and to our speakers and guest chair. Thanks also to the Columban Fathers at Dalgan Park who have hosted most of our public talks.
The Meath Peace Group gratefully acknowledges the assistance given by the Community Bridges Programme of the International Fund for Ireland towards the running costs of the talk.
Meath Peace Group committee 1999: Julitta and John Clancy, Parsonstown, Batterstown, Co. Meath; Anne Nolan, Gernonstown, Slane, Co. Meath; Pauline Ryan, Navan, Co. Meath; Philomena Boylan-Stewart, Longwood; Michael Kane and Paschal Kearney, An Tobar, Ardbraccan
31 – “Overcoming Barriers – The Work of the Northern Ireland Women’s Political Forum”
Monday, 30th November 1998
St. Columban’s College, Dalgan Park, Navan, Co. Meath
Lily Kerr (Workers’ Party)
Cllr. Sarah Duncan (Alliance Party, Castlereagh Borough Council)
Joan Cruthers (Progressive Unionist Party)
Patricia Lewsley, MLA (SDLP)
Chaired by John Clancy (Meath Peace Group)
Contents:
Lily Kerr
Sarah Duncan
Joan Cruthers
Questions and Comments/1
Patricia Lewsley (late arrival)
Questions and Comments/2 – decommissioning and other issues
1. Lily Kerr (Workers’ Party):
“It’s always nice to come to Navan and see some friendly faces in the audience. Julitta thanks us for taking the time to come down, I have to say I thank you for taking the time to care and giving us the space to tell you some of the more positive things that are going on in the North of Ireland and that have been going on for quite a long time. The person I have the most admiration for at this table here tonight is Joan Cruthers who was stepped into the breach literally last night at ten o’clock. Her colleague from the PUP who was meant to come had a bit of a family crisis and couldn’t come and Joan volunteered. I was thinking about it on the way down and you know – Joan had only met me once and she had never met Sarah but it’s indicative of the work that the Northern Ireland Women’s Political Forum is doing that Joan felt quite comfortable – nobody told her about my driving by the way at this stage! – to come with women she didn’t know because she knew there would be a trust there and I think that actually speaks volumes.
Background to the Northern Ireland’s Women’s Political Forum. “We were founded in February of 1996 and it’s interesting how we were born. We were born the morning after Canary Wharf. A woman called Nina Warden from Joan’s party (PUP) telephoned me at home. She didn’t know me. She got my number from someone else as she knew I was active in the Workers’ Party and telephoned me to say “look, we as women cannot allow Canary Wharf to end all of this. I think it’s time we women took a hand. Can the women in your party and the women in my party meet?” So we met the following Tuesday night at the PUP’s headquarters on the Shankhill road in Belfast. About twenty of us got together and we decided, yes, we are going to work together. That was February and we were conscious that International Women’s day was coming up on the 8th of March. After talking for about three hours we decided we will do something jointly for International Women’s Day. We decided that as the talks were going on at Stormont and the parties were talking at Stormont we thought we might as well kill two birds with the one stone and we might as well make an assault on Stormont – the male bastion! We decided we would have an International Women’s Day event in Stormont. Baroness Denton heard about it and she asked if she could come along. The Alliance Party heard about it and said right, wonderful idea we’ll come along too. Also the Ulster Democratic Party who were involved in bi-laterals, and the Democratic Left and the SDLP, they all turned up on that day. It was nothing heavy on that day, we brought some wine and we brought some roses and we brought some bread and we even brought our children to Stormont. After having the nice time we decided there is the making of something here and we met every fortnight in Stormont in Castle buildings when the talks were going on.
Controversial issues: “We decided as women that we would perhaps tackle the controversial issues first to see how we got on with each other and we came up with a joint paper on policing and prisoners – probably the two most controversial issues at that time- and we were able to find common ground on all of those issues and we went on to develop papers on health, on transport and all of the other issues. I want to tell you because nobody else will tell you that even before the men got talking in Stormont we were there! We’ve had a number of events since that.
Sectarianism: “In September of that year we had a conference on sectarianism, probably one of the best conferences that any of us have ever been to because it was based on honesty, on people being able to have their say in the nicest possible manner. We prided ourselves from the word go that we would far rather have an uncomfortable honesty than a comfortable dishonesty and we’ve always been straight with each other and I think the women learnt early on into the game that they did not have to sacrifice any principle, any great political principle or any principle. All they were required to do was to come together.
“We have built up a trust and we have been going steadily since. We had a conference again in 1997 on sectarianism and we managed to get permission to use Hillsborough Castle, which was a first. The Meath Peace Group attended that conference and we were delighted to have them. I’ve always been particularly happy for the Meath Peace Group to allow us to share some of the work we’ve done. I don’t consider it us doing you a favour coming down to talk, I consider it you putting yourselves out on a limb for us to want to listen to us and to want to expose your tender young to us! Going into that secondary school [St. Joseph’s Navan] with all those young women! We’ve done an amazing amount of work. We go from strength to strength. We’ve even been known for helping each other out as women, writing speeches for each other, discussing with each other what should be said at party conferences etc. We have proved that people can come together in Northern Ireland, that different political parties can sit down and agree on common ground. Because the one thing we should all know about Northern Ireland, the one thing we should know about any country is, that there’s much more unites us than divides us. I’ll stop now and let someone else have a say. I’ll be happy to answer any of the questions anyone wants to put.”
2. Cllr. Sarah Duncan (Alliance Party): “… I’m a councillor in Castlereagh Borough Council. There are twenty-three councillors in Castlereagh. Eleven of them are in the Democratic Unionist Party, the two most prominent being Peter Robinson and his wife Iris Robinson. The rest of the council consists of four unionists, three of whom would have voted “no” to the Agreement and who vote along with DUP all the time. So the only effective opposition in the council is the four Alliance councillors and the two SDLP councillors and every vote for positions of power in Castlrereagh Council has been 17 to 6 – there’s no sharing. The DUP and all types of Unionists vote together and the four Alliance and the two SDLP vote together whether we say “yes” to the Agreement or whatever – the votes are always solidly 17:6. There’s no power sharing at all. It’s one of the most bigoted district councils in Northern Ireland I would think. I’ve only been there for a year and a half and it’s not easy. My role in politics is in very small politics and local politics, from campaigning against planning issues – every blade of grass being covered with housing – to too much traffic. The big issue, it being quite a middle-class area, believe it or not, is dog’s dirt. Every door I go to complains about dog’s dirt or traffic….
Women’s Political Forum: “I’ve been a member of the NI Women’s Political Forum, not since the beginning but since the time I went to the conference on Sectarianism which was held in the YMCA and then to the second conference in Hillsborough castle. I and the rest of the members of the Alliance party found it invaluable to hear what the women in other political groupings think, to hear what the Workers’ party or the PUP think and to find how much common ground we have. I think mostly because we’re women and we’re very sane and we don’t fight with each other. I often thought that men in our parties could really learn a lot because although they meet at Stormont, we meet together in the Shankhill Stress Centre at times, which was unknown territory to some, or the Workers’ Party headquarters on Grosvernor Road which would be sort of unknown territory to me, or in SDLP headquarters on the Ormeau Road or Alliance Party headquarters on University Street.
