Northern Ireland Assembly
Tuesday 17 October 2000 (continued)
Mr Ervine:
There is a clear sense of hurt in the Progressive Unionist Party that a Committee had to be formed at all. To date, the Secretary of State has abandoned his responsibilities as the guardian of Northern Ireland and its constitutional position within the United Kingdom.
Having said that, he has the opportunity to redeem himself. While this report is simply an expression of stated positions, the Secretary of State still needs to take responsibility for it. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and for as long as it is the wish of the majority it shall remain part of the United Kingdom.
The national flag is a national and international symbol identifying people and territory. That denial by Nationalism and by violent Nationalism says more about them than it does about us. Nationalists tell us that we Prods are fixated with symbols. But since Ministers, operating under the guise of Sinn Féin, created this crisis and highlighted this difficulty, then perhaps it was not we Prods who became fixated with the symbols, it was the violent Nationalists, followed immediately by the Nationalists. That is par for the course.
A short time ago a Member of Sinn Féin said what I believe to be the most dangerous thing that has been said about the future of the political process:
"The difficulties that we suffer at the moment are to be expected since we are locked in a constitutional debate".
That shocked me because we are not locked in a constitutional debate. The people of Northern Ireland, by their free will, exercised an opinion at the ballot box that settled the constitutional argument for now. In the future there will be potential for the people of Northern Ireland to reaffirm what they already believe or change their minds. But that is for the future. Today there is no constitutional debate.
I find it quite frightening and I see it as having the most dangerous potential for the political process. It is all very well for Sinn Féin to say that they cannot deliver until they prove to the people close to them that politics works. Meanwhile, back at the ranch every action they take and every word they utter is designed not to give any sense or appreciation to the rest of our society that politics is meant to work for them.
4.15 pm
It seems to me to be alien; the partner in the process is behaving with great infidelity. The partner in the process behaving with great infidelity is assisted, I have to say, by the gutless partner, who is also beginning to behave with great infidelity. The gutless partner is, of course, the SDLP, which is trying to out-Sinn-Féin Sinn Féin. There is no hint that they will move to defend the Good Friday Agreement in conjunction with those on the Unionist side who have a common-sense approach to such things. Instead, they guard their backs against Sinn Féin.
The issue is their own electoral survival. I suppose it is like the Ulster Unionists trying to out-DUP the DUP at times, but nevertheless it should cross the mind of anybody thinking of going to the electorate. It might be better to vote for the organ-grinder than the monkey. As we found out in South Antrim quite recently, when you try to outdo the real thing, the real thing will always be voted for before you. The SDLP and the Ulster Unionists should keep that in mind.
The effect of the agreement is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. I say from the bottom of my heart that Nationalist hatred, whether violent or otherwise, for the Union flag is, perhaps, an excuse, because it may be hatred for the people who appreciate the Union flag. We have a choice and we have a chance. Those who want to wind up the circumstances in my community by narrowing the ground of moderate Unionists who are prepared to, and capable of, making arrangements in this society work, have to bear in mind the price that we will all pay if we fail to make politics work, or if we just make politics work for the fellow with the AK47 in South Armagh, as it would seem Gerry Kelly has been trying to encourage us to do of late.
Why do Sinn Féin not stop hiding the truth? There is no united Ireland. They are playing a game, and you could nearly listen to it if you were knocking about the Felon's Club. Anthony McIntyre and Tommy Gorman say that they are peaceful anti-Agreement Republicans, and that may be true. When they criticise Sinn Féin for selling out, Sinn Féin's answer will be something like this: "Do not be stupid. How could we be doing badly? Look at the state of the Unionists. How could we be doing any way badly when they are tearing themselves apart, and we are facilitating that? They cannot come to terms with the realities of" - [Interruption].
I am talking about a flag, Mr McCartney. People might lose their lives, but that would hardly matter to you, leafy-land man!
Mr McCartney:
I do not kill them.
