Financial Support for Sports Clubs
Private Members’ Business
Northern Ireland Assembly debates, 21 September 2009, 12:30 pm
David McClarty (UUP)
The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes in which to propose the motion and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. One amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes.
Danny Kennedy (UUP)
I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to ensure that no sports club, which facilitates a commemoration or glorification of terrorism, receives financial support through his Department, either directly or indirectly.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to move this important motion. I hope that the tone of the debate will be appropriate. The debate needs to be held in the context of the wider debate on a shared future. Clearly, the GAA will be an important contributor to sporting and cultural life in Northern Ireland.
The motion is not an attempt to close down the GAA or to prohibit it from organising its games, or, indeed, from getting financial support. As a member of Newry and Mourne District Council, I have supported grant applications from GAA clubs in my area. However, the issue that is being raised today is that a leading sporting organisation, the GAA, is being used — and, to some extent, abused — by some elements to glorify terrorism, and thereby promote sectarian attitudes. That was represented at Galbally in early August.
I recognise that there are those in the GAA who are attempting to promote change and a role for the organisation in a shared future. However, Galbally is a sharp reminder that, alongside those elements, some are prepared to use the GAA to promote a very different future: one marked by division, sectarian attitudes and the glorification of terror and violence.
The motion calls on the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to be a persuader for a shared future, and to use the influence and funding available to his Department — if necessary, by using his powers — to ensure that no sporting organisation facilitates the glorification of terrorism. I welcome the Minister’s attendance and look forward to what he has to say.
All Members who believe in a genuinely shared future hope that the Minister will set out how he will seek to use his influence, and, if necessary, his powers, to ensure that no sporting organisation will allow its premises, resources or grounds to be involved in acts that glorify terrorism.
The recent upsurge in republican activity underlines the importance of the motion. In my view, to glorify the terrorists and terrorism of the 1980s is to encourage the terrorists of 2009. To celebrate the cult and ideology of the violence that wreaked havoc in our society since the late 1960s is to encourage the young people of 2009 to again embrace violence and to again bring pain and suffering. For Sinn Féin to issue a document about a shared future after two years of that party delaying the process and being indecisive and to somehow defend the glorification of terrorism and sectarian violence at an event such as that which took place at Galbally only gives succour and encouragement to those in our society who are determined to repeat the history of recent decades.
The rules for administering public funds must be consistent. If public funds are not permitted to be used to support party political activities, how can they be permitted to be used to sponsor and support any organisation that permits its premises to be used for the type of heavily charged political or quasi-political event that occurred on Sunday 10 August 2009 at Galbally? The event in question was hardly even a political event in the normal sense of the term. It was a highly charged political event with strong paramilitary undertones that appeared to glorify violence as a means to achieve political objectives. That flies in the face of the normal politics that all sides of the House are supposed to espouse.
The Galbally GAA club has received some £200,000 of public money from Sport Northern Ireland in support of its sporting activities. That is a substantial sum of money, and with it, it brings a duty for the club to behave responsibly and to permit its premises to be used only for law-abiding events that do not glorify violence as a legitimate means of political expression.
As part and parcel of its letter of offer for the receipt of public money, the GAA club in question should have been made to give an undertaking that it would not permit its premises to be used for the glorification of paramilitary violence. In the days of the old Stormont Parliament, which some people continue to criticise, the terms of the grant aid that that Administration provided always included safety measures to ensure that the glorification of paramilitary activity would not take place.
The mixture of sport and politics can be fairly toxic. Questions still lurk in the background about the GAA’s receipt of public money and about how it relates to some of the overtly political connotations of some of its aims and objectives. Those include the objective in rule 2 of its official guide, which states:
“The Association is a National Organisation which has as its basic aim the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes.”
Rule 15 deals with the flying of the Irish flag at grounds where games are played. It is time that the GAA moved into the twenty-first century and addressed the issues around those rules. Post-Belfast Agreement, it must recognise that, under the principle of consent, there is no prospect of a united Ireland or a 32-county all-Ireland republic. It must realise that and change its rules accordingly.
Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin)
After the Armagh minor team won the all-Ireland football final yesterday at Croke Park, will the Member agree that the funding that that club received went to good use? Go raibh maith agat.
Danny Kennedy (UUP)
The Member has fallen immediately into a trap, in that he has ignored the true purpose of the debate. On the basis of sporting achievement, I am happy to congratulate the Armagh team. Let us concentrate on the issues that are before us, which confront and face not only Sinn Féin and the nationalist community, but the GAA as an organisation. Why does it allow itself to be used and abused by a small number of people to promote a particular agenda?
In the past, the GAA has reached out to unionism, and a number of unionist politicians have accepted invitations to attend matches. I have no difficulty with that. However, the Galbally incident indicates clearly that the time has now come for all sports clubs that receive Government funding, either directly or indirectly, to be forced to give an undertaking about the use of their premises.
The motion aims to promote and support a shared future for all Northern Ireland’s people. It is designed to ensure that the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure will advance the notion of a shared future and will also, if necessary, apply sanctions to those bodies that ignore or seek deliberately to undermine such a policy by their actions.
I note the Alliance Party’s amendment. The motion is clear and deserves widespread support, and I commend it to the House.
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after “ensure” and insert
‘that his Department recognises the excellent work done by sports clubs, particularly in providing community facilities, encouraging healthy activity, and promoting a positive lifestyle for young people; further, noting cases of sectarianism and support for terrorism carried out in sports clubs, this Assembly urges the Minister to use his good offices with governing bodies to ensure that sporting facilities provide a welcoming atmosphere for everyone; and while recognising the excellent work that has already been done in this regard, this Assembly believes a withdrawal of funding would be appropriate after repeated and deliberate incidents of sectarianism or glorification of terrorism.’
The Alliance Party’s amendment intends to provide a much more rounded view of the motion. I must say that Danny Kennedy made a decent fist of trying to be impartial and reasonable, although as he progressed through his speech, he drifted into a wider criticism of the GAA, rather than discussing the specific case that sparked the motion. I will perhaps deal with that in a few moments.
It is clear that the motion was sparked by the events that occurred in August at the Galbally GAA club in County Tyrone. That demonstration was not just political; that would, in itself, have raised questions about its appropriateness at a sports ground. The demonstration also raised the issue of the glorification of terrorism. To be quite frank, the Alliance Party has a fundamentally different view of the hunger strikes and their place in society than Sinn Féin. However, my party recognises that people have different views of history and want to have their own particular commemorations. In saying that, however, there can be no excuse whatever for any commemoration that has paramilitary or terrorist trappings.
Clearly, that event has given rise to many issues that Sinn Féin and the GAA must address. It has set a bad example, particularly to young people and especially to those who are involved with the club. Not only that, the event has sent a dangerous and sinister message to the rest of society at a time when it is trying to move towards democracy and the rule of law.