“So we’re going into each other’s territory as well as listening to what other people have got to say. I find it invaluable and so has everyone else. It’s brilliant the way we can all come together and get on with each other and listen to each other. We’ve got a lot in common. That’s a very important thing we have found out how much we do have in common. I’m not sure what else to say, I’m willing to answer questions. I myself am head of a nursery of fifty children in a very deprived area in Belfast called Woodstock Row, where children are brought up to be sectarian as soon as they can speak, sectarian statements come out of their mouths because of their backgrounds. When they get a little older most of them go to the Ian Paisley Sunday school and Ian Paisley’s church…
“So it’s not an easy school and it’s right across the peace line from Short Strand, just a stone throw from Short Strand and that’s what did happen in the Troubles. A lot of the fathers of the children that I teach would have been involved in the UDA and UVF. I did teach David Ervine’s son and David Ervine’s grandson in my school and I know his wife very well so I know a lot about the PUP really. Where I am councillor is a middle-class area but I know what life’s about on Woodstock Row. I’d be willing to answer questions on anything you want to know. Thank you very much for inviting me to come.”
Chairman: “Now as Lily said, Joan Cruthers has come down at the last minute to speak on behalf of the PUP. So I would like if you would give her a very warm welcome please.”
3. Joan Cruthers (PUP): “It’s nice to be here. My only time spent with the women’s forum was at Hillsborough and it was quite an experience – the conference on Sectarianism – as I had never actually sat down with anybody from a nationalist or republican background and debated with them or talked with them before. I heard their point of view and I listened and I had never heard it before. Never before in my life had I heard somebody from the Catholic community explain to me why they wouldn’t wear a poppy – I just didn’t understood why they wouldn’t wear a poppy and they didn’t understand why I didn’t want the Irish language taught in my school. All that has changed, it has completely and utterly changed my point of view. I now don’t mind if the Irish language gets taught in my school, why should it not? It made me realise my Irish identity because I had for so long fought the Irish identity. I didn’t realise that it was part of me and part of my life. Why should my children not be learnt Irish?
Progressive Unionist Party: “Big issues like that come up all the time within the PUP because we do quite a lot of cross-community work. Believe it or not – one third of our party is made up of women. Unfortunately we don’t all participate as much as we would like but we’re trying to address that, we’re trying to change things. But the ones who do, go regularly across to West Belfast, Catholics from West Belfast regularly come over to us and we sit down and we talk things out. Now we may not always agree but we have a common knowledge that we want to live together – we do live together, every day in our lives. That’s really just where we’re coming from within the Women’s Commission. We have a Women’s Commission in the PUP and they are presently now undertaking training on domestic violence, addiction, child protection – all trying to address things we have to deal with every day, not just who’s going to fight at the end of our street. I actually have the privilege of working in a place called Tiger’s Bay. It’s right on the peace line in North Belfast. I do say it’s a privilege to work with the children because I have a chance to influence them, to stop them rioting, to explain the other side’s point of view and believe it or not, it works. That’s what I do in the Progressive Unionists party.
“I’m just sorry I don’t take so much of a role in the Northern Ireland’s Women’s Political Forum but the last couple of years have been very busy up in Stormont so I haven’t had really much to do with it but things are going to change. We’re really starting to recruit. ..That one conference was definitely a stepping stone for me in politics. Just sitting down with people I have never met in my life, listening to their point of view, giving my point of view and hoping they can come to an understanding and if anybody knows the PUP’s record over the last number of years, you can see that it’s actually working. So any questions, just ask away and I’ll try to answer them as best I can.”
[Editor’s note: Patricia Lewsley’s contribution follows the first section of Questions and Comments below]
CHAIR (John Clancy): “It’s interesting the kind of thoughts that are coming up – “uncomfortable honesty” and “comfortable dishonesty”. I think that is a very succinct way of summing up the kind of discussions that may be taking place and should be taking place which is that uncomfortable honesty where you challenge. Joan touched on that – by being honest and straightforward you actually learn a lot more and see issues that aren’t issues any more. Cllr. Sarah Duncan talked about small politics, but small politics are actually big politics when you come to it. Working in a council that is so divided, so weighted in one direction but still working away. It’s the courage of Lily and Sarah and Joan and many, many other women who are maybe building a new reality within the island of Ireland. I won’t go on any longer. If there are questions and dialogue let’s have it.”
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS/1
Q1: [Irish identity]: “I would just like to take a point up on what Joan said. She said she now feels that she has no objection to Irish being taught and that as well as having an English identity she also has an Irish identity. I think this is a very positive thing and I think it shows all is well with the future and I’d just like to cast you back to Brian Keenan, the erstwhile hostage and he struck me as a person who, when it wasn’t fashionable, realised that as well as having a British identity he had an Irish identity as well. And I’d just like to refer back to three gentlemen we had at the last talk from the Orange Order and conversely as Joan can see that there’s merits in exploring her Irish identity. I also would like to say as someone from the Northern Catholic community originally, I feel that the loyalist community has nothing to be ashamed of. It’s unique in Ireland, it’s unique in the British Isles or as some people like to refer to them as “these Isles” and it’s unique in Europe and I think they’re entitled to pursue that culture and I sort of feel that perhaps the people of Garvaghy Road don’t understand this. … If the two cultures could try and accept each other and learn about each other but I was very, very pleased to hear you say what you said. I think you’re on the right track.”
Lily Kerr: “I’d just like to follow up on from that point. What Joan has said, it’s not done to throw down a challenge to the nationalist people in Northern Ireland but if Joan can say “I accept that this is part of my history”, it also makes the rest of us believe that we live on that part of the island and part of the culture that you’ve talked about and part of the British culture is part of our shared culture too. We have to eventually accept and stop being ashamed that there’s a bit of Britishness in us as well for want of a better word. We do have a shared culture. ..”
Questioner: “Yes we do have a bit of Britishness that perhaps the population of the 26 counties do not have. The Northern Catholic population has that – whether they accept it or even admit it is another thing, but it is there certainly.”
Lily Kerr: “Particularly when it comes to Orange culture, I mean the Apprentice Boys of Derry is as much part of my history and should be as much part of my history as it is for the Unionist / Protestant / Loyalist population of Derry. We have a shared history.
Questioner: “I’m not being facetious but I mean they are great bands-men, they do march terribly well and they’ve lovely uniforms. Could we not get them as part of a folk culture? I’ve said enough!”
Cllr. Sarah Duncan: “You’re saying you’d like to have them as folk culture, the Orangemen?