Mr Ervine:
Who does, Mr McCartney?
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Mr Ervine:
Who does, Mr Speaker? Maybe Mr McCartney wishes to answer. Who does kill them? Name them, Mr McCartney.
Mr McCartney:
The people who are fronting the UVF.
Mr Ervine:
Name them.
Mr Speaker:
Order. I have to ask Members to address the Chair and to address the motion.
Mr Ervine:
Fair enough, Mr Speaker. The intellectual giant is frightened by the intellectual mouse. My arguments in relation to Sinn Féin - [Interruption]
I cannot work it out. When I do not attack Sinn Féin, there is a problem, and when I do attack Sinn Féin, there is a problem. I do not attack Sinn Féin, Mr Speaker, for the sake of attacking Sinn Féin. I attack Sinn Féin for the sake of the agreement, and it does not matter whether the issue is policing or flags. They are hyping circumstances up in their own communities as being make-or-break, and they are purposely transmitting that into my community.
That means that if the agreement is sound but the partner in the agreement is unsound then the agreement may fall. I say that with no pleasure whatsoever. There will be those who will say "I told you so." They may be right. Indeed, I may be right - but always wishing that I were wrong. The hope has to be that we deal in rational politics. The rational politics is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and the reflection of that is the flying of the Union flag on a series of days. No one has advocated, on the Unionist side or in this report, that the Union flag should be flown to insult the Nationalist community.
I would argue with the Nationalist community that they need to look at the potential benefits that we might just throw away in the longer term simply to get an opportunity to put the boot in the neck of the Prod that they perhaps always wanted to do. They have that opportunity now, and it is up to them whether they take it.
Ms Morrice:
I would like to record my disappointment at the lack of any serious attempt by the Flags Committee to properly discuss the issue of flag flying in this community. The Women's Coalition took part in this Committee in the hope that we might, at the very least, widen the debate beyond the confines of the draft Regulations and into the fundamental issues underlying the Good Friday Agreement.
We believe that Committee members could have used this opportunity to listen to and learn from each other. Instead, we could not even agree clear procedures on how the Committee would work, let alone attempt to accommodate each other's views on flag flying.
Undoubtedly, our inability to tackle the fundamental issues involved is very indicative of the delicate political climate. Because of the current tensions within our society, which we recognise, we accept that the time is not right to make decisions on flag flying. However, at the very least, we believed that a start could have been made to consider the options available - but that was not to be. Perhaps in the wider forum of this Assembly there are those who may be prepared to listen to others. I intend to use this opportunity to inform Members of the Women's Coalition's position on this issue in the hope that this might eventually achieve the goal that we all want, and that is an agreed position with which everyone can live.
As a coalition, representing many different views in this society, the debate within our own ranks on this issue is just as challenging. The difference, however, is that when we debate these things we listen to each other and try to accommodate each other's needs. During a succession of meetings on this subject we debated all the option: one flag, two flags, no flag, new flag, and a combination of all of those. We chose to go with the first option.
Given the current political climate, we chose to accept the Mandelson Regulations as a holding position - we believe this should be the situation for a 12-month period only. We do not believe, as a coalition, that the flying of the Union flag alone should be a long-term option. Why? It is because we need an agreed solution. It is important for the wider community to understand our reasons. Our society should eventually accept the need for shared symbols that reflect the diversity of our cultural traditions and political allegiances and are agreed by all.
The process by which we arrive at agreement is almost as important as the outcome. We must follow a process of listening to each other, finding a means to accommodate each other and, eventually, living and working together. That is why we ask the Assembly to give the Flags Committee another chance - perhaps not at this moment - to look not just at the Regulations but at the fundamental issues.
