Northern Ireland Assembly Flax Flower Logo

Northern Ireland Assembly

Tuesday 10 April 2001 (continued)

Mr Ervine:

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that as I was named I have a right of reply?

Mr Deputy Speaker:

I did not hear the last part of your sentence.

Mr Ervine:

I am asking you to confirm that as I was named and, one could argue, attacked in Mr Weir's speech, I will be entitled to a right of reply.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

I understand that you will be entitled to reply after the vote.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you tell us when the new rule was made that says that a person can reply to an attack after the vote? I understood that a Member had a right to reply if some personal matter was mentioned. In free debate anywhere, in any House, there would be no such thing as a right of reply after the vote is taken. I want to know on what authority you say that.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

I am taking advice on that. I understand that when a personal attack is made on a Member, he is given an opportunity to refute it after the vote. If I am incorrect, I will discuss the matter with the Speaker's Office and inform the Assembly accordingly.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr J Kelly named Dr Paisley, Dr McCrea, Mr P Robinson and me in some way during his speech and accused us of a number of illegal activities. I assume that we will all be given the right to make a personal statement at the conclusion of this debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

That is correct.

Mr J Kelly:

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not recall naming any individual. On a further point, will A LeasCheann Comhairle clarify that Mr Ervine will be able to rebut what has been said after the vote or after the debate?

Mr Deputy Speaker:

After the vote.

Mr Boyd:

I support the motion and congratulate the 30 signatories. The display of Republican triumphalism in the Building is deliberately provocative to the vast majority in Northern Ireland. It is disgusting that there are those in the Assembly who continue to glorify Republican terrorists, and it is regrettable that there are puppets of Sinn Féin/IRA.

Very serious questions must be answered. It is disgraceful that people such as Seamus Close should trivialise the hurt of the Unionist community at Republican terrorists being glorified. For Seamus Close to say on the radio this morning that this is a meaningless debate about flower arranging was mischievous and pathetic when his party Colleague, Eileen Bell, appears to have abused the voting system. Has Seamus Close conveniently forgotten that he told us that the Belfast Agreement would provide open, transparent Government? Suddenly Mr Close and the Alliance Party are concerned about the cost of the Assembly and his holidays being cut short.

I would also correct Eddie McGrady, who, also on the radio this morning, said that every party is represented on the Assembly Commission. Eddie McGrady should check his facts. The Northern Ireland Unionist Party is not represented, and I wrote to the Alliance Party Whip months ago, instructing him not to use our party's votes on any occasion.

I want an answer today about the role Assembly Member Eileen Bell played in the vote last week and on previous occasions in the Assembly Commission. We have debated for one and a half hours, and there has still been no clarification on the voting by the Commission. Did Eileen Bell use the three Northern Ireland Unionist Party votes in favour of the display of Easter lilies, in spite of clear, written instructions to the contrary? Has Eileen Bell used the Northern Ireland Unionist Party's votes on previous occasions on any issue, in spite of clear, written instructions to the contrary? Did she use a block vote of 16, or did she not? If she did, what action will be taken to remove Eileen Bell from that position? Is Eileen Bell being honest in this matter? She clearly stated on BBC's 'Talkback' last week that she did not use our party's votes. Is she stating one thing in public and doing the opposite in private?

It should also be noted that the so-called parties of the centre - the Alliance Party and the Women's Coalition - are once again supporting Sinn Féin/IRA, as they regularly do.

It is a wonder that they are not wearing their green ribbons and the insulting lily in the Chamber today. The Unionist family will also view with dismay - but hardly any surprise - the actions of the Progressive Unionist Party which, contrary to the wishes of most of its members and supporters, is endorsing this display of Republican triumphalism.

Today we see the farce that is the Belfast Agreement, where a clear majority in the Assembly oppose the display of Republican triumphalism, yet the decision of five people cannot be overturned. I agree with the Members who described Mr Sean "Naive" Neeson's remark that the Easter lily is a symbol of Our Lord's crucifixion as nothing short of blasphemy. It is an absolute disgrace for those in the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, the Women's Coalition and the PUP to equate the poppy, which represents the fallen - both Protestant and Roman Catholic - in two world wars, with a symbol representing IRA terrorists.

It is clear that the Belfast Agreement offers nothing for Unionists and must be scrapped. It is rejected by the vast majority of Unionists who view it as an appeasement to the pan-Nationalist front, and its collapse is inevitable. I support the motion.