That said, it must be acknowledged that concern has been expressed in GAA circles about the incident. Certainly, that is appropriate and welcome. I stress that, in the first instance, it is for sports’ governing bodies to address that type of situation. The GAA, as an organisation, is respected greatly in society, as, indeed, it should be. Certainly, I congratulate the Armagh minor team on its victory, albeit through gritted teeth, given that I am from County Down. I also extend our congratulations to Kerry, which is at the opposite end of the island of Ireland.
The GAA is a focus of communities, particularly in rural areas. It provides an important function, especially as it trains and develops young people and takes them away from less productive activities on the streets.
It is important, however, that we, as an Assembly, are not one-sided in the criticisms that we make and that we recognise that there are problems in sport in Northern Ireland as a whole, and in different areas of sporting activity in particular.
In many respects —
Trevor Clarke (DUP)
You just referred to criticisms. I hope that you do not mind my criticising your amendment, because —
David McClarty (UUP)
Order. All remarks should be made through the Chair, not directly to another Member.
Trevor Clarke (DUP)
I apologise, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. Through your good office, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker, I wish to say that the Alliance Party’s amendment is very weak, because it states:
“a withdrawal of funding would be appropriate after repeated and deliberate incidents of sectarianism or glorification of terrorism.”
If the Alliance Party was being sincere, the whole emphasis of its amendment would have been on trying to stamp out any such incidents, not just “repeated and deliberate incidents”. The incident, whether it is repeated or not, was deliberate. One instance is deplorable enough. Does the Member agree?
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
I understand from where Mr Clarke is coming. No doubt he is keen to protect certain things and direct his criticism at one aspect of society. The point that I was coming to is that if spectators chant sectarian songs and if paramilitary trappings or signs are on display at any sporting event, it is logical that funding be withdrawn from that club, if it is judged not to be sufficiently forceful in trying to tackle those issues.
We tabled an amendment because the implications of the Ulster Unionist Party’s substantive motion are considerable and far-reaching and because we dispute how far the party has thought its motion through. Our amendment is much more reasoned, because it recognises the balance of problems in society and looks to the governing bodies, and to the Minister in particular, to work in a proactive manner to address them. It also recognises the fact that the potential threat of moneys being withdrawn from sports clubs is quite appropriate. It is more important, in the first instance, to use the carrot —
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
No, I have already let the Member make one intervention
It is important that we try to encourage sports clubs to play their role in a shared future. That is the argument for our amendment. Sport is contentious in societies, and that fact is not unique to Northern Ireland. It is also a feature of many societies elsewhere in the world. I recognise the good work that different governing bodies have done, in particular the Irish Football Association (IFA) and the excellent work of its head of community relations, Michael Boyd. Tremendous moves forward have been made in recent years.
We must also recognise the fact that the Northern Ireland Office is carrying out a consultation exercise on legislation for the regulation of spectator sports, which should address problems such as inappropriate chanting and displays at sports grounds. Clearly, a problem exists that is not unique to the GAA but is far-reaching across society. Clubs and a host of different sectors must face up to the issues. Let us move forward in a balanced way by looking at all the problems and issues and by ensuring that we are proactive in trying to address them.
This issue, and how we address it, will have an important role to play in moving towards a shared future. Sport is a major aspect of people’s social lives in Northern Ireland. Several sports are organised on a cross-community basis and played in a genuine cross-community manner, and that is to be welcomed. However, there are aspects of sporting and leisure life in which segregation is implicit, sometimes for historical reasons and sometimes because barriers have been erected.
Sport must be part of the solution to building a shared future. It is important that that be worked into whichever approach we take. On another occasion, we will no doubt talk about the wider problems that the Executive face with their policy on community sharing and integration; however, that is not the topic that we are debating today.
In proposing the motion, Mr Kennedy focused, quite rightly, on the inappropriate political use of sports grounds and the glorification of paramilitarism, which I think that we all abhor.
However, he then stretched his remarks to criticise the GAA for its political aspirations towards a nation and a united Ireland. Neither I nor my party share that aspiration. However, the Good Friday Agreement, which, in case Mr Kennedy forgets, his party was central to, recognises the legitimacy of different aspirations and traditions on the island. Therefore, although the aspiration in question may not be to my taste, I do not see anything inherently wrong with it: it is the association’s choice and is included in its rules. When we focus on what is inappropriate, it is important that we maintain the correct focus and do not stretch our remarks to make wider political points about organisations.
A shared future is about people living and working together, but it is also about how people are educated and play together. There is a huge opportunity to get that right through sport. Therefore, it is important that the Assembly sends out the constructive message that it is not out to bash any particular organisation, but that it recognises the problems in sport, which is, in a sense, a microcosm of society. It is important that we address those issues constructively.
William McCrea (DUP)
Let us be frank; the sight of men armed with replica guns and with balaclavas on their heads was an offence to sport and to this community, which has been through 30 years of terrorism. Surely, the Member should condemn that instead of trying to cover it up.
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
If Dr McCrea had listened to the start of my speech, he would have heard me saying that any paramilitary display was completely inappropriate. I am more than happy to condemn that activity; my party has consistently condemned other similar displays of paramilitarism from loyalists and republicans across Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Our credibility on that issue is not in question.
Wallace Browne (DUP)
I support the motion. I am a keen supporter of sport. In many instances, sport has brought together people from all communities. However, events like the one at Galbally in August have had the opposite effect; they further divide our communities.
I have been a member of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure for the past two years. During that time, I have had the opportunity to hear from and engage with officials from the GAA’s Ulster Council. Surely, they must be aware of the deep suspicion with which their sports are viewed by people in the unionist community. The martyrdom afforded to a wide variety of terrorists and criminals, spanning well over a century, ensures that the sport remains firmly off limits for those who might otherwise be attracted by the various sporting activities that the GAA conducts.
I recognise that there are members of the GAA’s Ulster Council who are motivated purely by sport and are endeavouring to remove the self-constructed barriers that for so long have tarnished Gaelic sports as just another political tool.
Jim Shannon (DUP)
Does the Member agree that there is something obscene about a member of the Dungannon and South Tyrone district policing partnership (DPP) donning a paramilitary uniform and marching to commemorate the suicide of the terrorist hunger strikers? Does he also agree that that kind of behaviour is inappropriate for any member of a public body and does not contribute to good community relations or the celebration of support, which is what it is all about? The use of a sports facility for such a purpose, in this case a GAA club, is a misuse of that facility, which calls into question its real purpose and its place in Northern Ireland. That is the crux of the motion.
Wallace Browne (DUP)
I thank the Member for his intervention and agree that the behaviour of that member of the Dungannon and South Tyrone DPP could be considered as divisive. We should all be working together to improve community relations, not to alienate one another.
As I said, the events at Galbally in August can only detract from and destroy the efforts to remove the barriers that I mentioned. Nothing can be more distasteful to the unionist community than the use of GAA stadiums for paramilitary commemorations. As a sporting body, that is something that the GAA should distance itself from unequivocally.