What are the issues? Recognition is the key. On the one hand, the Good Friday Agreement recognises - no one disputes it - the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. On the other, it recognises the need for parity of esteem for people of different traditions. On the one side, Unionists and Loyalists want visible recognition of that constitutional status by the flying of the Union flag. On the other side, Nationalists and Republicans want visible recognition of their equal status through the flying of both flags. There are two options. In addition, we must not forget all those who fail to understand why we are even debating the issue of flags when there are so many other more pressing, albeit less political, issues that we need to attend to.
How do we square the circle? The idea of a new flag, for example, looks like the most refreshing approach, but I have to admit that political reality suggests that consensus on that is a long way off. Designing a new flag could be a creative, perhaps even exciting, project in which we could involve our younger generation. A moratorium on flags is another option but, as we have seen on our streets, any attempt to tamper with flag flying only exacerbates the situation in our communities. None of us wants that. The two flags option that has been put forward must also be looked at as a way of ensuring the visible recognition of the parity of esteem enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement. We cannot shy away from the commitments that we made in the agreement, and many believe that that option is the only one that will ensure equality between our communities.
There is another option, which has not been put on the table, as far as I am aware, but which deserves serious consideration. It would combine the wishes of everyone and reflect almost exactly the situation regarding the constitutional position, devolution and shared institutions. The Union flag would fly on all buildings with direct links to London; a new flag for devolved institutions; the Union flag and the tricolour on North/South institutions on both sides of the border, dare we suggest; and no flag to be flown anywhere else. That would be a new approach, but we need creative thinking.
The issues must be addressed in the coming months if we are to respect both the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. In accepting the Mandelson Regulations as a holding measure, we call for a wider public debate, which would allow us to take account of all the options and reach an agreed solution.
The Committee Clerk and his team had a very difficult task in drawing up this report, and I think the members all agreed that they did an excellent job.
4.30 pm
Mr McCartney:
This has been a bizarre debate. Cedric Wilson has threatened to go to law, instead of chaining himself to the railings. The leader of the PUP has suggested that he is the voice of moderate Unionism, when the paramilitary organisation to which the press euphemistically say that his party is "intimately connected" is murdering fellow so-called Loyalists on the streets of the Shankill.
However, nothing is more bizarre than the agreement itself. It is sometimes called the Good Friday Agreement to give it overtones of sanctity. It is also called the Belfast Agreement, because that is its official title. In reality, it is a complete farce, because it is not an agreement at all. An agreement is something entered into between a number of parties who have some common idea of what it means and have given their consent to it. This debate illustrates one more section of the alleged agreement in respect of which there is no agreement.
There is no agreement on the principle of consent. Some parties do not acknowledge that consent at all. There is no agreement concerning what the Belfast Agreement suggests should be the proper course for the regulation and reform of the RUC. There is no meeting of minds on what the agreement says about decommissioning, and there will not be any meeting of minds as to what the agreement says about the reform of the criminal justice system.
This so-called agreement is a mass of chaos. Everyone can claim - like Humpty Dumpty - that it means whatever they want it to mean. Nowhere is this lack of agreement more evident than in the submissions put to the Flags Committee. The pro-Union parties, Mr Blair, Mr Ahern, Tom, Dick and Harry all say that the jewel in the crown of this agreement is the principle of consent: that Northern Ireland shall remain part of the sovereign territory of the United Kingdom until such times as a majority of the people living there shall determine otherwise. That is their position. From there they move in a course of steady logic, asking "If we are part of the United Kingdom, and that is the current wish of the majority, how can it be gainsaid that the flag of the United Kingdom should not continue for all relevant purposes to be flown in Northern Ireland in the same manner, on the same days, on the same buildings and under the same procedures as it flies in Salford, Sussex, Cardiff or Edinburgh? We are part of the United Kingdom."
On the other hand we have the submission of the SDLP. The SDLP does not want the flag to fly at all. That is its fundamental position. Why? Because the SDLP and Sinn Féin do not view the agreement as a settlement of our political problems, despite all the cant, hypocrisy and mock piety paid by the likes of Mr Dallat to diversity and working together and communal spirit and all the ersatz ecumenism that bleeds out of the SDLP.