Mr Gibson:

I am surprised to hear some people say that today's debate is frivolous, expensive or foolish. However, when I listened to the comments of Alban Maginness I was reminded of a warning I got as a young child to "Never lay your wits to the witless." I am here to record before the Assembly the feelings of people in West Tyrone. I want to speak up on behalf of the 97 families who had members murdered by those who wear the symbols of lily-white cowardice.

Mr J Kelly:

Does that include Patsy Kelly?

Mr Gibson:

That includes anyone who was murdered by cowards. I want to remember my schoolmaster colleague Ivan Anderson, who was murdered on his way home from work. I want to remember the schoolmaster who died a lingering death on a trolley, and who had taught my children and my neighbours' children. I want to remember my colleague, then headmaster of Castlederg High School, whom they attempted to murder on his way to work. I want to remember my neighbour and my brother, whose lorry was riddled with 49 Armalite bullets on its way to the cattle mart in Dungannon. They survived only by the grace of God, but they have since departed this life. I want to remember the colleagues of my own platoon who served with me in the defence of the community. I am proud to record that members of that platoon were decent Roman Catholics.

I want to remind those here today that wearers of lily-white lilies of cowardice murdered more Roman Catholics than Protestants in the bombing of Omagh on 15 August 1998. Bear in mind that when they wear their lily-whites of cowardice they are not just insulting the blood corpuscles of respectability and tributes to everything decent and moral, but they are insulting their own religious colleagues whom they have slaughtered. Bear in mind that their own party leader ordered the suicide of 10 of their own men by hunger strike. That is what the lily symbolises. However, it symbolises much more than that. That bowl outside in the Hall embodies everything that is symbolised in the Belfast Agreement.

12.15 pm

I was challenged about this debate because one can become very personal and emotional. However, I then thought of my grandfather and other generations long gone. They too had to negotiate and make critical decisions.

My ancient ancestor, Bartholomew Gibson of Roscommon, had to make a decision 313 years ago. He had to decide whether he would stand for democracy, constitutional monarchy and respect for life, freedom, equality and justice or negotiate and compromise with those who wanted autocracy and dictatorship and to tramp everyone else's thoughts and beliefs underneath their feet. He made a critical decision. It was said in Enniskillen "We stand upon our guard. We resolve by the blessing of God to face our danger."

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Your time is up. Many Members wish to speak.

Mr Gibson:

I want to conclude more simply. The reply is still "No Surrender."

Mr Armstrong:

I support the motion. The placing of Easter lilies in Stormont reminds me forcefully of the continuance of the terrorist armed struggle in this country. I am reminded in particular of the Easter Rising in 1916, which left large parts of Dublin in ruins, and of events that have taken place all over Ireland then and many times since.

I do not want to be reminded of that every time I walk through the Great Hall. Surely we all want to forget the struggles and hate of the past as we move forward? This is a deliberate action by persons in this House, a display of their terrorist culture.

A fresh start is needed. Everyone should acknowledge the need for sensitivity with symbols. In an era of bridge-building at the beginning of the twenty-first century, this is totally out of keeping and divisive, and it contradicts the precepts of the Good Friday Agreement.

The Belfast Agreement also safeguards equality and opportunity. In paragraph 5, it says

"All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division."

We have people in the House who have supported terrorist activities. Some still espouse symbols of terrorist organisations and are prominent here.

Apart from its distinctive appearance, this plant has poisonous characteristics. Researchers say that the lily is poisonous to cats and dogs. The toxic contents can cause kidney damage to animals, who then require immediate veterinary attention. Bearing in mind the problems being experienced by our animal population through foot-and- mouth disease and BSE, we should not encourage the use of anything that could bring suffering or stress to any person or animal.

Easter lilies can be toxic when eaten by a cat, causing kidney failure, vomiting, loss of appetite, depression and death. Is that the sort of atmosphere that we want to work in? My research also shows that unlike the shamrock the Easter lily is not a native Irish plant. It comes from the Ryukyu Islands, south of Japan, and has no particular Irish connection.

This poisonous plant will cause more division in the Assembly than anything else. Who would want to be party to the placing of such a toxic plant in an accessible place such as Stormont? Anyone in his right mind would not want to introduce such a poisonous plant, either in Parliament Buildings or elsewhere. The Easter lily has no place here - it is a symbol of Republicanism.