Naomi Long (Alliance)
Does the Member agree that it is not just members of the unionist community who find the glorification of terrorism offensive in that context? Many people across the community would also find that offensive.
Wallace Browne (DUP)
I take the point; I am sure that many people from all communities would condemn displays of paramilitarism. The sight of masked men carrying what we presume to be, at best, replica weapons, is not only alarming, but provocative and illegal. It is a destabilising move that has once again shone a bright light of suspicion on Gaelic sport within the Province.
The role of Sinn Féin is even more depressing, if not entirely predictable. In an attempt to justify those actions as role play, the Member for West Tyrone Mr McElduff displayed either a huge level of naivety or, as I suspect, scant regard for the view of the GAA within wider society and the real damage that such actions can to do to sport in general. We know that such commemorations are contrary to rules 1.11 and 5.1 of that sporting association’s constitution, namely, that the GAA should remain non-political and that all grounds and stadia are to be used solely for sporting purposes.
We can all recall the view of the GAA’s ruling body and, indeed, the editorial of ‘The Irish News’, when, in 2006, Casement Park was to be a venue for a similarly provocative parade. ‘The Irish News’ said that Sinn Féin had placed the GAA in an unenviable position, and it appears to have done so once again.
Members opposite may try to defend the GAA; however, they are indirectly responsible for the motion coming to the House, and they will be responsible for any consequences. If we link this debate with last week’s debacle over the cohesive strategy to tackle sectarianism, it is clear that although Sinn Féin members may talk the talk, they are left severely wanting when it comes to substance.
Sport in society is moving on. Look, for example, at the tremendous work that has been done by the Northern Ireland amalgamated supporters club, and the IFA’s effort to give bigotry in football the red card. I believe that Sinn Féin’s short-sighted initiatives are greatly damaging to the GAA. Commemorations such as the one at Galbally may play well among some core supporters, but they do nothing to promote Gaelic sports or to enable progress towards the shared and inclusive society that Sinn Féin so often talks about but does nothing to promote. I support the motion.
Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am speaking in a personal capacity. Cathaoirleach an Choiste Cultúir, Ealaíon agus Fóillíochta. I am a member of St Colmcille’s GAC in Carrickmore, County Tyrone. At the weekend, I attended a series of underage championship matches — a blitz — a big championship match in Carrickmore, where 6,000 people watched Dromore beat Errigal Ciaran, and, of course, the all-Ireland finals were yesterday.
I will make history as a Tyrone man by commending the Armagh minor team and the Kerry senior team for winning the all-Ireland titles yesterday. I respectfully suggest that, at least for the Armagh minor team, we have a proper Stormont reception for those who carried the Tommy Markham Cup back over the border.
I oppose the proposed amendment. Sinn Féin tried to table an amendment that said that there should not be discrimination against any sports club. To me, the Ulster Unionist Party motion smacks of an old-style unionist desire to show who is boss and to enter into discrimination. Sinn Féin will not tolerate discrimination in this society as regards this matter or any other matter. Discrimination lies beneath the surface of modern-day unionism, and, occasionally, finds expression in a motion such as this.
Definitions of terrorism are always interesting and contested. One man’s freedom fighter —
Trevor Clarke (DUP)
You say that our definition of terrorism is limited. What is your interpretation —
Trevor Clarke (DUP)
Sorry. What is the Member’s interpretation of a man carrying either an imitation or a real Armalite or someone wearing a balaclava?
David McClarty (UUP)
Order. My ruling applies to both Members. If you have something to say, you must direct your remarks through the Chair.
Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin)
I ask the LeasCheann Comhairle whether the Member is referring to the SAS. One man’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist. One of the proposers of the motion was a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, which was so good that it had to be disbanded. In our part of the world in rural County Tyrone and in many other places, the question of who is a terrorist is very interesting.
The Galbally community has been mentioned a lot today. That community has an excellent sports club and excellent facilities, as do all other GAA clubs throughout Ireland. It does not have a hand-out mentality and has built up the bulk of the facilities itself. Why would that community not apply to the Government for additional assistance to provide facilities at its heart?
The commemoration has been severely misrepresented. The parade comprised a series of role plays and re-enactments, which fully complied with Parades Commission rules and regulations. It was legal in every sense. The parade was attended by thousands of people within sight of the home of Martin Hurson, a highly respected, politically motivated hunger striker who died for the cause of Irish freedom.
Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin)
I will not give way.
He died for the cause of Irish freedom in 1981. Martin Hurson was the president of the local club. Kevin Lynch, another hunger striker, captained Derry’s under-16 hurling team to an all-Ireland title. I contest the assertion that those hunger strikers were terrorists; they were not. They were politically motivated and were supported by their community. In fact, another hunger striker, Bobby Sands, secured 31,000 votes and became MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone during his imprisonment and hunger strike.
All the sports governing bodies are doing their best to reach out into the future and to broaden their appeal. The GAA is not like the Orange Order, and I will tell the House why. GAA membership is open to everyone, unlike the Orange Order. Therefore, comparisons between the two organisations are spurious. When tabling the motion, Danny Kennedy drifted, in the words of Stephen Farry, into sectarian criticism of the Gaelic Athletic Association. Sinn Féin will not tolerate that.
Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I declare my membership of St Patrick’s Gaelic Athletic Football Club, Carrickcruppen, County Armagh.
It is a bit early for that.
On the day after the biggest event in the Irish sporting calendar, the all-Ireland Gaelic football finals in Croke Park, I want to congratulate a young Ulster team that, in the 125th year of the GAA, is celebrating a famous victory in the minor football final and has brought the trophy back to its native county of Armagh after an absence of 60 years. I extend my congratulations to the Kerry senior team, which has achieved yet another great feat.
I pay tribute to the young players of Armagh who have trained hard all year to achieve the highest honour that they could achieve. That is a cause for joy and celebration, and I urge the House to join in that joy and celebration and to congratulate those young men. I have already written to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to ask him to host a reception for the team at Parliament Buildings. I hope that he will respond positively.
All our sporting organisations have much to be proud of, much to celebrate and much to offer society. They are, generally, forward-looking organisations that make a huge investment in people across the age spectrum, regardless of race, creed or colour in areas of health and fitness, and in social and cultural life. They do so in an exemplary and professional manner and with the help of thousands of volunteers who give their time and expertise freely for the good of their communities and society as a whole. The work of those volunteers is supported and extended by a relatively small number of full-time staff. The sporting bodies invest huge amounts of their resources back into their clubs at the grass roots, and they are also funded by Departments here, as is right and proper.
The Ulster Council of the GAA and the Irish Football Association have joined forces to support the Unite Against Hate campaign. The campaign’s message is simple:
“Hate crime is violent, wrong and will not be tolerated. There is no room in society for this.”
