The conference from the Reform Alliance later this month should be interesting to watch. I might even call in to it. While Lucinda Creighton did insist on Prime Time yesterday that it isn’t a political party, it certainly seems to be heading that way, with a date of September mentioned. If Stephen Donnelly joins them, my Wicklow homeland would become a stronghold for them. I’ve been asked more than once by friends and family if I’d consider joining them. There’s really barely a hope of that.
It’s not just that I’m enjoying my current activity in Fine Gael. If a party emerged that was closer to my ideals, and had reasonable prospects of being viable, I’d give them a fair hearing. This new group doesn’t seem likely to be either. When I spoke in favour of dissolution at the last conference of the Progressive Democrats, among other things, I said that if we were to continue, we could inhibit the development of our ideas in another political force. The Reform Alliance is not what I had in mind.
Let’s jump back to the 1980s, to the events that led to the formation of the PDs. Des O’Malley first lost the Fianna Fáil whip in 1984 because he was willing to consider political solutions in the New Ireland Forum Report other than a united Ireland (all of which gave much more power to the Irish government than the later agreements). He was then expelled from Fianna Fáil in February 1985 after he stood by the republic in the debate on the Family Planning Bill, arguing against that party’s tactical opposition to modest liberalisation of contraception laws. While an Independent TD, O’Malley led the charge against Minister for Transport Jim Mitchell’s ridiculous notion that it should be illegal to sell a place ticket lower than Aer Lingus, paving the way for cheap flights and Ryanair. Mary Harney lost the Fianna Fáil whip in November 1985 after she voted in favour of the Anglo–Irish Agreement. She and O’Malley were joined in December 1985 at the launch of the new party by Michael McDowell, a former chair of Dublin South-East Fine Gael, who was unsatisfied with the Fine Gael/Labour management of the economy. As well as realism on the national question, moderate personal liberalism and an economic focus on lower taxation rather than government control, a large impetus for the strength of the party was opposition to the politics of Charlie Haughey.
At the last presidential election, held 30 October 1997, there was also a ballot to amend the constitution, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution Bill. This was to safeguard the tradition of cabinet confidentiality with explicit exceptions which sought to correct a difficulty which Justice Liam Hamilton found during the Beef Tribunal, when he was unable to question Ray Burke on his recollections of a cabinet meeting. With three tribunals of inquiry established in 1997 alone, this was of increasing importance.
It involved the insertion of a new Article 28.4.3°: –
The confidentiality of discussions at meetings of the Government shall be respected in all circumstances save only where the High Court determines that disclosure should be made in respect of a particular matter –
- in the interests of the administration of justice by a Court, or
- by virtue of an overriding public interest, pursuant to an application in that behalf by a tribunal appointed by the Government or a Minister of the Government on the authority of the Houses of the Oireachtas to inquire into a matter stated by them to be of public importance.
The amendment was supported by the five leading parties; the wording had originally been drafted during the lifetime of the Fine Gael–Labour–Democratic Left coalition, and the coalition of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, which had been in government since June, carried the amendment bill forward, proposing it in September.
It was opposed within the Dáil by the Green Party, whose John Gormley described the attempt to railroad the amendment as “tantamount to blackmail” (The Irish Times, 28 Oct. 1997).
More notably and contentious politically, it was also opposed by senior figures within the Progressive Democrats. Party founder and former leader, Des O’Malley, then a backbench government TD, criticised the bill in the Dáil as being too restrictive. He spoke (Vol. 480, No. 4, Col. 680) of his own experiences of a Minister, and the effect the amendment would have on the ability of former ministers to write memoirs,
I was a Minister for 13 years and I know it is usual to speak with the Secretary. Will this now be illegal? Frequently it is necessary to speak with a number of civil servants about matters discussed at Cabinet. This is perfectly proper but the current proposal will make it illegal.
I am in the unusual position of having resigned, for good reason, on two occasions from Government. I know the procedure and the trauma occasioned by this. At present there is an absolute right for a Minister to explain to the House why he resigned from Cabinet. However, what is now proposed will preclude him from doing so. This is ridiculous.