Questioner: “No, I don’t mean it that way. If the catholic population could accept them as less threatening. I don’t mean it in a derogatory way. As I did point out they are a unique culture.”
Cllr. Sarah Duncan: “They are unique. I live very near Shaw’s Bridge where the Orangemen march to, every year on the Twelfth of July and it is a great spectacle all the banners and the uniforms, but I find it quite sinister to watch the Orangemen. Some of them are very sincere but there are lots of hangers on carrying beer cans, very threatening, people who are not part of the procession who are actually frightening on the 12th of July, frightening to both sides. Could I say that the Alliance Party is perceived by some people as a Unionist party and by some members of the Alliance Party not a Unionist party. I come myself from a very strange background in that this is 1998 and I’m very proud of 1798 as my father was a Presbyterian and I know all about Henry Joy McCracken and everybody else to do with the United Irishmen who were Presbyterians and I’m very proud of the part the Presbyterians played in attempting at that stage to have a United Ireland. The other half of my background is very unusual in that my mother was Jewish and so that I’m a complete outsider as I’ve never met anyone in my life who was half-Jewish and half-Presbyterian.
“So I’ve never felt that I belonged anywhere, and still don’t and possibly that’s why I joined the Alliance Party! When I was a child I lived in a street .. in a totally Protestant area and I was excluded in that street and my best friend who was a Catholic was also excluded and we came to be outsiders, because we didn’t fit in. Neither of us were perceived to be Protestants so from a very early age I experienced sectarianism. When lots of other people would have thought that it wasn’t around in Northern Ireland I experienced anti-Jewishness from a low age at school. As people don’t realise I am half-Jewish they don’t realise why I am withering up and dying when people make anti-Jewish remarks in my presence. So I’ve always felt for both sides in the conflict although but didn’t feel part of it at all and would be outraged at any sectarian remark about Catholics or about Protestants but wouldn’t really feel that I belonged to either of them as I don’t go to Church and brought my children up not going to church and called them “Catherine” and “John” so that no-one could figure out what religion they were, being as our surname is Duncan and can’t be identified. So we’re accepted wherever we go as being whatever people want to think we are. But I think it’s a very sad indictment that I had to call them John and Catherine because they’re of the age; one’s thirty and the other’s twenty-eight and they were born when things were really bad in Northern Ireland – when you had to think of things like the importance of names and surnames. That’s a bit of a divergence now on what was being said but it’s just what I wanted to say to you.”
Q2. [Women in politics]: “Lily spoke about the lovely image of the bread and roses in Stormont, and with all the talk about the 50/50 in Scotland and the Scottish Parliament and the campaign there to have 50/50 representation within the parliament, of women. I’m just wondering about the Women’s Political Forum – presumably you are looking for some sort of an outcome in Northern Ireland so that you will have representation of women. It would be nice to see the 50/50 carried through because if it’s acceptable in Scotland, I think it’s very acceptable in Northern Ireland as well. But what exactly is happening?”
Lily Kerr: “I really agree wholeheartedly and once they have got over the shock we will become a dangerous group of women because we will start to challenge the establishment. That’s one of the reasons we were together because of a mutual understanding, but we are all political women and we know the barriers in society and those barriers we are talking about breaking down and overcoming aren’t just the perceived religious barriers. They are the barriers that are there against women, they are the barriers that are in the South, they are the barriers in the North and they are the barriers that are global.
“There is an issue about gender and we hope to support each other and that’s what our constitution is, to give expression to those issues which affect women and challenge society on them and to increase women in political life and to ensure when we talk to each other, for example my party has a 40% quota for our NEC we expect when we run candidates that 40% will be women. You share these experiences with people from other parties and I know that the PUP has similar things. So we’re learning from each other, we’re encouraging each other and we’re supporting each other so I would anticipate that things will change. I know there’s not that many women in the Northern Ireland assembly but if you look at the British Parliament and indeed if you look at Dail Eireann, there’s not that many women there either. Women not being in Stormont isn’t a symptom of the so-called “Troubles” in Northern Ireland, it’s a symptom of the problem with society that still by and large will not accept that women have an equal role to play, albeit that we do happen to be 51% of the voting population. I think things will change and things should change.”
Questioner: “In terms of the Civic Forum, is that part of the Agreement and what’s happening with that now?”
Lily Kerr: “Yes, it has not been decided yet but there are a number of groups including ourselves and community groups as well and even some of the Church organisations are saying that it should reflect society. So I’m hoping that a Civic Forum will reflect that and that there will be a proper gender balance. Now we get a problem when it comes to try and balance rights. In Northern Ireland they look at how many Protestants they can get on it and how many Catholics, and you know what they’ll do with the gender balance – if they can sort out the gender balance and the religious balance at the one time you’ll probably find if they can find a Catholic woman or a Protestant woman they’ll say they’re killing two birds with the one stone and we ain’t about to let that happen. We are not about to let that happen…”
[Editor’s note: Patricia Lewsley, SDLP Assembly Member arrived at this point]
CHAIR: “We’ll just continue with this discussion and then maybe we’ll ask Patricia to talk …. I think we have another question from the hall.”
Q3:Kitty Harlin, ICA: “My name is Kitty Harlin. I’m from the Irish Country Women’s Association. Rosemary [Wallace, also present] is President and I was a former national president. We had a lot of communication down through the years with the Women’s Institute in Northern Ireland so we know them very well and we have an awful lot in common with them. My own guild where I attend the meetings regularly, for the past seven years we’ve had exchanges with a coach load of women, possibly 50, from the Knocka area from Antrim and other parts of Northern Ireland to our own area here in county Meath and every second year we go up and meet their people and are taken to all the places.
“We’ve met Lord Mayors and whatever, likewise here they have met our politicians and we have had them overnight very recently, a coach load stayed with us. We had a lovely day and night with them. So we have always had women’s discussions of all descriptions. We keep away from politics because both our organisations are non-party political so we do not discuss politics, apart from the fact when things happen like Omagh, our hearts went out to them and we told them so and we cried for them. I know many of our women who met them recently had actually cried and cried when they watched the television. We felt – I wonder were any of them involved and surely their relations were involved. We were communicating all of the time and we built up a great relationship so therefore I was wondering do any of you have any communication with the Women’s Institute of Northern Ireland and how do they fit in or do they fit in at all and do they have any part in the process? Also listening to the speakers tonight it was wonderful to hear their attitudes and to hear what they have to say. I can’t help but feel that it will take time but with the attitudes that they have they’re bound to pass this on to the future generations and it just brings to mind a sort of an idea that where the seed of peace begins in the peaceful heart of everyone and I think that is what you are doing, it has to take root, it has to pass on and it has to be a success. “
Lily Kerr: “They don’t have any formal connection or even informal connection but I can tell you when we had an International Women’s Day event in the Wellington Park Hotel in 1997. We had an exhibition of millworkers photographs and the Women’s Institute were having a function in the same hotel. Some of them did wander in and some of them stayed and felt that what they saw going on was quite worthwhile. I think they probably still take the attitude that they should shy away from party-politics. Now while I accept that people may not want to be party-political, politics actually affects us from when we get up in the morning to when we go to bed at night and we can’t ignore it.