That campaign will promote leadership, optimism and hope and will offer a practical channel to encourage, empower and support people to express their opposition to hate crime. That is a positive contribution to society under present conditions. I welcome the fact that the sporting bodies also have programmes to promote health and well-being, to include people with a disability or special needs, to welcome new populations, to include all educational sectors in their games and to promote a shared future.
The motion is misdirected: it misses the point. It would be more accurately directed at censuring those who exploit sporting organisations, whether for political or sectarian motives. We must get the message across to them that political or sectarian exploitation is unacceptable. It was not acceptable when it took the form of robberies at Casement Park, at Thurles or at other grounds, nor is it acceptable in any other form.
The way to end political or sectarian exploitation is not by threatening clubs, which are doing sterling work, with the withdrawal of funding, but by harnessing public opinion against such exploitation and by co-operating with the sporting bodies. We have seen the problem of sectarianism at sporting venues being tackled and hugely reduced.
That was achieved through the influence of public opinion. We can deal with this particular problem in that way. The Alliance Party’s amendment —
The Alliance Party’s amendment more accurately supports the views of the SDLP, and we will support that amendment.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
Needless to say, I support the motion. I am sorry that it looks as though it will not get universal support in the House. That is regrettable, because there was a golden opportunity for — to say “everyone” may be taking it a bit far — most parties, at least, to support the motion as tabled by Mr Kennedy and his colleagues.
We would not expect Sinn Féin to support the motion. No doubt it is playing to the gallery; it must reassure its foot soldiers. [Interruption.]
Well, Sinn Féin could have said that it took on board the concerns that were being expressed in the House and that it could see exactly where unionists were coming from. However, Sinn Féin never attempts to stand in the shoes of others; it always wants to stand in its own shoes because, I suspect, it feels more comfortable in them, and it is more difficult for it to take on board the views of those whom it regards as its political opponents.
What happened at Galbally on that particular day fell far short of the expectations of decent and right-thinking people; it was a tragedy beyond degree. I suspect that we will never get the true answer as to whether the GAA allowed its premises to be used or whether they were hijacked. It appears that there was some degree of being less than factual and truthful with Galbally GAA.
I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt at times, and it is up to Galbally GAA to prove otherwise as time goes on. I understand that Galbally GAA is holding an inquiry into exactly what happened on that dreadful day.
The PSNI has not covered itself in glory on this occasion. It had a distinct and profound responsibility to move in and take control of a situation that, as Lord Browne said, will doubtless have a destabilising effect on communities across Northern Ireland. It is a challenge for Sinn Féin: where does it stand on law and order? Where does it stand on the future for Northern Ireland? What is it trying to prove to those who do not think as it does?
We are often told that it is time to move on. Sinn Féin repeatedly uses that mantra and says that it has moved on to a new era. Have we moved on? Some of us feel that every time that there is a possibility of moving on, Sinn Féin will use a situation to ensure that its foot soldiers are reassured and kept happy. If Sinn Féin feels that all the risks are going to be taken by the unionist community, it must learn a wee bit quicker. It also has to take some risks. It must be able to bring its community along and say that things have to be done differently from here on in.
In press coverage after the event, one newspaper referred to mass morons — uniformed teenage Provos pointing replica guns at kids.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
If anyone thinks for a second that that is the way to move that community on by dressing in combat gear, trying to commemorate the most atrocious activities of the past 30 years —
Lord Morrow (DUP)
If Sinn Féin feels that that is the way to move communities forward, it does not get it.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
Sinn Féin will have to learn.
If the Member wants to know which newspaper it was, I suspect that there are plenty of people who will run around and get you that press. As a matter of fact, I will see that you get a copy of it; I will put it in your pigeonhole. Will that do? Perhaps that will keep you happy. I assure you that it does not bring any credit to your organisation. Perhaps you would prefer not to receive a copy.
David McClarty (UUP)
Order, order. As I advised colleagues and other Members from across the Chamber earlier, you should direct all your remarks through the Chair. Visual aids are not allowed to be used in your speeches.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
I apologise; I thought that visual aids were allowed when one was making a reference. I understand what you have said.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
As I thought I had made clear, I was trying to report back, through the Chair at all times, to Mr McElduff, who seems to either not understand or not be able to hear. Perhaps it is a combination of both.
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh míle maith agat. It is important to put this event in the right context. The event took place on Sunday 16 August not 10 August. It did not glorify anyone; it simply commemorated the hunger strike of 1980-81. For Irish republicans, that was an important turning point in Irish politics.
The event took place at Galbally Community Centre, which was built by local people at a cost of £600,000, without any grant aid. The event spilled over into the surrounding GAA grounds. Like the GAA club, Galbally Community Centre has provided its facilities itself. The facilities did not come about as a result of a begging bowl held out to the Department, unlike some other bodies that depend on official local authority fields.
I declare membership of Clonmore Robert Emmets GFC. I commend the people of Galbally for commemorating Martin Hurson. As my colleague said, Martin Hurson was born a short distance — one field — away from where the event took place.
The event was a re-enactment, and others across the Chamber know exactly what re-enactments are about. The re-enactment incorporated the Parachute Regiment, the UDR, the RUC reserve, and the RUC, all in full gear; there were no B-Specials uniforms, so they could not be included. The re-enactment also had IRA imagery, but it was all about imagery. There was imagery of all the events that took place at the time of the hunger strikes, and it was not a glorification of anyone. Indeed, depending on how one looks at it, perhaps the event’s inclusion of RUC men and the Parachute Regiment was a glorification of terrorism.
If people are so concerned, perhaps we should look again at all re-enactments. The sham fight at Scarva on 13 July has been going on for hundreds of years, but the same people win no matter how many times it happens. It includes violence, with people going at each other with swords.
We also need to look at the use of council property and other places. The Orange Order, for example, has used public parks in Belfast and elsewhere for the field and assemblies. That is quite right; there is no problem with that, because those places are public property. The DUP uses the council chamber in Castlereagh for party meetings, electing leaders, and so on. We need to look at a number of issues concerning the use of public property and public places.
Local people did not have a problem with the re-enactment. I do not think that the local unionist community had a problem, apart from Tom Elliott and some others.
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
I am sure that quite a number of people passed there. About 8,000 people took part in the event, and there was not one incident of disorder in the whole day. Compare that with the millions of pounds that it costs to police Orange Order parades in Ardoyne. The re-enactment did not cost the public sector anything at all.
Danny Kennedy (UUP)
Will the Member specifically address the motion’s objection to the glorification of terrorism? It is all very well to lease football fields and other facilities for cultural events. However, we are talking specifically about the glorification of terrorism at Galbally.