It is a tradition in Britain and less so here that former Ministers write their memoirs. Two were written here in recent years by former Deputies Garret FitzGerald and Gemma Hussey. Both quote extensively from what was said and done at Cabinet meetings. In Britain, almost every former Minister writes his or her memoirs, quoting extensively from Cabinet discussions. Bona fide students of history need to know what discussions take place in Cabinet but now they will not be able to find out.
He criticized the rush of the bill, and called for it to be redrafted and delayed until the vote on the Amsterdam Treaty (which ultimately took place in May 1998).
Also outspoken was former Progressive Democrat TD (and future party leader), Michael McDowell. He publicly clashed with Mary Harney, then leader, after he wrote in an article for the Irish Independent that the proposal was “the predictable consequence of running the country out of the hip pocket and handbag of coalition leaders, without consultation or reflection”. He had also around this time criticized Mary Harney for rowing in behind Fianna Fáil and giving formal party support to Mary McAleese as a presidential candidate. He announced on Questions and Answers that he intended to allow his party membership to last until March. Significantly however, he would “not unequivocally rule out any future role in politics” (The Irish Times, 25 Oct. 1997).
The Irish Times editorial line was opposed to the referendum, with a heading “Vote No” to the editorial on the day of the vote and columnists Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Taoiseach, and Vincent Browne also wrote against it. Garret FitzGerald criticized the way that “the best that two successive government have been able to come up with has been a constitutional amendment for just two very specific and limited exceptions, outside of which the dangerous rigidity of Supreme Court’s ruling will continue to operate in a thoroughly perverse way”. He echoed O’Malley’s concerns of the right of resigning ministers to give an explanation, a right of a minister to discuss cabinet with civil servants, and the effect it would have on historians (18 Oct. 1997). Vincent Browne proposed an alternative constitutional amendment, “The confidentiality of government discussions shall not be a matter of Constitutional right but shall be regulated by law” (29 Oct. 1997), and expressed confidence that a further appeal to the Supreme Court would overturn their ruling of 1992.
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties opposed the amendment on similar grounds to those of Des O’Malley and Garret FitzGerald mentioned above (The Irish Times, 27 Oct. 1997).
It would be a stretch to draw any direct parallels between the referendum on cabinet confidentiality and tomorrow’s referendum on Oireachtas inquiries, it is interesting at least to find Michael McDowell, the Green Party, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and The Irish Times, (and Vincent Browne as a columnist), again on the same side calling for a No vote. (And it was also Brendan Howlin who spoke for the Labour Party in the Dáil supporting the Amendment).
Ultimately, it passed by 52% to 48%, with 5% of votes spoiled. I would imagine that tomorrow’s vote on Oireachtas inquiries will be similarly tight, and again with a high proportion of votes spoiled.
In elections since 1997, we have had the unusual feature of seeing posters for someone not standing in the election in any constituency, as Gerry Adams appeared on leader posters. This year, though he is contesting the election in Louth, I haven’t seen any of these posters. Perhaps I’ve just missed them.
But beyond that, I really don’t understand the Sinn Féin decision to run Adams in Louth. He came off badly in the Mini Leaders’ Debate in 2007, when Michael McDowell brought him down in a kamikaze mission, and doesn’t seem to have improved greatly in his knowledge of politics outside of Northern Ireland:
Maybe he just felt left out, as Martin McGuinness was getting all the attention as Deputy First Minister. And he probably wants to be in the Dáil in 2016. But perhaps it is now time for him to retire from politics, having brought his party into the Northern Executive. I would not expect Sinn Féin to take advice from me, but I think they may wonder how wise they were to arrange this. He is considered to have less integrity than McGuinness because of his continued denial of his IRA membership, even though it was leaked and widely known that in 2005 that Adams, McGuinness and Martin Ferris had resigned from the IRA Army Council. He will be parliamentary party leader, but over five years, he could be displaced in the public eye by younger bloods like Pearse Doherty or Eoin Ó Broin, a candidate in Dublin Mid-West. Both these men are surely ambitious for a greater role within their party, and will feel the prominence of Adams an obstacle for them.