They do not want the flag to fly at all, because the Irish Republic, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Provisional IRA, the dissident IRA, the Real IRA - no matter what you call them and no matter what their different views are on the future of Northern Ireland - share certain views, which they have made manifest in writing documents, party manifestos and declarations. These are, first, that partition must be ended; secondly, that the British must withdraw from Northern Ireland; thirdly, that there must be self-determination on an all-Ireland basis for the future of Northern Ireland; and, fourthly, that the only possible solution is a united Ireland. They have all made it clear that on no terms will they countenance an internal settlement within the United Kingdom, no matter how politically or socially beneficial that might be. That is their combined fundamental position, and it becomes most evident when we discuss the symbols, flags and emblems that determine the national identity of the majority of people in any given area.
That is where they have a complete comity of interest, and that is what, fundamentally, this debate is about - an agreement that is no agreement. This is about an agreement constructed ambiguously to deceive everyone so that gullible and naïve Unionists can be the medium for their own destruction under the belief that this devolved Government - which, like all others, is vulnerable to nothing more lethal than the Prime Minister's pen - is some great bulwark that will protect them, their identity, their future and those of their children and grandchildren. Absolute poppycock.
This debate on something so symbolic as the flag focuses us on the real and underlying principles of what is going on. When a flag is flown in a part of a sovereign state whose inhabitants have absolutely no fear about their constitutional future, have no worries that they or their children may at some imminent date form part of another state, they have no difficulty in saying "Well, what about it? What about flags and symbols?" In the conservative country clubs and golf clubs, and other middle-class areas in Northern Ireland, they say "Flags? Silly people, bothering about flags".
Flags are of real significance when they affect people whose constitutional future, national identity, place, traditions and history are under threat. And that is why in Northern Ireland the flag is of infinitely more significance than it is in any other part of the United Kingdom - it represents what may be an ephemeral life for Unionists. That is what must be addressed. No amount of committee discussion or messing about will alter that fundamental position.
This non-agreement is being used, through the medium of constructive ambiguity, to serve the purpose of the SDLP and Sinn Féin - although the latter more overtly recognises it as a transitional mechanism - to take this place out of the United Kingdom and into the Republic. For that reason, all emblems, symbols, flags, coats of arms in courthouses and anything else that indicates the identity of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland must be removed.
This debate is as worthless as the agreement, for it is papering over fundamental differences that can only be resolved by a return to the fundamental principles of democratic government.
Dr Birnie:
The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes this report and in broad terms also welcomes the Secretary of State's Regulations. This is notwithstanding our concern at some flaws in the detail of those. These regulations became necessary because of the perceived lack of clarity with respect to both the legislative and legal position regarding the flying of the national flag in Northern Ireland.
There had been from the period of the 1921-72 Stormont Parliament onwards a reliance on custom and practice. Some Members are saying that it is a shame that we have to discuss this issue at all and that it should be a matter for legislation. Other countries do have legislation regarding the status of their national flag, notably the United States, where there are severe penalties if you happen to burn it, for example.
Until these Regulations come into force the current position that applies does contain certain ironies. There is good ground for saying that fundamentally flag flying in the United Kingdom is and has been for some time a matter of royal prerogative. That was suggested in the 1801 Act of Union. The implication of that is quite interesting. It implies that when Sinn Féin Ministers thought that they could refuse to fly the flag they were doing so in an attempt to exercise, as Crown Ministers, the royal prerogative - an interesting position for an Irish Republican
The Ulster Unionist Party believes that its position on regulating the flying of the Union flag is grounded on both human rights practice and the Belfast Agreement, which, unlike Mr McCartney, we do not regard as a worthless document.