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
I said at the beginning of my speech that there was no glorification of terrorism. This week’s ‘Farm Week’ includes a piece about a boot camp at Ballykinler army base. The young farmers’ clubs, which have connections with Mr Kennedy and other members of his party, are pictured in British Army uniforms and carrying British Army guns. I am sure that none of those young farmers is a member of the British Army. Across the page is a photograph of the Minister meeting the young farmers’ clubs to discuss how his Department can fund their activities. Will the Minister now say that the Department cannot fund them because they have been photographed carrying British Army weapons and wearing British Army uniform?
Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin)
On viewing that newspaper article, my colleague could have run to the Business Office and tabled a motion for discussion today. He could have asked for funding to be withdrawn from young farmers’ clubs if they are going to glorify British Army terrorism in the way that they are pictured doing in the farming newspaper. It is a disgrace.
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
No; I have given way enough already.
The Department funds various events and organisations, and the Ulster-Scots Agency gives funding to loyalist bands. Some of those bands glorify terrorism through depictions on their banners and drums of organisations such as the UVF and the Young Citizen Volunteers. One of the bands that receives funding is the Burntollet Sons of Ulster Flute Band, which is a name that strikes a chord within nationalism. There does not seem to be a problem with those organisations being funded by the Ulster-Scots Agency or the Arts Council.
What is the real complaint? Is it simply that unionism is so against the hunger strikes, having realised the effect that they had and the commitment and dedication of the hunger strikers? I am proud to say that I was part of the organising committee for the event at which the republican community of Galbally commemorated one of its young people who died in tragic circumstances at the hands of Maggie Thatcher.
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
It is very important to recognise that those young people are being commemorated in their local areas to this day.
Ian McCrea (DUP)
I thank the Members who tabled the motion for debate in the House today.
Recently in my constituency, we witnessed the ugly side of the GAA when its premises were permitted to be used for a sickening event that glorified terrorism. The Member who spoke previously questioned the fact that that event glorified terrorism. I am not sure what planet he is living on because it certainly did. [Interruption.]
Trevor Clarke (DUP)
Does the Member agree that it was a bit funny that when the Sinn Féin member spoke about a re-enactment of the hunger strike, he did not refer to empty chip boxes being given out?
Ian McCrea (DUP)
I thank the Member for his intervention.
The GAA cannot wash its hands of the hunger strike rally that took place in August this year in the grounds of Galbally GAA club. Photographs of that event show masked men carrying firearms and men wearing paramilitary-style uniforms while marching in GAA grounds. That event was nothing other than the sickening glorification —
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
I will clarify the situation for the Member: all the re-enactments took place on the county road, not in the GAA grounds.
Ian McCrea (DUP)
Perhaps it will be in order to speak to Roads Service about that issue. However, men in uniform did walk on grass at that event, and I do not think that there are too many grassy roads in that area.
As my colleague Lord Morrow said, the police have a lot to answer for regarding what took place, and that is certainly the case if it was held on the county road, as has been suggested. I have raised my concerns with the police and am glad that they will investigate the matter. I am also glad that those responsible, who openly broke the law and brandished weapons — I am yet to be informed whether they were actual guns or replicas —
Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin)
On a point of order, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. We are being told that people have broken the law. I want to know what legislation is being referred to, because that is an important part of this debate. Maybe the Member will point out what laws were broken.
David McClarty (UUP)
Thank you for that point of order, Mr Maskey. It is not for me to make a ruling on that issue; it is up to the Member to explain his remarks.
Ian McCrea (DUP)
Members will know exactly what I am talking about. Carrying weapons, whether they are replicas or not, is not legal, nor is wearing balaclavas.
Ian McCrea (DUP)
No; I have to finish my remarks.
I call on Sinn Féin to unreservedly condemn the activities that took place at Galbally, and I ask its members to come out and strongly state that such events are no longer required in society.
That was not the first time that the GAA allowed its grounds to be used to glorify terrorists. In August 2006 at Casement Park, a hunger strike commemoration rally was held. In July 2008 at Plunkett Park in Pomeroy, events were held to commemorate Seamus Woods, an IRA terrorist who was killed by his own bomb while he and his fellow terrorists attempted a murderous attack on Pomeroy police station.
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
On a point of order, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. The event in Pomeroy did not take place in GAA grounds. I ask that the Member withdraws that remark.
Ian McCrea (DUP)
It is obvious that a raw nerve has been hit. The Member should listen; I said that events were held to commemorate Seamus Woods, parts of which were on the GAA pitch. Pictures were taken that show what I am talking about.
In August 2008, the Loughmacrory GFC rooms were used by the so-called Drumnakilly Martyrs Commemoration Committee for a lecture, exhibition, parade and football tournament to honour IRA terrorists Gerard Harte, Martin Harte and Brian Mullin.
As well as events being held in GAA grounds, some of the grounds are named after terrorists. The Kevin Lynch Park is named after a terrorist from Dungiven. The Louis Leonard Memorial Park is named after a Fermanagh terrorist. The Lochrie/Campbell Park is named after a south Armagh IRA terrorist. There are also teams that are named after republican terrorists.
Ian McCrea (DUP)
No. In my constituency, we have the Pomeroy Plunketts, which is named after Joseph Plunkett, who was a republican terrorist of the 1916 era. There is Galbally Pearses GAC, which is named after Patrick Pearse, who was also a republican terrorist of the 1916 era. There is also Ardboe O’Donovan Rossa, which is named after a prominent republican terrorist of the early 1900s, who was responsible for organising the first-ever Irish republican bombing campaign of English cities, known as the dynamite campaign.
Following the IRA hunger strike event that was held at the GAA grounds in Galbally, I called upon the sponsors of GAA teams to take into consideration the thousands of people across Ulster, both Protestant and Catholic, who were murdered by republican terrorists and the thousands more who suffered as a result of those terrorists’ evil and murderous deeds. The GAA must earn the right to be recognised and accepted as a legitimate sporting body by taking decisive steps to address the naked sectarianism that is at its heart and foundation.
Ian McCrea (DUP)
It needs to extend parity of esteem to all sections of the community and to all other sports without exception. I call on this House to ensure that no sports clubs that facilitate the commemoration or glorification of terrorism receives financial support from any Department.
David McNarry (UUP)
At a time when deplorable difficulties have arisen when agreeing the definition of “victim”, surely no such party political prevarication will be tolerated in this House when defining a terrorist, particularly the Provo type to which this motion clearly refers and that Mr McElduff sets on a pedestal.
It is abominable that the Provo franchise has been conveniently carried on by those who are now called “dissidents”, which, to unionists, is a crass and meaningless distinction. Some were recently called “traitors” without explanation of their treachery and without stipulation of which cause they had betrayed. That left people to ask what the difference is between the man who made the “traitors” charge and the terrorists to whom his remark was directed.
Is there now some kind of code of honourable hierarchy that exists in the defunct Provo wing of Irish republicanism, which distinguishes between one brand of republican terrorism and another? From what unionists saw of the disturbing proceedings at the Galbally Pearses GAA ground, the bad old days of the past were commemorated and the glorification of past terrorist activities were celebrated.