Adams may come to regret all the fuss necessitated by his resignation as MP for West Belfast when he assumed the role of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead.
Not a Baron though. I’d have thought David Cameron would understand the peerage better than to have made that mistake in Prime Minister’s Questions. It’s not that easy to become part of the nobility. Adams’s title is much closer to that of groundskeeper.
Over the past two Mondays, Sam Smyth presented a two-hour program on the Progressive Democrats. It was fine to watch and reminisce, but it was lacking in crucial areas. The narrative of the program was too much driven by the choice quotes from some of those interviewed. These were certainly interesting to hear, Charlie McCreevy never failed to amuse and we saw how little love there was lost between Michael McDowell and Liz O’Donnell, from his account of her dislike for constituency meetings to her description of his proposed party constitution as Mugabesque. But there was a little more to the party than that.
Timing was the biggest problem. The first hour covered the years 1985 to 2002, the second hour the years 2002 to 2008. Even given the time for the revelations of Operation Teatime, the discussions on a merger between Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats that took place in 2004, there wasn’t a good reason when assessing the party as a whole to give such disproportionate time to the period when Michael McDowell when at his strongest point within the party. Sam Smyth is, of course, quite good friends with both McDowell brothers, Moore and Michael. There were times when it seemed that not a week went without either one or the other as a guest on the Sunday Supplement. One of the things that drew me to the party was how often I found myself in agreement with McDowell so often, and his naming of Adams, McGuinness and Ferris as members of the Provisional Army Council on the program.
But the party was much more than that, and even when I joined I was attracted to the party’s history and the spirit of 1985. Maybe there should have been a third hour. The scene in the 1980s should have been set. The commentary merely stated that Des O’Malley was expelled for disagreements with Charles Haughey. Would it have hurt to have mentioned the nature of these disagreements, to have spent a few minutes on the heaves against Haughey during the 1980s? To have given footage of the New Ireland Forum report in 1984, which Des O’Malley supported along with Fine Gael, Labour and the SDLP? And what sort of documentary on the PDs could neglect O’Malley standing by the republic in 1985, when he spoke out in the Dáil against the sectarianism in Fianna Fáil and their opposition to the government’s bill on contraception, which led him to be expelled from Fianna Fáil for “conduct unbecoming”. More could have been made on the state of Irish politics at the time, with high rates of taxation and public spending, and why it was that Michael McDowell saw fit to write to Des on the night he was expelled to discuss forming a part.
Then on the party’s first term in government, the program focused on questions like why Mary Harney didn’t get a seat at the cabinet rather than what she was noted for at the time, the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and the elimination of Dublin’s smog as Junior Minister for the Environment.
The program did not capture the party’s power and influence in that first period of government, that caused so much resentment in Fianna Fáil. During the 1990 presidential election, after Brian Lenihan, on “mature recollection”, changed his story of his phone calls to the Áras in 1982, the Progressive Democrats insisted that he be dismissed as Tánaiste. Michael McDowell was soon after to attack Pádraig Flynn on RTÉ Radio when he attempted to criticize Mary Robinson’s conduct during the campaign “as a wife and as a mother”, remarks which ultimately swung the campaign in Robinson’s favour. The party managed to veto Jim McDaid’s appointment as Minister for Defence in 1991, and then brought down Haughey in 1992 when Sean Doherty revealed him to be responsible for tapping the phones of Geraldine Kennedy and Bruce Arnold. The chronology as shown was also a little off; Reynolds’ “temporary little arrangement” remark dates from 1989, not 1992, as it seemed from how it was portrayed.
I don’t mean here to write a full account of the role the Progressive Democrats played in Irish politics, just to highlight a few points where this program was lacking, particularly in the earlier years. A shame, because there is a story there, which will probably not be documented again for a while after this attempt. There could also have been a better analysis of the reasons for its ultimate demise and fall in popularity, even as its policy outlook was adopted as the mainstream. And a nice coda would have been a mention of the success of former Progressive Democrats at the 2009 local elections. The party deserves an account played for more than just the laughs and the sensationalism of some of the interview clips.