Q4: “Just talking to Sarah there for a minute when she came in and the way they all came together in the one car. I never heard of men all coming together and I suppose my memory goes back to when we were just getting ready for the Good Friday Agreement where some of the women came out [of the Talks] and they were talking about coming from different camps and they seem to be relating that exactly…”
Joan Cruthers: “It’s building up a trust. I mean you were there two years so obviously you just didn’t sit around the table, you got to know all the participants, you got to know their natures, you got to know if they were approachable or not approachable; well I’ll not tell you the ones I didn’t want to go up to sometimes! That’s really how you work it out. You build up friendships with people from the other side of the community. Debate really helped. You got to like these people whatever their beliefs.
“You got to like them as actual people. You got to respect them and they respected us back. It worked.”
Q5: “You mentioned small politics and big politics. I have a feeling, correct me if I’m wrong, that all politics in Northern Ireland and the years before have been conducted at the level of small politics and that it is only now that Northern Ireland is getting used to big politics. … Am I right or wrong?”
Cllr. Sarah Duncan: “Until 1972 we did have our own parliament so that was big politics from the 20’s until the 70’s, but it was what politicians did with the big politics that we have to take a good hard look at. The politics were completely sectarian between the 20’s and the 70’s so that now we have a chance to have non-sectarian, big politics up at Stormont and I hope it works “
Lily Kerr: “I think what you have confused is that in the past we had the democratic deficit where there was actually no political institution in Northern Ireland and it’s going to be interesting to see when the Assembly beds down and settles down, we tackle the political issues that exercise our minds. Because believe you me no matter what side of the so-called divide you came from in Northern Ireland, when I woke up in the mornings my first thought was not “will the border fall today?”, we wondered about all the things other people worry about – health, education, have I got enough money, unemployment all of those things, and the politicians in Northern Ireland are going to have to address those all very soon. I mean it’s always been very easy to oppose everything because it was always someone else making the decisions. Now they’re going to have to take those decisions. It’s going to be interesting to see how it pans out and Patricia’s probably better placed to talk about that than any of us as she is going to be one of those decision makers.”
[SPEAKERS ADDRESSES/CONTINUED]
4. Patricia Lewsley (SDLP Assembly Member): “First of all I’d like to thank you very much for inviting me here tonight to speak and I have to apologise for being late but unfortunately I got lost and was driving in circles for about an hour. So I am glad I’m here now, the other issue is I’m not quite sure what you want me to say but what I’ll do is I’ll just give you a quick background of where I come from and where I am today. I joined my party, the SDLP, about 14 years ago because I believed they were the politics for me and I believed in their policies. I would have voted SDLP from when I was able to vote at 18. I lived in what we would term a mixed area, which is Catholics and Protestants living together in a working class part of South Belfast. As I said about 14 years ago I got involved with the party and up until about five years ago I wasn’t really motivated to do much except be a member. Five years ago I was elected onto Belfast city council for four years and I realised how little women were involved in politics and yet it was one of the areas where we had no power and there was still decisions being made for people on the ground and women didn’t have an input in that.
“Also I had to realise the reason why women didn’t get involved in politics over the last 28/30 years because of the Troubles and because many of them were the home-makers and the women who kept the body and soul together. Right through the whole Troubles they were the mothers of the sons and daughters who were either imprisoned or killed and the wives of the husbands who were either imprisoned or killed. I find that women now wish to be able to have part and ownership of what their future is about and obviously that happened in the referendum in May of this year.
Women in the Assembly: “I went on to stand in the elections in June and was elected. I am one of 14 women out of 108 in the Assembly, which isn’t good but it’s better than what we had hoped for. We had hoped for 8 and we actually got 14 women. That’s made up of three SDLP, five Sinn Fein, one DUP, two UUP’s, two Women’s Coalition and one Alliance. We’ve come together as a group informally in the Assembly to support each other and also to talk about our commonalities that we have.
Women’s Political Forum: “I got involved in the Forum about 18 months or 2 years ago. I felt it was important at that time that women across all the parties should get together because as the leader of my party would say “we have more in common than we have to divide us as people” and we found that we did have and we found that the biggest learning process for us was about respect for each other and being able to take on board the differences without causing any kind of division or bitterness between us. Also an awful lot of understanding, especially for many of us who tried to understand what the marching season was all about and what it meant to other people.
“I think the two conferences that we’ve had on sectarianism have been again another learning process for us from the point of view of where we would have invited people from the community and who couldn’t believe that even four of us here tonight from different political backgrounds and perspectives could sit down at the one table and talk civilly to each other. That was the biggest thing to come out of any of the conferences that I’ve been to.
“I’m now as I said part of the Assembly and I feel that now it’s time that the grass-roots issues will be addressed and that we won’t be talking permanently about constitutions and all those kinds of things. I do believe that many of the people in the Assembly don’t realise the responsibility they’ve taken on and the hard line decisions that we’re going to have to make but here’s hoping that it’s going to work and I believe that it will work and it’s the only thing we have to look forward to in the future, especially for our young people.”
QUESTIONS/2 continued:
Decommissioning issue:
Chair (John Clancy): “If I may I’d like to put this question to Patricia as an Assembly member – as to how she sees things panning out in the Assembly over the next week or two with the stand-off between the Unionists and Sinn Fein in connection with decommissioning. I think some of us would be very grateful for a view and possibly an insider’s view on that.
Patricia Lewsley: “Well I do know that over the past couple of weeks I’ve been at gatherings like this, particularly women’s organisations that I’ve been to. I was in one centre … on Friday and women were saying “we voted “yes” in the referendum, we voted for these people to be elected into power, why can’t they just get on with it?” The problem is that the situation as you understand is still very fragile at this stage. I believe that the impasse will be got over. Don’t ask me how because if I knew how it would have been sorted out weeks ago! I do think that the will of the people and the voice of the people is being heard and I do believe that we will get over it. You see the people are saying “but the deadline was the 31st of October”, but it wasn’t a deadline, it was a target date. It’s the first target date that we haven’t kept to. [tape ends here]
Q6: Do you believe there will be decommissioning?
Patricia Lewsley: “I think there will be decommissioning but I don’t think that decommissioning should be a precondition. The problem is when that will come within the two years. But it’s in the Agreement, it’s written into the Agreement that it has to happen but whether it will happen tomorrow, next week or six months down the line, I think that it will happen. We see the LVF where they’re talking about decommissioning and the whole issue and I think this is where the General [de Chastelain] comes in and I think that this is his job and I think that he might have to bring out a report of some sort..