However, the focus did not shine on the Provo organisers alone; the glare of that obscene event rebounded on the GAA in one provocative act of Provo self-glorification. The skilful PR charm offensive in which the GAA was participating fell apart when the photographs that we saw shattered the professional work that had been carried out by the GAA in what I thought was a genuine effort to engage with unionists.
The GAA had reached highly commendable standards with its community involvement and its explanations about its sporting achievements. In its public presentations, the clear message to unionists was that the GAA is a sporting organisation that is moving on and with the mood that wishes to keep sport apart from the deep-rooted nuances of past beliefs and perceptions. Now, after Galbally, unionists must wrestle with the thinking that their ideas about the GAA were, perhaps, correct all the time. How inglorious the event turned out to be is something that unionists must react to because, from the minute that the Provo event hit the news, the focus on the GAA took on a new complexion.
The GAA’s charm offensive was destroyed. For many unionists, that single, predetermined act of Provo militancy was a demonstration of incitement in which the GAA was a willing, culpable supporter. Many unionists view that defiant act of provocative glorification on a GAA sports ground as a betrayal.
I was one of those willing to look upon the GAA as a sporting organisation and to listen to how the association saw itself in our society. The incident at Galbally swung the door in my face and reversed it shut, closing it to the extent that the sport itself must feel ashamed and abused by what took place in a sporting stadium. Is the GAA embarrassed or remorseful? Is it guaranteeing that such an event will not happen again? Has the GAA unwittingly allowed its sport to be brought into disrepute? Or has what happened at Galbally exposed the real normality of the GAA movement? I do not know, but I would like someone to tell me whether that is GAA normality.
David McNarry (UUP)
Apart from the Galbally incident, what impact will the answer to that question have on the Minister’s outlook on future funding for the GAA?
Nelson McCausland (DUP)
I welcome the opportunity to debate the issues raised. I have listened carefully and have noted all the comments on the motion, the amendment and, more directly, the events at Galbally GAA ground in County Tyrone on 16 August.
The issue raised is not new; it has been around for some time. In 2001, there was an IRA colour party at Casement Park as part of that year’s commemoration and again in 2006, when a Member of the House, Francie Brolly, was the soloist and another Member, Fra McCann, was dressed as a hunger strike. [Laughter.]
I have publicly and clearly expressed my deep concern and alarm about what took place during last month’s commemoration at Galbally GAA ground. I have seen photographic evidence of the event, which was, frankly, appalling, and demonstrated the totally inappropriate use of a sports facility. I have already called on the GAA to investigate the matter, and I am pleased to say that an investigation is being conducted. I also understand that the police are making their own inquiries. Since both investigations are under way, I consider it right that we reserve any final judgement on the Galbally event until those investigations are concluded.
However, the motion and the amendment raise broader issues. Both are underpinned by a desire to move Northern Ireland away from the sort of past that was re-enacted at Galbally and forward into a shared and better future that is based firmly on equitability, diversity and interdependency. In that context, the motion and the amendment pose questions about the appropriateness of using sport as a political platform or for the glorification of terrorism.
I will consider that question in the context of the Executive’s priorities. The Executive are committed to working to heal divisions in our society and to building a more peaceful and inclusive community. For instance, the Programme for Government is underpinned by two cross-cutting themes, one of which is a shared and better future for all.
That vision, which has at its heart the promotion of good relations among the people of Northern Ireland, should pervade the work of all Departments. Good relations, as defined by the Equality Commission, are relationships that:
“acknowledge the religious, political and racial context of this society, and that seek to promote respect, equity and trust, and embrace diversity in all its forms.”
That good-relations vision applies to all sectors of my Department: culture, arts and leisure. My Department has a particular responsibility to contribute to good relations and to a shared and better future, which is something that I have already made a priority in the Department.
Sport is a major part of culture and leisure. Government recognises the importance of sport and its tremendous potential to contribute to a range of priorities, including health, education, economic development and the improvement of Northern Ireland’s image at home and abroad. Sport can also do much to help to bring the community together and to contribute to the promotion of good relations in a way that is consistent with the aims of a shared and better future.
People across Northern Ireland enjoy participating in a wide range of field sports, including football, Gaelic football, rugby, hurling, hockey and cricket, to name but a few, and sport enriches the lives of the participants. The vast majority of the adults and young people participating in such sports do so as sportsmen and sportswomen to achieve the best that they can as members of a team and, in turn, they enjoy the health and social benefits that such sports bring. As Minister for sport, I cannot commend too highly the many organisations and volunteers who freely give up their time and effort to ensure that such activities continue to a high standard.
That however is not the whole picture. Like many other activities, sport reflects the society from which it comes; sadly, therefore, some sports can on occasion be seen to perpetuate community tensions, division and exclusion. The key question is how we overcome that problem. How do we ensure that the benefits of sport are maximised in the interests of all? How do we protect sport from influences that would draw it away from the agenda of a shared and better future?
First, the Government has a responsibility to act for the good of the whole community and to support what is best for that community. Government also has a responsibility to declare publicly what is acceptable to the wider community and what is not. Government has a further and important responsibility to press and encourage sports to recognise their shortcomings and to support them in doing what is necessary to move from exclusion to inclusion and to become more accessible. My Department, together with its arm’s-length body, Sport NI, is already taking active steps in that regard.
The role of sport in helping to deliver the shared and better future has been identified as an important factor in the emerging sports strategy for Northern Ireland. The need to overcome traditional patterns of exclusion and segregation in sport has also been recognised as a key requirement. Improving representation and promoting community cohesion through sport is recognised as a major priority in the strategy.
Responsibility in that area does not rest wholly with me, the Department or Sport NI; there is also a requirement for sports bodies, clubs and associations to demonstrate commitment in that regard. Some do so already. The IFA has a “Football for All” initiative, which is an excellent example of good practice in that respect.
The GAA, which has been mentioned frequently in the debate, has, in recent years, started to address some long-standing concerns about its ethos, rules and wider relationship with the entire community. I am glad that it has started that process. The association has abolished some of its more contentious rules, particularly the one that prevented members from participating in non-Gaelic games and the one that excluded members of the security forces. One of the leadership programmes that is run on behalf of my Department through Sport Northern Ireland is entitled “Sport for All”, and that is the way that it should be; not sport for nationalists or sport for unionists, but sport for all.
Turning to the local, grass roots level, some GAA clubs have clearly adopted practices that drag us back to the past, instead of taking us forward, including naming clubs, grounds and competitions after Irish republican terrorists. Some examples have been given, and such practices should be totally unacceptable in any sport. I am particularly alarmed that some of the competitions that have been named after Irish republican terrorists are for children under the age of 12. It will seem to most people that that is an attempt by the organisers to use sport for political indoctrination. Let me ask the House: are terrorists good role models for children?