Edit: Line on “mature recollection” corrected.
The days following the election on 24 May 2007 were emotionally very disappointing for me, for both personal and political reasons. The party fell from eight seats to two, including the loss of the Michael McDowell’s seat. We held a General Council meeting not too long after, where we retrospectively endorsed the programme for government negotiated by Fianna Fáil and the Greens. Groups of the party met of the following months, wondering again and again what could be done. The next General Council meeting was in November, and there was very little difference in what was said then, and a general feeling of lethargy set in. I think the party could have been salvaged at that point, had a real effort been made to re-engage with the moment of 1985 and what that should mean in 2007, but it would certainly have been a difficult battle.
We elected a new leader in May 2008, Ciarán Cannon, and for many that was the first they had heard of him. In September, he announced that he could no longer see a future for the party. Given that no one of the leadership supported continuing then, I reluctantly supported the decision to disband. In ways I felt it would hinder the possibility of a re-emergence of a viable liberal party, whenever that could be possible, had we continued, so on 8 November 2008, I spoke at the last conference of the Progressive Democrats, on the side of the motion that passed.
Recently, I read Pat Leahy’s Showtime, on Fianna Fáil under Bertie Ahern, and Kevin Rafter’s Fine Gael: Party at the Crossroads, on the party under Enda Kenny.
Reading the accounts of political events over the last decade and a half, I was reminded of my own reaction to these at the time. As I became interested in politics around the time of the revelations about Charles Haughey and Ray Burke, I was suspicious of them as a party. Supporting the re-election of the Rainbow government, being sure the minority Fianna Fáil–Progressive Democrats government couldn’t last much beyond 1997; sure it was near collapse around the Sheedy incident.
Reading Rafter’s book specifically, I remembered that as a John Bruton supporter, I was wary of the internal opposition to him in 2001 and wasn’t enthusiastic about Michael Noonan; I supported Enda Kenny as the leadership candidate that year, as he was close to Bruton, and felt vindicated, but incredibly disappointed, when Fine Gael fell from 54 seats to 31 in 2002. I was known in school as a Fine Gael supporter, and received a lot of abuse the day back the weekend after that election. I supported Richard Bruton for the leadership, but was enthusiastic about Enda Kenny. I was pleasantly surprised at the party’s first great success under his leadership, with 5 seats of 13 at the 2004 European elections.
But from around the same time, I was becoming more attracted to the Progressive Democrats. I was impressed with Michael McDowell at the 2002 election. While the team I was then supporting was faring relatively poorly, I found another to be somewhat enthusiastic about. In the RDS at the count in 2002, I told those I talked to that I was a Fine Gael supporter and sympathised with those who were tallying for the party, but for want for something to be happy with, I wondered over to look at the tallies from Dublin South-East where the Attorney-General had topped the poll. In the canteen, I shook his hand to congratulate him on the result. I appreciated his stances as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform over the coming years, liking his proposal on café bars and his strong stance against the Provos (though I felt the citizenship referendum was unnecessary). I also respected the work Mary Harney had done as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
The Dáil is today beginning debate on the Civil Partnership Bill, which would allow gay couples to register their partnerships. This is, I suppose, better than nothing, but it is not good enough. There would have been a time when this would have been acceptable, but not now in 2009, where mindsets and appreciation of the issues have changed.
Many years ago, as I recounted in a debate recently, gay people weren’t calling for marriage. They had found themselves cast off and rejected from society, and felt no choice but to create their own community. With the outbreak of the AIDS virus, people in general could no longer ignore the fact that many of their family, friends and colleagues were gay, and gay people themselves felt a desire to be integrated and accepted in the community as much as anyone else. This is a stylised version of events, but it was particularly in the last twenty years that the campaign for true equality took off.
True equality demands the right of gay couples to marry. If the state is to acknowledge the relationships of couples, it should not discriminate on the basis of the sex of the two partners. By acknowledging that gay couples merit recognition, but only in the form of civil partnership, the state is stating that they believe the love between a man and a woman is superior to that between two men or two women.