CHAIR: “Would anyone else care to comment on the decommissioning issue, Sarah would you have a view on that?”
Cllr. Sarah Duncan: “I have a gut feeling that there won’t be any decommissioning soon, not until the executive has been set up and the North/South bodies. Then when people see that that has happened and Sinn Fein have positions in the executive, then I think there will be decommissioning. The Alliance party feels as it says in the Good Friday Agreement that decommissioning is not linked to executive powers being set up. There is not one word in the Good Friday Agreement saying that, just that all Parties work towards decommissioning within the 2-year period. But nothing in the Good Friday Agreement says that the IRA, the UVF etc. must decommission before the executive is set up. I think it’s wrong to link the two things as the DUP and Unionists are doing at the moment. Of course I do see Unionist and DUP fears. I would be concerned by the fragmentation of the Unionist party, if the Unionists decided to get rid of Trimble and hard-liners took over, then I think the whole thing would fall apart.
“I can’t see the DUP sitting down and working with Sinn Fein. The whole thing is fraught with difficulties but certainly my party doesn’t link decommissioning with setting up the executive and doesn’t link letting out of prisoners with that either but I’m sure Joan would have something different to say.”
Joan Cruthers: “I would actually agree with Sarah on most of those issues and we do believe that decommissioning will happen but I don’t believe it’s going to happen right away. It’s going to take time to build up trust before there is going to be any arms handed over. It is the PUP’s policy to get rid of all illegal weapons from Northern Ireland and we hope to see it done. At the present we feel it’s far more important to make sure them weapons aren’t lifted up and used. …”
Lily Kerr: “Just before I deal with the decommissioning issue – I would share Patricia’s optimism that things aren’t going to fall apart up at the Assembly. We’re dealing with good old Northern Irish politics and we like a crisis every other week, we like our “Mexican stand-offs”. Someone will have to wean us off them. So in my view most of the parties that are up there even those like the DUP and the UK Unionists who say that this Agreement was terrible and everyone has been sold out are quite comfortable. Any time I go up to Stormont they all seem quite happy and have fitted in quite nicely so I don’t that there is going to be this big fall like Humpty Dumpty!
“The issue of decommissioning, while it’s not a prerequisite, while there are no organic links in the Agreement [between the executive and decommissioning] I think we would have to be honest and say there is an expectation on the part of the Irish people that guns will come out of politics. There is a genuine expectation. There is an expectation from people on both sides of the border who voted for the Agreement in the Referendum that the gun would be taken out of Irish politics once and for all. … There’s a lot of talk going on about how the paramilitaries are going to have to learn to trust each other before guns are handed over. There are over a million people who don’t have guns who can’t seem to be able to trust without guns being taken out of Irish politics, so in a sense it’s a chicken and an egg situation and we have to in all fairness look at David Trimble and the position he’s in. I mean he cannot at this moment in time set up the executive without some word or deed…. It has not been helped by statements saying the IRA will never decommission because they see it as surrender and I’d like not to dwell on it …but I was listening to “Talkback” the other day and I heard Eugene McEldowney from the Times talking and he said he had spoken to one senior republican who said “the arms are not ours to give over because we need to keep them for a future generation”. I wanted to stop the car and be sick because I thought my God what kind of a statement is that? Why would we want to hand on a legacy of weapons, a legacy of instruments to kill to anyone?
“The sooner the gun is out of politics the better. If we’re going to have a crisis – and people have said this to me on the street – I would much prefer it now than two years down the road when everything’s in place and there’s no decommissioning. Because whether we like it or not the Agreement says decommissioning within two years. We’re already nearly a year into that two year time span. So I think it’s not helpful. It can all be very easy to point fingers at the Unionists and say they are the people that’s holding this up. When we’re pointing fingers we’d better have plenty of them to point all around the place and apportion blame in that way. “
Q7: [Phil Cantwell, Ind. Councillor, Trim]: “I agree with Lily there. I had the opportunity to go into the House of Commons during the summer and watching the body language of David Trimble there’s no doubt about it, in my opinion it’s a testing ground for David Trimble… I think he’s very, very exposed … and certainly I believe that Trimble sees that this is his testing ground and he feels that the sharks are going to get him and that it’s more to do with that than decommissioning for the sake of decommissioning so I think I would be very fearful of that.
“Can I ask the women would they see the handing up of semtex or arms as a sign of surrender because that’s the big thing from the republican side down here…..The idea of handing up one bullet … The final thing I wanted to say to you is that in politics I have to say it’s great to see women because they have a much more practical approach. I see every night of the week in politics what goes on amongst men and it’s appalling. It took Mary McAleese to go out to Belgium recently and we felt so proud.”
Lily Kerr: “I think the important thing you’ve said is would we see the handing over of weapons as surrender. Absolutely not! There’s no room in politics for this old notion that if one gives something it has to be an absolute surrender. It’s time we got rid of that type of thinking. We would see it as a victory for common-sense, as a victory for decency but in the nicest possible way there’s absolutely no talk about surrender nor do I think it fair for the people who are asking for decommissioning seeing it in terms of surrender. This business of surrender to be perfectly honest, seems to be in the mind of some hard-liners amongst those groupings who are holding on to guns at the moment. The ordinary people on the streets do not see it as surrender.”
Cllr. Phil Cantwell: “Again, this has been put to me by republicans and various other people – there is no inventory of what arms are there….. What’s the issue, is it more important to keep talking rather than trying to hand up a few weapons which could bring down the talks?”
Lily Kerr: “I think the issue has to be, and I say this as a negotiator and one who makes my living negotiating. … Whether we like it or not or whether the republican movement likes it or not it is a part of the Good Friday Agreement that decommissioning will happen within two years. Now I agree with them when they say that the unionists can’t rewrite certain aspects of the Agreement. They can’t rewrite certain aspects of the Agreement either. I take the point, there is no inventory and you can nearly turn that argument back on them and say well why all the hassle about giving over something – you can hold something back if you want. It is more of a symbolic gesture. It is a gesture that people are waiting long to see – for once in Ireland we’re going to have politics in the normal way that we expect it to be without being done through the barrel of a gun. You mentioned semtex. Some of the arguments being used is that we need the guns for defensive purposes. I’ll never accept that but if I accept that twisted logic, how can semtex be considered as a defensive weapon? The people in Omagh would disagree with that.”
Patricia Lewsley: “I have to say that I look at it slightly differently from Lily in a way because I don’t see it as a surrender or a victory. I see it as part of the process. It’s been written into the Good Friday Agreement that decommissioning will happen in two years so therefore they signed up to the process so therefore they have to give it. I’ve said to Unionists you know we’re not being naive when we say we don’t know how much is out there so how will we ever know whether it’s fully decommissioned? Let’s be honest they could decommission today and recommision tomorrow. They will say to me but it’s the token gesture, it’s the confidence-building measure that people are assuming they’re serious about the whole process and if that’s all it takes is a wee bit of something to give from one side to the other, I don’t see it as a surrender or a victory for one side for either. I see it as a future for our younger generation. When you talk about women, there is only 14 of us out of 108 so it’s a start. The difference in women and men is that women don’t want to compete with each other, they want to co-operate because they can see the good of working together for everybody not for one side more than the other but for everybody. That’s why we need more women than men.”