Turning to the Galbally incident, which, as I said, was certainly not the first occasion on which GAA grounds have been used to host Irish republican rallies that are designed to celebrate terrorism. In passing, I note Francie Molloy’s comment that all re-enactments took place on the road. It is clear from photographs that are circulating and that have already been published in some newspapers that a number of things that happened on the pitch were totally unacceptable; ranks of people dressed in paramilitary uniform and, indeed, masked men with guns being photographed in the car park adjacent to the pitch.
Of course, I am aware that the GAA is investigating those circumstances, and I welcome that investigation, but I also hope that it will prompt a broader and urgent debate in the association about particular aspects of its rules and policies and the practices of some constituent members. Many of those things are, no doubt, products of a bygone age. However, in my view, they have no place in a modern, twenty-first century sports body, or in a shared and better future.
Sport Northern Ireland, acting on behalf of DCAL, is responsible for developing sport, including the distribution of funding. In discharging that responsibility, Sport Northern Ireland provides Exchequer grants to voluntary sports clubs. All clubs in receipt of such awards are required to comply with specific terms and conditions of award, including the requirement to operate an equal-opportunities policy and equality of access for membership, facilities etc. Those conditions are entirely in keeping with the principles of a shared and better future.
However, given recent public concerns, I believe that there is a need for the Government and their arm’s-length bodies to do more. I have already written to Sport Northern Ireland, which is the body that dispenses funding, and I also intend to engage with the Community Relations Council about those matters. Sports’ support and encouragement to question existing practices and to draw away from such activities are an essential part of that process, but equally, so is firm action to impose penalties, where necessary, on those who celebrate terrorism and ignore, or refuse to heed, the call for a shared and better future.
I believe that the Government must look to see what more can be done, particularly in specifying what constitutes the proper and improper use of facilities that have been developed with the assistance of public funds.
In response to what occurred at Galbally, I have asked for an urgent review to be undertaken of existing terms and conditions of public grants to sport. That review will focus specifically on strengthening the requirement to promote a shared and better future. In that way, we can ensure that commemorations of terrorism in any form would not be in keeping with conditions of award. The review has already been raised with Sport NI —
Nelson McCausland (DUP)
No, I am running out of time. I have commissioned the work to be undertaken by Sport NI. I have asked that it be completed and any necessary and practical changes be implemented as soon as possible.
For the most part, sport in Northern Ireland offers a valuable and constructive service to the community. Through the emerging sports strategy for Northern Ireland, sports bodies have shown that they are willing to embrace the principles of a shared and better future and have expressed a wish to play their part in delivering that vision. Progress has been made, but there remains, in some areas, a distance to go. However, all at least publicly recognise the need to promote the role of sport in creating that shared and better future. Any sports body that sincerely strives to move further in that direction can count on my full support.
Naomi Long (Alliance)
I thank the Members for bringing this matter to the House for discussion and hope that we will reach an agreed way forward. Along with Danny Kennedy, who proposed the motion, I believe that the emphasis must be on a shared future. That is a theme to which I will return a number of times.
There are issues around the justification of violence and the glorification of a conflict, and people need to be cautious as they discuss this issue because, when Danny referred to the often toxic mix of sport and politics, he was touching on something that runs very deeply in our community. He was raising deeper questions about whether sports and cultural organisations can or, indeed, should express political aspirations; whether doing so, even in a peaceful way, is a problem; and how we recognise that although they are allowing wide participation, organisations may still be grappling with their grass roots. Those questions raise a number of issues that need to be addressed.
As Stephen Farry said when he was proposing our amendment, it is never acceptable to have paramilitary flags and trappings and overtures in any situation in public or private life. For that reason, we utterly condemn the commemoration and are unreserved in that.
There is a particular risk to young people, and I hope that those who are calling for me to give way are listening. Young people are extremely impressionable and that sort of activity can groom them into thinking that the way to get respect in their community is to be a hero of the kind that is commemorated in those events. They are then ripe pickings for those who would continue to recruit into dissident organisations. We need to find ways of recognising our past without perpetuating its damage.
A lot of people in GAA circles also have concerns around the commemorations. That is why we would like, in the first instance, to give governing bodies the opportunity to rectify those situations internally, through working with their memberships, rather than applying punitive measures from external forces. We believe that the message would be much stronger if conveyed internally. However, our amendment recognises that the Minister should have the opportunity to introduce punitive measures if those corrections are not taking place.
A number of Members raised issues about individuals hijacking events, for example. I think that Trevor Clarke raised that issue and I know that Lord Morrow did. Lord Morrow mentioned giving people the benefit of the doubt. We believe that it is not enough to simply have a knee-jerk reaction to one set of circumstances; we need to look at the wider situation and at how to get organisations to respond. That does not mean that we should be lenient in circumstances in which people are being blatantly offensive, but we should give clubs and others an opportunity to rectify situations. It is important that we do that.
Francie Molloy, in his contribution, referred to the commemoration as only “imagery”. We all know in this society just how potent imagery can be. It has been proven under the Terrorism Act 2006 that imagery can be seen to glorify terrorism. For example, the Terrorism Act 2006 has been used to deal with flags and emblems. There is no question, therefore, that the use of imagery is an important aspect.
Francie Molloy also raised some wide-ranging questions, as did Danny Kennedy. We will not answer those questions in this debate, but they need to be answered at some stage. They asked questions about how we should commemorate, mark and interpret contentious periods in our history; how we develop shared values and protocols for the use of public spaces for such commemorations; and whether sports grounds and other public spaces are appropriate places for such events to take place. That brings me back to the issue of a shared future, because the cohesion, sharing and integration strategy was an opportunity to explore those issues. There has been an abject failure by the Executive to grasp the nettle and deliver collectively on that challenge.
I welcome the Minister’s statement with regard to what he said about his Department, but this issue cannot be advanced in departmental silos, despite the enthusiasm of some Ministers. Nor can it be advanced by independent political parties producing their own documents. It requires joint leadership and vision for which we need collective governance on the issues.
I am glad that we had the opportunity to hold this debate, but the issues that it raises are more fundamental and wider than the scope of the motion. If we want to tackle the issue in any real way, we need the cohesion, sharing and integration strategy to be brought forward jointly by OFMDFM, and we need to see an end to the failure to deliver on that issue.
Tom Elliott (UUP)
I thank Members who took part in the debate. The House will not be surprised to hear that I agreed with some of the comments that were made and disagreed with others.
The first Member to speak in the debate was my colleague Danny Kennedy, who proposed the motion. He highlighted the reasons underlying the intention of the motion, and the importance of working together towards a shared future — something that the Alliance Party has talked about, and an issue on which I thought that it would have been keen to base support for the Ulster Unionist Party motion, particularly when one looks at the issues around Galbally. Those were highlighted by Mr Kennedy in his opening remarks and by Mr Farry, who tabled the amendment. He deliberately referred to the Galbally rally as well, and that was no surprise. I hope that the Alliance Party will support our substantive motion.
