Northern Ireland Peace Process: Discussion
Thursday, 13 October 2011 Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement Debate ..Dail Eireann. Comhchoiste um Fhorfheidhmiu Aoine an Cheasta…Chairman/Cathaoirleach Dominic Hannigan,TD/FD

Chairman: I thank Mr. George Newell. I will take three questions and then ask our guests to respond. I will call Senator Martin McAleese, Deputy Joe O’Reilly and Deputy Martin Ferris.

Senator Martin McAleese: I echo the Chairman’s welcome to our guests. This is a very significant occasion because the people who are here today live in and represent some of the areas most hurt by the period of the conflict and the Troubles. This committee will benefit immensely from hearing first-hand the open and honest way those experiences were described today. Our guests are very welcome and what they have said is appreciated by everybody in this room.

I have a couple of short questions. The first relates to culture identity, the Irish language and the bill of rights which were mentioned briefly. They are provided for within the Good Friday Agreement, the Hillsborough Agreement and St. Andrews Agreement. Given that the implementation of those has not been progressing as fast as some people would wish, how important is the free expression of cultural identity and language and the availability of rights in their communities?

We still have issues with parading. This summer passed reasonably well. Past years have been much more difficult. How big a threat is the issue of parading to the proper joint celebrations around the centenaries that we face into over the next ten years?

Deputy Joe O’Reilly: I join with Senator McAleese in welcoming our guests. This is a very important day for the committee. It is great they are present and that we are having this dialogue. What occurs to me is that the historic commemorations and the manner in which they will take place during the next decade will represent a coming of age of the peace process. If we can approach them correctly and sensitively and on a community basis they will represent a huge coming of age of the peace process. It is important that we have commemoration rather than a triumphal celebration. That is the key. The nature of the events should not be triumphalistic but sensitive and implicit in them is a recognition of the validity of other traditions. Basically, we must all value each other’s heritage. If the celebrations are triumphalistic, sectarianism will feed on that.

There was a reference earlier to developing areas of social disadvantage. Obviously that is critical. We discussed in another forum recently integrated education. That too is critical.

Representing the different communities and the different heritages and cultural traditions on the committee, the challenge for our guests is to go to their own communities and ask them to accept the validity of the other tradition. The challenge for nationalism will be while celebrating 1916 to give recognition to the Ulster Covenant and to facilitate that commemoration and, indeed, the people who enlisted in the First World War. That is the challenge for each of them. The easy part is to agree consensually at the committee but the challenge is to go out to their own communities and all of us will have to do it in our own respective ways.

My question to the guests is whether they are up for that challenge and can deliver on it. Do they think they can get this down to the people? There will be will be national commemoration committees under the auspices of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, under his chairmanship, and my colleague Deputy Frank Feighan, who chairs the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. All of those will be working. Are the guests up for the challenge of gaining acceptance within their sphere of influence of the validity of the other people’s commemoration and can they take the triumphalism out of it and consequently not allow it feed into sectarianism? Nothing will feed sectarianism like triumphalistic celebrations that are disrespectful of other traditions.

Deputy Martin Ferris: I welcome our guests and thank them for their presentation. Many of us will find it very enlightening and helpful to help deal with the outstanding difficulties and problems. All of us are conscious of the enormous progress that has been made particularly during the past ten years and the very encouraging signs as people who were at both sides of the divide are working collectively together for the good of their communities and also to create a new arrangement.

In the presentation it was mentioned that most of the interface communities, in particular, lack the dividends or support towards areas needed to break down the psychological walls that have existed over many decades and, in particular, the transparency of dividends from the peace process such as jobs and a more progressive and integrated approach to education. Will the witnesses elaborate on the lack of the social and economic dividends for communities most affected and most deprived not during the conflict but pre-conflict? Do the witnesses have any suggestions or ideas to breakdown or help alleviate the sectarianism that continues to exist? From a personal point of view sectarianism is learned, also tolerance, and moving away from sectarianism has to learned through an eucational programme where children can see each other for what they are, people, not Protestant, Catholic or whatever. That issue needs to be examined. Perhaps the witnesses will advise the committee how it can help and how all of us together, through dialogue, can come to a greater understanding of how to resolve those issues that remain.

In respect of the commemorations and parades already mentioned, difficulties that continue around parades can only be resolved through people speaking together. Representatives of areas through which there are parades, where there are difficulties with them, and the organisers of those parades must speak together and the issue must be dealt with at that level. If people are not prepared to speak with each other in an open and fair way, there will be intransigence and progress will not be made.

From what we have seen in recent years probably the greatest threat to the peace process is contentious parades. Every effort should be made to find a way of alleviating that threat. People have a right to commemorate their heritage and their past, but an understanding and accommodation must be found to remove the pressure that contributes to distrust and divisions within communities. I would like to hear some comments on that.

To be continued