Mr Gallagher:

I support the Commission's efforts to adopt an inclusive approach to the symbols on display in the building. Unfortunately, too many people have lost their lives as a result of either state or paramilitary violence. We must respect the views of those who have lost family members on what they consider to be the most appropriate way of remembering their dead. Unfortunately, the debate has been narrow and has focused on those who choose either the poppy or the lily as the appropriate way in which to honour those who have died.

However, those are not the only views; many others who have lost family members have entirely different opinions on how they should be commemorated. For them, flags and flowers have been monopolised and desecrated and made to represent something other than was intended. The Union Jack, as we know, is based on three Christian crosses. It may symbolise something positive, but history tells us that it has sometimes been used, or abused, to represent everything but Christianity or a coming together. On the other hand, the Easter lily, based on the colours orange and green, should symbolise the interdependency and coming together of our diverse peoples. Sadly, it has taken on a meaning that has more to do with physical force and coercion than with promoting peace and partnership. That is a matter of regret.

Many families do not believe that their loved ones should be commemorated by symbols that give rise to division. Therefore, a much greater challenge facing us is the need to reach agreement on a common symbol to commemorate all those who have lost their lives due to violence.

There are some reference points that we can consider. Let me remind Members of the report by the Northern Ireland Commissioner, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, in April 1998. It said that gorse, a plant common in the countryside, which flowers in spring, could be a common symbol to commemorate all of the victims of violence here. In the Republic of Ireland, a victims' commission considered the views of families who had suffered from all over Ireland and ended up recommending a common symbol. It suggested that the oak leaf be considered. As most people here will know, especially those from around Derry, the oak leaf is associated with St Columcille.

I regret that we have had an acrimonious and divisive debate on such a sensitive issue. I hope that we will quickly turn our attention to the greater problem. We must recognise and respect the suffering of all families who have lost brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers and other family members and reach agreement over how we might commemorate them all.

Mr Wells:

The one thing that has emerged from the debate is that the Easter lily is not a minor issue. The telephone line from Downpatrick to Crossmaglen must have been down last night because the Chief Whip of the SDLP was unable to ring Mr Fee to tell him that it is a minor issue.

Mr Fee let the cat out of the bag when he said "Yes, this is a very important issue." Everyone knows exactly why it is important. That is why there are so many people here today and why there is so much press interest. I have never done so many interviews on one subject in all my political career.

The public are aware what is going on - unlike Mr Maskey, who appeared in here this morning in his new suit, looked around, realised that everyone else was wearing lilies and had to get one photocopied. He arrived in here without his lily. He is the only one in Northern Ireland who is not aware of the significance of Easter lilies.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

Did he come in his own car?

Mr Wells:

No, he came courtesy of the disability living allowance.

The most telling silence here this morning was from Mrs Eileen Bell, the person mainly responsible for this decision. Such was her confidence in the decision that she made in the Assembly Commission, that she did not stand up to defend herself. She did not stand up to be questioned on the subject.

The point that she did not deny, in any of her interventions, was that there were express instructions issued that she was not permitted to use the Unionist votes to push through the decision to allow the display of lilies. That is the only reason that we are here this morning. All the arguments that have been made by the opposition fall flat on their face. There was an opportunity for Mrs Bell to speak.

If Mrs Bell was confident of how she used her votes in the Commission, when a second meeting was called, she could have come forward and justified her decision to that meeting. However, she realised that if that meeting were called, myself and Rev Robert Coulter would have been able to show quite clearly, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there is not consent from the Unionist community, as represented in the Assembly, for this decision.

We are told that we have been sold an agreement which says that the consent of the Unionist and Nationalist communities must be obtained. There is not a shred of consent anywhere in the Unionist community for this decision.

Mr McGrady, Mr Ervine and others said that this is not the message that they are getting. No doubt, the areas in which they move -

Rev Dr William McCrea:

I thank my hon Friend for giving way. Can he tell me why, if this was regarded by Mr McGrady as a minor issue, 22 members of the SDLP signed a petition of concern? Also, why did the SDLP have to put 22 names on it, while Sinn Féin put only four?

Mr Wells:

Many ordinary people in the Province will be extremely shocked at the way in which the SDLP has grovelled at the feet of Sinn Féin on this issue. The reason for it is abundantly clear. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black - Mr Maginness suggested that perhaps there was some electioneering taking place. I know my television is broken down when he is not on it, electioneering and making party political broadcasts, along with Mr Dallat.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Please limit your remarks to the subject of the debate.