The United Kingdom flag is representative of United Kingdom sovereignty in Northern Ireland. That sovereignty is recognised in international law and in various parts of the agreement. It is true that many European countries have substantial national minorities within their populations, but no one suggests in other parts of Europe that such minorities should have an enshrined right for official flying of a foreign flag. This is in direct contrast to the position suggested by the Women's Coalition. In truth, the economic, social and cultural section of the Belfast Agreement, the one which refers to parity of esteem, does not bear on the issue of flag flying, nor does any recommendation relating to symbols in the Patten report.
We applaud the good sense of the SDLP, at least at local level in Craigavon, where their councillors have recently agreed to regulations providing for the flying of the Union flag.
There are defects in the Regulations. Regulations 3(1) and 5(1) should state that when the flag of another state is flying to mark the visit of a foreign head of state, it should fly at a lower level. The definition of a Government building at regulation 2(2) and the consequent list of such is inadequate and incomplete. It does not include Stormont or the Interpoint Centre, the headquarters of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, as Mr Weir pointed out. The Regulations fail to provide for buildings which may become Government buildings in the future, and there is no specification given as to the sanctions that would apply if the flag failed to be flown.
4.45 pm
Some Unionists will take an attitude toward flag flying similar to Winston Churchill's on cigar smoking. He believed that cigars should be smoked before, during and after meals, and at all intervals in between. Some will say that that should apply to the flying of the Union flag.
In contrast, the Ulster Unionist Party agrees with these Regulations, insofar as they place the flying of the flag on the same footing as in the rest of the United Kingdom, as was the view of Lord Faulkner in the House of Lords on 16 May this year. The regulated flying of the flag on 17 days out of 365 upholds our constitutional position without flaunting the flag. Thus, the Ulster Unionist Party supports this motion.
Mr A Maginness:
I thank my Colleague from North Belfast, Mr Agnew, for chairing the Committee. This was a very difficult task, and one which he did with everybody's support. Having listened to this debate and having sat through Committee meetings for many days, I now hate flags. Flags are probably one of the greatest curses ever visited on this unhappy and divided community of ours, and I suspect that there are many people outside this House who would agree with me. Flags bring out the worst in people in our community. They focus on one identity, whether it be national, religious or otherwise. They form an exclusive sense of identity, which turns into a pathology - a sickness - which affects the body politic.
Flag waving and the sacredness of flags have created great problems throughout the world. In the Middle East today we witnessed the outworking of that type of exclusive identification with one side or another. We saw the death of young children in Gaza, the death of two Israeli soldiers in Ramallah and the outworking, in terms of barbarism, of the exclusive attachment to a national identity.
I believe that the introduction of the flags Regulations and the Secretary of State's attempt to impose them on us was ill-judged. In our present political climate, there is no hope of agreement in relation to flags or symbols. We in the SDLP have looked at the issue of flags and symbols for some time, and we have tried to approach the issue sensitively. We have tried to create political consensus right across the sectarian divide. However, the political exercise that was undertaken in the Committee showed, from the very beginning, that there was very little or no chance of achieving political consensus. Nor did it. People reverted to a populist position rather than a position of consensus, and that is to be deeply regretted.
The SDLP put forward a submission, which you can read in the report. It said that we ground our position in the Good Friday Agreement, which calls for sensitivity in dealing with the issue of flags and symbols. Further to that, we accept the consent principle contained in the agreement, which Dr Birnie and other Members referred to during this debate. We accept that, of course, but the consent principle does not end the argument. There is more to the agreement than the consent principle. For example, paragraph 1(v) of the part of the agreement that deals with constitutional issues says
"the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities".
The concept of parity of esteem is grounded not only in the consent principle but also in paragraph 1(v). This must be applied to our political culture here and to the operation of our institutions. The current Government, who introduced the flags Regulations, are governed by the international treaty between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, and they have obligations to extend the principle of parity of esteem. If we look critically at these Regulations we can see that they are not meeting these obligations by introducing the flags Regulations, because there is no parity of esteem in those Regulations.