Lord Browne from the DUP was the next Member to speak. I thank him and his colleagues for their support for the motion. He acknowledged that many in the GAA authorities are concentrated solely on the sporting element of the organisation. That is correct. However, he also highlighted the fact that many of those who are involved with the organisation are interested only in its wider cultural and political elements. It is right that we point out that difference.
The debate continued with Mr McElduff from Sinn Féin. It was no surprise that he went back to his old position of the protection and defence of republican terrorists, and he lowered the tone of the debate in that respect. It is obvious that he had written his speech before he heard the tone in which the debate began. We know where he was coming from. He said that the GAA was open to everyone. Will he tell that to young Darren Graham of County Fermanagh? He is a young Protestant whose father was in the UDR and was murdered by IRA terrorists. Darren Graham played GAA games, and he was intimidated so much that he gave up those sports. Perhaps the Member would like to explain to Mr Graham that the organisation is open to everyone.
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
Does the Member accept that the GAA authorities made sure that that young man was able to play Gaelic football back in Fermanagh? Perhaps he should tell the whole story. Will he also clarify his role in respect of the motion, which ignores a lot of the issues that are in front of us with regard to funding from DCAL for UVF groups and bands that promote terrorism in its real form?
Tom Elliott (UUP)
The Member is at liberty to take up those issues with the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, if he wishes.
I am trying to deal with the motion that has been tabled, and the fact was that Darren Graham had to go to America to continue his sporting activities. What a shame on this Province that someone, because of his religion, had to leave his GAA club or sporting organisation and move to America.
Dominic Bradley spoke next and insinuated that the GAA held the biggest sporting occasions in Ireland. I cannot remember what event he referred to, but I feel that I must remind him of the North West 200, which is one of the biggest sporting events in this Province, and which is clearly non-sectarian and non-political.
Lord Morrow spoke next, and I thank him for supporting the motion. He highlighted the issue of how Galbally GAA club may have been used by the organisers of the event. He also suggested that Sinn Féin has no wish to move forward in this society or to progress to a much better society for us all.
Mr Molloy, who has just intervened, spoke next. He alluded to the fact that the demonstration at Galbally was only about imagery, and other members have agreed with that view. However, we must remember what that imagery was. It concerned those who murdered their fellow citizens in this Province — members of the IRA who skulked about at night and shot and blew up the people of this community, some of whom were their neighbours.
Tom Elliott (UUP)
No. The Member has had his say.
Mr Ian McCrea developed the topic of the event at Galbally and gave some significant information.
My colleague David McNarry spoke next, and he described, in some detail, the operation of the “Provo franchise,” which is being carried on by the dissident republicans and which, in my opinion, is being supported by many in the mainstream republican movement. His allusion to a code of republican hierarchy was a nice turn of phrase and one that I must remember to use in the future.
I thank the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure for his response to the debate, his deliberations on the matter and for sensibly and sensitively exploring the issues around it. He said that the event at Galbally was nothing new and that similar events have occurred before in Northern Ireland.
The Minister said that the Government must act for the good of all in the community, and those who are involved in sports must recognise that they must do more to incorporate a wider representation. He also said the clubs must take action in that respect and that DCAL is there to assist them with that process. I am pleased that the Minister has taken up the issue with Sport NI and other organisations. We look forward to the result of those deliberations.
Naomi Long made the winding-up speech for the Alliance Party’s amendment. She reminded the House how damaging such events as the Galbally event can be for our society. She particularly highlighted the effect and influence those events have on our young people, and she made it clear that such matters must be addressed.
Interestingly, a few weeks ago Colm Bradley, the GAA correspondent for my local newspaper, the ‘Fermanagh Herald’, wrote a significant article on the Galbally incident. Colm plays GAA sports, including Gaelic football, and he wrote:
“I was disappointed to see GAA people profess the oft held belief that the GAA is not political and worse still that it was just a sporting organisation … The GAA is about the promotion of Irish culture and we should all be proud of that fact … Thank God for the GAA and their promotion of Irish culture. So please, no more pandering to others by claiming the GAA is just a sporting organisation. It’s not. It is much more.”
That is from someone from within the GAA.
Furthermore, he states that rule 2 of the GAA was amended back in the 1970s to read:
“The Association is a National Organisation which has as its basic aim the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes.”
The wording of that rule was changed and strengthened from the previous, much weaker rule, which simply alluded to preservation of Ireland’s national games and pastimes. Why was there a need to harden that attitude in a time of difficulty in our society in the 1970s? That gives me great concern.
Colm Bradley also wrote in his article that:
“In all honesty the reaction to the event at Galbally has no doubt made it more difficult for the GAA as it tries to extend the hand to the Unionist community.”
There, I am afraid, we have it. There are, unfortunately, people in the GAA who want to use it for their own political and cultural ends.
I do not mind people being involved in the GAA; that is their right, and I am quite happy to accept that. I accept their playing their sport on Sundays and closing off towns and villages when there is a big game on. I am willing to accept that in this society. However, there must also be an acceptance of other people’s culture, which is what many people from that community fail to do. They fail to recognise other people’s culture and tradition, and they want it all for themselves. Unfortunately, that sentiment has been demonstrated at Galbally and other places. It was a charade, and we cannot allow it to be repeated.
The motion asks the Minister and his Department to ensure that such acts are not repeated, otherwise the Province will not move on. I will leave Members with a sentiment that I received from a constituent:
“The GAA does not have to ask Foreign Orange Planter Bigots about flying their colours. The GAA colours will be flown in all of our 32 counties at football matches and nobody cares whether Foreigners are glad or sorry Fermanagh won or lost the match, its just none of your business.”
That is the type of people who are in our society — GAA supporters who do not want to give us a say in this community.
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Main Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 53; Noes 38.
AYES
Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Dodds, Mr Donaldson, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mr Gardiner, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mr Kinahan, Ms Lo, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr McCallister, Mr McCarthy, Mr McCausland, Mr B McCrea, Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea, Mr McFarland, Miss McIlveen, Mr McNarry, Mr McQuillan, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Neeson, Mr Newton, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mrs I Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Savage, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr B Wilson, Mr S Wilson.
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Elliott and Mr Kennedy.
NOES
Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Brolly, Mr Burns, Mr Butler, Mr W Clarke, Mr Durkan, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Mrs Hanna, Mrs D Kelly, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mrs McGill, Mr McGlone, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McKay, Mr McLaughlin, Mr Molloy, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr O’Loan, Mrs O’Neill, Mr P Ramsey, Ms S Ramsey, Ms Ritchie, Ms Ruane.
Tellers for the Noes: Mr Butler and Mr McCartney.
Main Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to ensure that no sports club, which facilitates a commemoration or glorification of terrorism, receives financial support through his Department, either directly or indirectly.