Joan Cruthers: “I would agree. I wouldn’t look on it as a surrender. We want to see the arms taken out. It’s just a matter of time.”
Q8: “Just about decommissioning would it not be more important for semtex to be got rid of rather than the weapons?”
Patricia Lewsley: “Well it probably would be but I think at this stage anything handed in would be seen as some kind of a gesture. I mean we can’t say well if we’re talking about decommissioning we’ll just have the semtex, forget about the guns.
Questioner: “In terms of damage done recently, such as blowing up town centres or whatever the semtex has done more damage.”
Lily Kerr: “Could I come back on that and make the point that all weapons potentially do damage. There are a number of people, over 3,000 dead in Northern Ireland. They weren’t all killed by bombs, some of them were killed with guns. Young men and young women with their knees blown off don’t have them blown off with semtex. But I would take your point – if it’s about making a gesture in the first instance and I go back to the point that I made to Phil – if I use their weird logic that we need these weapons to defend themselves then they should make a gesture with semtex… But I don’t think we can give anyone the luxury of saying there are certain arms that are instruments of death that we find less offensive so you can hang on to them. The whole kit and kaboodle should go if and when.”
Questioner: “Because they are illegal weapons I agree. There are guns that are held legally too.”
Q9: “That’s a very good point. Is it not that the IRA are the ones that are not decommissioning. I think that if they did the others would decommission too. I think they’re trying to bargain away illegally held guns. … Is it not connected to the Patten Commission and that they want the RUC disarmed as a bargain for decommissioning and I think that’s the fundamental problem that’s stopping it. What do you think of that?”
Patricia Lewsley: “The problem for me is decommissioning. At the end of the day we can get into the detail of it, we can get into the nitty gritty of it and we can go around in circles for the next six months and you’re still not going to be any further down the road. The bottom line is that decommissioning is part of the process in the Good Friday Agreement and until we get to the end of the two years nobody’s going to know how much is ever going to be decommissioned. I’m just sorry that everywhere I go this is the topic because there’s more to it than decommissioning. The biggest priority for the 108 people that are in the Assembly at this given moment is that as long as they’re talking, as long as they’re negotiating, as long as they’re even arguing, there is fewer people being killed on the streets.”
Lily Kerr: “I think that’s a very valid point but while there’s talk of decommissioning – I think we can very easily lose the point that if Trimble is backed into a corner. It’s not about Trimble and his own personal decision. If we don’t have the Ulster Unionists in the Assembly, we don’t have an Assembly. We can forget any notions that we can operate without the Ulster Unionist party – we can’t. We need them there and we need the likes of Trimble who has shown courage .. and sometimes even going against his own people. We need to recognise that and we need to give him the bit of space.
“I take the point Patricia made. There’s no deadlines being broken and all this talk about deadlines being broken and we have to review the Agreement and review the implementation etc. etc. is just about hyping up the issue. There has been one target date missed as Patricia said. There’ll be other target dates missed and the sky won’t fall in!”
Chair: “Could we just move the dialogue on at this stage and ask the question: In the discussion about the portfolios, in relation to the ministries that will be, have they been agreed at this stage?”
Patricia Lewsley: “No. We haven’t even agreed on the number. The maximum number we can have is ten. At present there are six departments. There’s talk of the DUP splitting into two so there could be seven departments. We as a party would be going for ten and that’s the maximum we can have and it still hasn’t been sorted.”
Chair: “What apportionment would the ten give to the parties?”
Patricia Lewsley: “It goes on the D’Hondt system. For anybody who doesn’t know what the D’Hondt system is – it starts with the largest party and then works its way down. It would work out like this – if we had ten departments there would be three ministers for the UUP, three ministers for the SDLP, two ministers for the DUP and two for Sinn Fein. There would be none for the smaller parties.”
Chair: “There is in fact another scenario of the six portfolios only, which would mean that Sinn Fein, as I would understand it and the DUP… wouldthey get one each is it or what would the apportionment be?”
Patricia Lewsley: “They would get one each and the bigger parties would get two each.”
Chairman: “Is that linked to the decommissioning debate in any way?”
Patricia: “I don’t think so. At the end of the day it’s irrelevant whether there is two Sinn Fein or one Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein would still be at the table.”
Lily Kerr: “There seems to be talk that it’s linked to expenditure and all these arguments going on. Let’s be honest about it, the more ministries you create the more money it takes to run them and the Unionists seem to be saying at the minute that six is sufficient and I take Patricia’s point that it is not another engineered effort of keeping Sinn Fein out. They’re in there whether there’s one of them or two of them. It’s nice if we want to be really optimistic about this, and I know my good friend Patricia will take this the right way, there is a bit of normality about it – they’re already fighting over the spoils.
Q10: “When the country voted in favour of this why do we have to have obstacles like decommissioning? After all the people said to go ahead with the Assembly. Could we not bypass that and sort of accept the fact that we have to go ahead with legislation and get on with the talking?”
Lily Kerr: “There is one slight flaw in that the Ulster Unionists and other parties are saying that we’re not going to bypass that and part of the problem is that we’ve one group of people who are paying a lot of attention to it and another group who are pretending that the decommissioning issue does not exist. It’s hard to re-square those circles but I think they will be squared. I seriously do think they will be squared. Remember what I told you earlier on about good old Northern Irish politics; we like to go toe to toe. The problem is – just watch our history – the more we pin ourselves into a corner, the bigger capacity we have for getting out again. There’s 108 Houdinis up in Stormont !”
Q11 [Julitta Clancy]: “Will we always have to be running to the Americans?
Lily Kerr: “I would hope not.”
Patricia Lewsley: “I don’t think we really run to the Americans. I think if we underestimated the type of help or assistance that President Clinton gave to Northern Ireland we would be very unfair. Even the Southern government with Bertie Ahern and the previous Taoiseach, I think the whole point was that everybody… and I mean Northern Ireland’s on the map around the world, it’s not just kept to itself and everybody wants to see peace there and everybody wants to see a future for the younger generation and I think that if anybody from outside can help in any way we shouldn’t stop them.”
[Member of audience]: “Seamus Mallon said a day or two ago that the time with one side looking over their shoulder to the South of Ireland and the other side looking over their shoulder to the British was over… They should look to each other and that is the answer. First and foremost.”