The Committee did not come up with a solution, but that is not to say that the Committee's deliberations were without value. The only oral evidence we heard was from the Equality Commission, whose preferred option was to have no flags at all in work places. Government buildings are not just Government buildings; they are buildings where people work. They are workplaces, and the principles and practices of fair treatment and equality and fair employment apply to them as well. The evidence given by the Equality Commission should be read carefully. Members of the Equality Commission made it quite plain that they did not see the flying of the flag as their preferred option, and they saw a proliferation of flags on Government buildings as an unacceptable practice. It is important to take their advice seriously because they are experts in this field.
Advice was given sensitively and carefully to the Committee, not in an effort to railroad, but genuinely and sincerely to advise. The commission made an important contribution to the debate. It could not live with regulations 2(2) and 7. When the Secretary of State looks at these Regulations, it is important that he takes its considered opinion into account.
The SDLP believes that it will be very difficult to build a consensus on the flags issue at this point. However, we do believe that a consensus can be built, and our submission stated that there should be no flags now, which we regard as an interim position, not an absolutist one. What we said in our submission was that we should - [Interruption]
Mr Shannon:
Will the Member justify the decision taken by Down District Council to remove the Union flag and will he tell me how that gives equality to the Unionist people in the Down District Council area?
Mr A Maginness:
It is quite consistent to say there should be no flags. In the interim period we say there should be no flags. We should work together to bring about a situation where there is genuine equality and parity of esteem for both the Union flag and the tricolour, or a situation where there are common symbols, a common flag and where consensual emblems are developed within the body politic.
We are looking forward to building that with our Unionist Colleagues in the Assembly. That is not an unreasonable position, and I ask Members to consider it seriously. Finally, the Regulations to be introduced and enacted should be time-limited to one year and reviewable after that year.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
I congratulate the Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Fraser Agnew, for doing a very difficult job. I also congratulate his Clerk and Deputy Clerk, who also did a very difficult job and presented a report.
I am disappointed by the comment Mr Cedric Wilson made earlier in this debate, and I am sorry he has now left the Chamber. I was quite alarmed at what he said. He said "This matter should not be debated, and it should not be up for discussion." However, he came here today, and he debated the issue and discussed it. One wonders why he did not go to the Committee meetings and debate and discuss the issue there, but I will leave that for others to work out.
I am also concerned about what Jane Morrice said. She said she had many sensible proposals, and she presented a number of proposals, none of which was sensible. Her first proposal, as far as I recall, was that we should invite a flagmaker to the Committee meeting and interview that person. I am amazed at some of her proposals.
The SDLP say you cannot eat a flag, the Ulster Unionist Party say you cannot smoke a flag, the Women's Coalition say you have got to make a new flag. All Unionists want to do is fly the flag, and I think we should be entitled to fly the flag. We should have the opportunity to fly the flag properly and give it the respect that it deserves.
From the first time the Committee met, it was abundantly clear that neither the SDLP nor its friends in IRA/Sinn Féin wanted a report. That was their bottom line; they wanted to block the publication of a report, because they knew that a report would indicate that the majority opinion in Northern Ireland is that the national flag should fly. They did everything to thwart that.
I am pleased that there has been a report - a report that indicates that the majority opinion is that the flag should fly. How was the SDLP's position thwarted? I must congratulate them. Their incompetence and inability to make their case as well as the inconsistency of their members in their attendance and in the arguments that they presented helped ensure that there was a report and that that report ended up being published and presented to this House.
Let us go through the minutes of evidence. On the first day that the Committee met, a Mr John Dallat arrived late - in fact so late that the vote for the chairmanship of the Committee had already taken place. Unfortunately for him, the SDLP proposal fell by one vote - Mr John Dallat's vote - since he was not there. I think that his poor timekeeping advanced the cause and ensured that a Unionist got the chairmanship of that Committee.
He did not learn his lesson, however, because on the second day, he was late again, and a vote was taken at that meeting on the format of the report. That format has been presented to the Assembly, but his party opposed it. If he had been there, and voted, this report might never have been presented.