So what do we hear from those who oppose marriage equality? They claim that civil partnership grants all the rights of marriage, so what more would we want. Even if it did, the discrimination would exist in the refusal to grant the word, and particularly because of the constitutional recognition of marriage. What’s more, the Bill grants no recognition to the children of gay couples. There are cases now, more pertinent in the case of lesbian couples, where a child from a previous relationship is being raised by a couple. If the natural mother were to die, the surviving mother would have no legal rights to the child.
There has been the claim particularly promoted in recent years that marriage is not about couples at all, it is about children. Children are a natural part of the relationship between a man and a woman, but people generally don’t marry for children. I don’t mean in the case of unmarried mothers, where the father is still very much part of the family. In such cases, I believe marriage should be promoted, or at least not disincentivized, by the state. I mean that in cases where there are no children, a couple who do get married do so primarily for love, while they might look forward to raising children. This is obviously the case for those who for medical reasons can’t have children of their own, or particularly elderly couples. Even those who see marriage’s primary function to provide for children, acknowledge these exceptions, so why cannot they simply extend that privilege to gay couples? Those considering the welfare of children should also give a moment’s thought to the many gay children, for whom the normalization of gay relationships would lessen their adolescent anxiety, that they could have the same hopes for married family life as others, and reduce the likelihood of their being bullied in school.
Over time, new rights are discovered to exist as natural rights. Nothing in law and society is set in stone, and our views of social norms change slowly in line with evidence over time. The fact that Éamon de Valera had only the marriage between a man and a woman in mind when he wrote Article 41 of the Constitution of Ireland is not how law should be judged. A nice example of how law changed from what those who drafted it had in mind is how the Supreme Court of the United States decided in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 by 9-0 to desegregate schools on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment, ending the farce of separate but equal, despite the fact that those who drafted that Amendment in 1868 would clearly not have anticipated such a ruling. On the issue of marriage equality, the scientific understanding of homosexuality has changed over the past century, with the consensus now that it is a normal and immutable condition, however rare, rather than a psychiatric condition as a result of childhood experiences, as expostulated by Sigmund Freud. Now, as gay couples desire the comfort, stability, recognition and security of marriage as much as many others, there is no compelling reason it should not be granted.
If nowhere in the world was marriage between gay couples in place, it would still be no justification for not legislating for it here. But given that Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain and Sweden have dropped any requirement that a married couple be of opposite sex, the Irish government should ask why the situation here is so different. Religious views should not be considered when drafting legislation in a republic, but it’s nice to be able to point to Catholic Belgium and Catholic Spain in that list. And of course, it was the most heavily Irish part of the United States, Massachusetts, that gay couples first received marriage rights.
In 2006, Anne Colley, a solicitor and former Progressive Democrat TD, delivered a report (pdf) to the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Michael McDowell, on the best way to tackle discrimination for same-sex couples, and she found that only way to deal with question fairly would be to grant gay couple full and equal rights to marry. To Minister McDowell’s discredit, he sidelined the report, proposing only domestic partnership, which would grant no more recognition to gay couples than two siblings, and perhaps even two friends, who were living together in a financially dependent situation. It was from then, in part as a disappointed party member, that I realized how important it was that there should be full rights to marry.
Now we are presented with this bill. I believe it is only a matter of time before full marriage rights are achieved, there will only be so long this country can hold out, but I would far rather that happened today than several years from now. For my own part, I presume without thinking that I will get married, especially seeing how much it is taken for granted in the aforementioned countries and certain US states. I certainly have no desire for civil partnership. But there are many gay couples far older than me, for whom any benefit or recognition would be a great peace of mind. For this reason, I hope the Bill passes, in as strong a form as possible. But equally, I am glad to see the many gay activists protesting against the deficiencies of the bill. And from its enactment, it will hopefully be only a matter of time before it is clear that there is really no natural difference in fact between the love of any two people, and that the discrimination lessened but emphasized in this Bill will end.