Julitta Clancy: “Can I just clarify what I meant? … I value very much what the Americans have done for us particularly what George Mitchell did but I’m saying that we now have an Agreement. How on earth are we going to work things out on this island together if parties are forever calling in the US? I’m just wondering that if a crisis arises, are we always going to run to the Americans.. and I sense that President Clinton is also saying this to us that “you can’t go running to us”. We’ve got to sort this out ourselves and talk it out and the difficulty is, I feel myself as a person who signed up to that Agreement and campaigned for it that our views are being ignored by a lot of people. When I signed up to it I remember saying to people that decommissioning would be part of it and to me it was never a red herring because it was coming up all the time.. It isn’t surrender, it’s just taking the normal route that you have to take in democratic politics to get rid of those weapons and it’s part of the Agreement. I can’t see how that executive can ever work if this hurdle isn’t got over now. “
Patricia Lewsley: “Well I think that part of the problem always is that when you’re starting something, especially something as fragile like this as a peace process, and there was so much that really went into the Agreement that there were probably details that were missed, maybe one of these details was a start date rather than a finish date for decommissioning. Again it’s all part of the process of how we get through it and I agree with you and obviously with what Seamus Mallon says that at the end of the day that we have to sort this out ourselves, nobody else. I don’t believe that the people outside are actually sorting it our for us, they’re giving us a helping hand. They’re not coming in saying you have to do this and you have to do that. But they are there as a means of support of some kind. It will only be the people in Northern Ireland who can sort it out, nobody else. With regards to decommissioning there are details and there will probably be something else further down the road that a detail has been missed on and it depends on how it’s got through to get us through for the future.”
Q. 13: [Re the role of the Women’s Forum in helping to promote possibly the various formations of the entities within the Assembly including the North/South bodies]. “Do you see the Forum as having a role in that regard?”
Lily Kerr: “We actually are unique in the Forum .. we created a bit of history by the way and the media did not pick it up, the media ignored us. We as a Women’s Political Forum had a joint press conference and a joint canvass on the “Yes” campaign. We called for a “Yes” on all of the issues within the Good Friday Agreement, the North/South borders etc. because we know with working with groups like the Meath Peace Group, with working with the Women’s Political Association in the South we learnt that there are non-threatening ways of working with each other. There’s good sensible ways as well in the North/South bodies. I don’t believe by the way that the North/South bodies are a really big bugbear to many people, other than the Jeffrey Donaldsons and the Bob McCartneys and Ian Paisleys. If there wasn’t that to give out about it would be something else they’d be complaining about. Once they start complaining you know you’re on the right track, you know you’re going the right way.”
Patricia Lewsley: “I would see the Women’s Political Forum as one route to including everybody and the North/South bodies are as important to us in the North as they are to the Women’s Political Association or anybody else in the South. I personally believe that part of the remit of the Women’s Political Forum is to educate and inform women of the whole political arena and of the whole political agenda as much as possible. I know we as a party particularly in March of next year are having a joint conference with our sister parties, the British Labour Party and the Irish Labour Party. The topic of that conference will be the Council of the Isles, the North/South bodies, the European dimension and young women within the parties and what impact that will have on women and how women can input into those bodies so that they can be part of the decision making and so it is a topic for everybody. As I said the North/South bodies are as important to us as to the south, women or otherwise. I can only go back to saying about the lack of women within politics and mainstream politics particularly and the reasons for that over the years. I mean it wasn’t very safe or sexy to be in politics five or six years ago when I joined first, I can assure you. “
Q14: “This question is particularly to Sarah as coming from Castlereagh and the population of Castlereagh is about 5% Catholic; in terms of that figure, as a woman and as a mother possibly – I’m not too sure of her status – how does she see the future and the integration of the children in that area into a truly inclusive society that will actually go forward and without the prejudice which she feels are already in groups of children as young as pre-school children. It’s very difficult within an area like that and I know there’s very little cross community education in that area as well. Is there anything happening in that area?
Cllr. Sarah Duncan: “It’s actually 10% Catholic, believe it or not and 90% of the other, well I would say 70% of the other persuasion, there must be 20% like myself of no particular persuasion. There is a lot of cross community work. All primary schools do Education for Mutual Understanding [EMU] – each primary school within Castlereagh would be linked, not necessarily with another Castlereagh primary school but in other words state primary schools are linked with Catholic primary schools. Under EMU and community relations in schools they meet from about P4 or P5 upwards. All schools do, my school does. They would meet children from other schools, they would visit other schools, they would go to the zoo together and they would go on outings together. Not particularly in Castlereagh now but in the school which I teach they would have been linked in with programmes where they went… one Catholic child went to America with families. There’s a lot of work done in primary schools and in secondary schools with understanding people from different persuasions.
“Also in Castlereagh there’s an integrated school called Lagan College. I was at it last Wednesday with another member of my Party and it’s 50:50 obviously and the staff are 50:50. It’s growing all the time and there’s a primary school linked with it as well which is expanding all the time. It keeps having to get more and more mobile classrooms so I think that that’s a very healthy state of things. All the schools within the Castlereagh area would link up with other schools. There would be a lot of mixing among children and being where I actually live, and the area that I represent is a very middle-class to upper middle-class area and so the housing is mixed and people get on very well, being where it is. There are other areas of Castlereagh … which would be totally not-mixed housing estates. There’s a large housing estate near where I live which would have perhaps 20% Catholics in it, 80% Protestant but a lot of other housing estates would be completely Protestant and always would have been, a safety point of view I expect. Even Castlereagh Council is not that sectarian in it’s own way. When our mayor switches on the lights in each of the four electrical areas of Castlereagh, there will be children from State schools and children from Catholic schools singing carols together. I think there’s a lot of hope … the actual residents of Castlereagh are not any more sectarian than any where else in Northern Ireland, but it’s not easy within Castlereagh Council if you’re in a non-sectarian party as I am and being opposition, it’s not easy to survive the sarcasm… I’ve had to learn too keep my mouth shut and to look at Peter Robinson as a woman and – this is my feminine psychology on him – and I found it worked, only don’t tell him that!”
Q15. [Paschal Kearney, Ardbraccan]: “Just talking about the media and how the media’s role in all of this is so crucial and yet Lily you said that some time ago you had a very important meeting of the Forum, a press conference which they didn’t turn up to. I think because Ian Paisley was down at the City Hall. How do you deal with it? How do you deal with the media?”
Lily: “On that particular occasion I was down here on that day and I came in to talk to those poor students of yours [in Navan] and I was white with rage – the whole way from Belfast to here… Patricia and company in my absence picketed the BBC and UTV and we got press coverage on the picket – we got press coverage for the negative thing we did and did not get press coverage for creating that bit of history. We have a problem dealing with the media because by and large they marginalise us, they ignore us. If they’re carrying anthing to do with women in politics they will usually carry it with the Women’s Coalition and leave it at that. They ignore by and large all of the good work we do so it is extremely, extremely difficult. But we’re not going to be beat by it.”