Mr Wells:

The reality is that, such was their enthusiasm to grovel to Sinn Féin, that 22 SDLP Members rushed up to Stormont to sign their petition of concern. They did the dirty work for Sinn Féin on this occasion. However, the real culprit, and the reason why we are here this morning, is the so-called middle ground party, the Alliance Party. It seeks to speak for both the Unionist and the Nationalist community, yet it represents just 2·5% of the electorate. It took it upon itself to cast its 16 votes - as all the minutes indicate - in favour of the display of these emblems.

The Alliance Party was the first to admit that when it supported a Sinn Féin Mayor for Belfast it caused itself enormous harm electorally. I can tell them that they ain't seen nothing yet, when this gets out to the public. Mrs Bell, I am giving you the opportunity to defend yourself, and you have not taken it.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Please direct your remarks through the Chair.

Mr Wells:

I want to return to a more serious issue. There are 2,800 innocent people in their graves today who have been put there by those that wear the Easter lily. The money that is collected by the sale of the Easter lilies is used to honour the people that have tortured this community for 30 years.

12.30 pm

No one connected to the families of any of those people is anything but aghast that this is happening. Could those 2,800 people ever have known that in Stormont, of all places, the people who put them in their graves would be honoured through the display of Easter lilies? Would they ever have thought that that was possible? That is what we are voting for today. It does not have consent.

I call on the Alliance Party to apologise to the decent people of this Province for getting us into this situation. Votes were abused, Members were not consulted and decisions were taken behind closed doors without the consent of the parties whose votes were being used. Clearly, there has been abuse. There has been abuse throughout the entire system. This decision, if it is allowed to go ahead, will be a gross insult to the innocent people of this Province who have been murdered by the IRA.

There is no equivalence with the poppy. I am glad that Members, particularly from other parties, have taken the opportunity to explain the fundamental difference between the symbolic natures of the poppy and of the Easter lily. The only equivalent to the Easter lily would be some emblem on behalf of Loyalist Prisoners' Aid, or some similar organisation. We, as a party, would not support that and we are certainly not supporting this.

I come back to this question: is the Commission prepared to fly in the face of the decision of the House, or will it honour that decision? Let democracy prevail. Let us see what the House decides this afternoon. Any proposal that honours those dead who have lain in ditches and blown up totally innocent people because they were Protestants - or because they were Catholics - has no support from any decent person in this Province.

Mr P Robinson:

I assure my Colleague that that person in the Chamber - or who was in the Chamber - who purports to represent Unionism, but who has supported the commemoration of the Easter rebellion through the display of lilies, does not represent the Unionists of East Belfast. They do not want to be represented by "Easter lily Ervine".

Mr Wells:

I have long since stopped including Mr Ervine and Mr Hutchinson in the term "Unionism". I am talking about true Unionists with true, traditional Unionist values. In conclusion, if we approve the display of Easter lilies in the House, we insult the names of the brave dead of this province, and the people of Northern Ireland will not forgive those responsible for it.

Question put.

The Assembly divided (cross-community vote): Ayes 48; Noes 38.

Ayes

Unionist

Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, James Leslie, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Noes

Nationalist

Gerry Adams, Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Danny O'Connor, Dara O'Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Unionist

David Ervine.

Other

Eileen Bell, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Monica McWilliams, Sean Neeson.

Total Votes 86 Total Ayes 48 ( 55.8%)
Nationalist Votes 32 Nationalist Ayes 0 ( 0.0%)
Unionist Votes 49 Unionist Ayes 48 ( 98.0%)

Question accordingly negatived.

12.45 pm

Mr Paisley Jnr:

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Do you accept that almost 56% of Members voted for this motion?

Mr Deputy Speaker:

That is not a point of order.

Mr McFarland:

Members are becoming increasingly confused about whether or not they can reply when they are referred to by name in a contribution. The situation has become worse and worse, and today it has gone bananas. We will now have 25 people jumping up and demanding five or 10 minutes each to reply. I ask you to look at this very seriously. We must have a system to prevent a bunfight after every debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

I thank Mr McFarland for his point of order. If he so wishes, I will read from the appropriate part of Erskine May. If not, I will advise all Members of what the ruling is.. This is not, as I understand it, contained in the Assembly's Standing Orders, and I will use Erskine May as the basis for the decision.

Mr McCartney:

In another place it is unprecedented for Members who are mentioned in another Member's speech to demand in a debate a right of reply. If that were permitted, the business of the House - and of this Assembly -would be choked up and obstructed. I wish to confirm what Maj McFarland has said that a definitive ruling - [Interruption]

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Order. Mr McCartney is correct. What he has said follows closely my understanding of Erskine May. The matter is causing a great deal of confusion in the House, and I will ensure that it is clarified for all Members.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

With all due respect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to say that Members were confused about the way you put your ruling.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Order. I cannot hear Dr Paisley.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Mr Deputy Speaker, what you said was that it would have to be after the debate. It would be so far after the debate that the aggrieved Member would have to write out a statement. That statement would have to be ruled to be in order by the Speaker, and it would have to be read out in the very words that the Member had submitted to the Speaker. There would be no confusion if that were rigidly adhered to.

However, in a debate where there is cut and thrust, the only time that a Member can make a personal statement is if they have been accused by an opponent of something that is outside the law. That is the only time that a Member can intervene and say "No." In today's debate Mr Wells gave Mrs Bell an opportunity to stand up and explain her situation, but she did not do that. Therefore, she does not have much to worry about, even though she did collogue earlier with Gerry Adams and others on his Bench.

Mrs E Bell:

I take on board what Dr Paisley has said. However, I have to say that I sought advice this morning about what I should do. I did not particularly want to take part in the debate, because I knew what would happen, but I did want to comment on the many inaccurate statements that have been made in relation to the voting procedure. I was told at that stage that if I handed in a statement I would be allowed to make a statement on the facts after the vote had been taken. I have now been told - and I accept the Deputy Speaker's decision - that that cannot be done. I am sorry that my reputation has been sullied by that, and I want this matter cleared up. Can the situation be cleared as soon as possible so that I can speak at the next available opportunity?

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Mrs Bell, I understand from speaking to my advisers that you may have received conflicting advice. It is for that reason, and for that reason only, that I am going to allow you to make your statement.

Mr C Wilson:

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It may help Mrs Bell if, in making her statement, she could provide the House with the one vital component that has been missing from the debate. Was she voting for the Alliance Party, the Women's Coalition, Mr Denis Watson and the PUP? The Assembly needs to know on whose behalf she was voting.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

That is not a point of order.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

Mr Deputy Speaker, can you confirm that Mrs Eileen Bell submitted a text before the debate took place and, therefore, before she was attacked? Is that what happened? Will you confirm when you received the text of her statement?

Mr Deputy Speaker:

I received the text of Mrs Bell's statement after the debate whilst Members were in the process of voting.

Mr P Robinson:

Every decision taken by the Chair becomes a precedent for future occasions. I wish to express my concern that a Member who had an opportunity to express her views throughout the debate, and declined to do so, should be allowed a special set of circumstances in which to do so without other Members being allowed to reply.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Mr Robinson is quite right. As I understand it, Mrs Bell is not responding to the debate; she is responding to an accusation. I am setting a precedent on this occasion because I understand that Mrs Bell has been given conflicting advice.

Mrs E Bell:

Mr Deputy Speaker, you are quite right - I am not going to comment on the debate. Mr Wells, Mr McFarland and others have made a number of allegations about the voting procedure. It has been said that I cast votes on behalf of a group that had made it clear to me that no Member from the Alliance Party was entitled to vote on its behalf. Mr Wells should have said that I acknowledged that at the time. I also acknowledged that I was unable to get in touch with Mr McCartney, and that I did not wish to cast votes for either the NIUP or Mr McCartney. When I subsequently got in touch with Mr McCartney, he confirmed that he did not want his vote to go either way.

It was also said that another group was not properly consulted and subsequently issued a press release to denounce my amendment. I convened a meeting of the Alliance Party, the PUP and the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition. The UUAP was represented by its Leader. I agreed the substance of my amendments with other parties at that meeting. Therefore, that was the amendment.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A vital part of the issue is the fact that Mrs Bell did not turn up to a meeting of the Commission at which the matter could have been put right. She has given no explanation for that at all. Why did she arrange a meeting and then boycott it?

Mr Deputy Speaker:

I cannot allow any cross- examinination. That is not a point of order.

Adjourned at 12.57 pm.

<< Prev

TOP

3 April 2001 / Menu / 23 April 2001