Patricia Lewsley: “Just to agree with what Lily has said. On that day we decided that enough was enough and we had to make a stand and we stood outside UTV and they sent out one of the women out, they didn’t send one of the men out, and we gave a letter of complaint in. I got a phone-call back as I was the Press officer for the Forum and he told me if I wanted a profile to start my own party first and that was the gist of it. The seven women who were on that table that morning weren’t just ordinary members of parties, they were quite high up, they were chairs and vice-chairs of the parties and women who had sat at the talks tables and councillors and different types of people. The media is a problem in the first place. I mean we were “Yes” women, we weren’t “No” men and that’s probably why we didn’t get coverage. “
Lily Kerr: “The interesting thing about the line-up of the press conference…it was amazing as it galvanised us…there was actually the Worker’s party, the SDLP, the PUP, the Alliance party, the UDP, the Women’s coalition and the Ulster Unionist party. There was not only a cross section – we crossed the sectarian divide, the political divide, we came from all classes and all cultures and it was nearly standing up with one voice. There would even have been people, dare I say it, who would have been considered from the “blue rinse brigade” and the one common cry was “this is happening to us because we’re women and we ain’t going to stand for it”. It was marvellous that reaction that those women, all from different backgrounds and different political parties realised at that single instance that this is because we’re women and we’re having no more of it. They did us a favour in a sense.”
Sarah Duncan: “I just wanted to say that the press don’t just ignore the Women’s Political Forum – they ignore all the women in politics in Northern Ireland with the exception of the new, sexy Women’s Coalition… We would all feel – people who have been involved in politics over 25 years – our contributions have been ignored – in my party and the SDLP and the Unionists, the PUP and all the other political parties. Press don’t want to know that there are women in those parties beavering away. Mo Mowlam herself imagines that the only women in politics in Northern Ireland are Monica McWilliams and Jane Morris. It’s very hard for the other women in Stormont to have an acknowledgement at all. Within my party, 50% of the executive of the Alliance Party are women but even within my own party… the men ignore the contribution of women. So I’d like all you men in this audience to talk up the contribution of women in politics in Northern Ireland and women in community groups in Northern Ireland and women who have kept Northern Ireland together really, it certainly wasn’t the men.”
Joan Cruthers: “Just an example of what was written in one of our local papers the Sunday Life, this Sunday. The DUP had their conference on Saturday and the Women’s Coalition had their conference as well. The whole page was taken up with Ian Paisley, Ian Paisley Junior, Peter Robinson. – the whole page – and right down at the very bottom – I just took this as an insult to women regardless of being the Women’s Coalition – “there was a 10-line paragraph of the Women’s Coalition, and that 10-line paragraph spoke more sense than what the whole page said on the DUP had said at their conference and that is just a prime example of what women in Northern Ireland face.”
Q15. [Cllr. Phil Cantwell]: “.. Let me assure the women that it’s not just in Northern Ireland that this happens. I see it in the council and where are the media tonight? It isn’t an issue to come out to a peace meeting but if there was a fight here they would be here tomorrow morning…”
Rev. John Clarke (C of I Rector, Navan): “… I think it’s the fact that you’re made up of different political parties. It’s like as if we had Methodist Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Church of Ireland people at an ecumenical gathering. It wouldn’t quite get the press coverage. …If there was a particular problem or otherwise within a particular denomination it’s highlighted by the media and I’m afraid it’s something we’ve got to live with. But really when you get a conglomeration of people together, I’m not suggesting that you’re not at the coal front you are as individuals and within your own parties and working together as women and so on, it’s those that are at the coal face are getting the media coverage at the moment.”
Patricia Lewsley: “I just have to say that I know that the day my own party launched the “Yes” for the referendum, our own campaign…. one of the journalists asked “Why did all the parties who were for the Yes vote not come together to campaign for the Yes referendum?” We did that as women and nobody took any heed of us.”
Lily Kerr: “That’s actually the point – because it was women that whole contribution was undermined because someone in the media deemed it wasn’t important – it was important.”
Rev. Clarke: “There must be women involved in the media and surely there must be an inroad there, who’d like to cover what you’re doing.”
Lily Kerr: “You’ll get women in the media but – the women in the media will tell you this – it’s always someone else in the production team or elsewhere who decides what’s going to get covered.”
Patricia Lewsley: “I also have to say in defence of one journalist called Julie O’Connor who writes for the Mirror – she was the only one who came that day and she actually had been with us a couple of days before and gave us a piece in the Mirror and she followed it up then the next day with the bad response that we had, but it was only one woman.”
Lily Kerr: “To be fair to the Irish Times they ran the story the day beforehand complete with photograph, they were the only two but the Northern Ireland press ignored us.”
Julitta Clancy: “…Even though it is a reality it’s an extremely important issue – the media and their treatment. We need to educate them – how can we do that – in this Peace process. Take our experience – we only learnt about Northern Ireland .. from the press and all we got in the press, until we started going up to Northern Ireland and talking to people, was the negative … We never heard anything about the tremendous work that was going on….”
Patricia Lewsley: “I think it goes back to our culture because for years the media covered the Troubles and what was happening. Now that we’re going forward to a peaceful process they will have to deal with all the other issues because they will be the things that make the news…. It’s a bit like somebody said over here a while ago the press will always, always fight each other for something that is negative and contentious. They won’t come out as quickly with something that unites us and is good. Hopefully the future will hold more of that and so therefore they will have to print it.”
CLOSING WORDS
John Clancy (CHAIR): “Thank you very much. With that last contribution we will draw tonight’s more formal session to a close…. May I say thanks to Patricia Lewsley, Lily Kerr, Councillor Sarah Duncan and Joan Cruthers for coming down. I think at our last talk in October a lot of people were depressed with what we perceived as an entrenched attitude between the various participants on the Drumcree issue… Mind you they were nearly all men who talked if I remember correctly. Isn’t it amazing when we sit down here and we have a very broad-spectrum of political opinion in Northern Ireland and are able to sit down and agree that they’ve more to agree on than disagree. It’s women that are putting this forward, the common sense attitude and down-to-earth. I think there’s great hope and I think we’ve been very reassured I have to say by tonight in terms of what each of the speakers have said that there is great hope in Northern Ireland…. There’s great hope there and I think we’ve all seen it tonight and let’s pray that this hope is nurtured and developed and knocks some sense into people in Northern Ireland and also down here as well. … Thank you all very much”
ENDS
Meath Peace Group Report. January 1999. (c) Meath Peace Group
Compiled by Sarah Clancy from video tapes taken by Anne Nolan; edited by Julitta Clancy
Meath Peace Group – contact names: John and Julitta Clancy, Parsonstown, Batterstown, Co. Meath; Anne Nolan, Gernonstown, Slane, Co. Meath; Pauline Ryan, Woodlands, Navan, Co. Meath; Philomena Boylan-Stewart, Longwood, Co. Meath; Paschal Kearney, Michael Kane, An Tobar, Ardbraccan, Navan, Co. Meath