Once again his lateness meant that this report was published, and the SDLP's plan to block the report was thwarted. He will have to get up a lot earlier in the morning if he wants to do his job properly. I am sure that the Nationalists are concerned, and if they want to blame someone for inconsistencies and problems in this report, they should blame the person who did not vote, who was not able to do his job, who was not able to come and vote. Instead they cast blame and aspersions on other people, blaming Israel, blaming the war, blaming the rain, blaming everything but themselves, because they could not come and vote and do their job.
On day three of the Committee, another member of the SDLP replaced him. Unfortunately for the SDLP the replacement did not fill the competency gap, because they put in another incompetent member. After agreeing - and page 20 of our report shows this - one day to vote on a series of propositions as presented by the various parties, a Mr Attwood of West Belfast -
5.00 pm
Mr Poots:
He is running away.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Cheerio.
The next day, Mr Attwood denied that this decision had been taken.
After serving on a Committee with Mr Attwood, I fully understand the comments made by the Law Society about his ability to do his job properly in another place, because the party was completely incompetent in how it handled that position. After failing to stop the production of this report, Mr Attwood failed to inform his party colleagues. At the next meeting, when yet another SDLP member was brought into the team to fill the competency gap, that person was not informed about the previous decisions that had been taken by the Committee. As a result, they made another calculated error. If that was not bad enough, the SDLP, after presenting a written submission to the Committee, brought in a second version that fundamentally changed their original proposals. This is recorded on page 23 of the report.
Today, Mr "All-Bran" Maginness, said in a reply to my Colleague, Mr Shannon from Strangford, that no flag should fly. Yet their own proposal states that a flag should fly, and according to bullet point number 4 on page 7 it should fly in accordance with the Regulations made under the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000. So what do they want? Do they want the flag to fly or not? It appears that the SDLP are so confused and inconsistent on this issue that they are to blame for the mess that they have got themselves into.
A succession of SDLP gaffes, one after another, was laughable. However, the most laughable gaffe of all was their failure to recommend any of their proposals by way of a vote. They did not even accord any of their proposals the dignity of a vote of support. Today they are not even going to vote for their proposals; instead they are going to abstain.
The Committee was done a disservice by the failure of the Secretary of State and the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service to give evidence about their Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000. They should have come to the Assembly if they were really interested. They should have come and defended this Order.
This Assembly should learn a salient lesson; future Ad Hoc Committees should be given the power to call witnesses and demand papers, so that a Secretary of State cannot treat a Committee of this House in such an offhand manner. In reality, the Secretary of State could not defend this Order, just as he cannot defend his home loans.
What does this report show? It shows that the majority of people in Northern Ireland, represented by their elected representatives on the Committee, want to see the national flag flying. If the Secretary of State reads this report from paragraph 11 onwards, he will see that overwhelming view time and time again. People say that there was no unity as to what flag should be flown - there was unity that the national flag should fly. That was the unified position put forward by the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party and the United Unionist Assembly Party - that the national flag should fly.
Northern Ireland ought not to be treated as a place apart, and that is what this report shows. The Ulster people, who are British citizens, should be accorded full respect and dignity by being allowed to see their flag flying here in our Parliament and on all Government buildings. The flag should fly irrespective of who the Minister is. If the Minister is from a party that opposes the flying of the flag, he should not be allowed to prevent the flying of the flag and insult the people in any way.
If the Secretary of State had any dignity or respect for the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives, he would read this report and draw from it the fact that the majority of people want to see the flag flying. It should fly.
Mrs Carson:
It is with some regret that I find it necessary to speak on the issue of sovereignty, epitomised by the debate on the flying of the national flag. I am sorry that the SDLP started by following the same old Nationalist model of abstention. I regret Mr Dallat's remarks.
The Belfast Agreement does not give either the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Secretary of State any authority to create Regulations on how or when the national flag should be flown. The issue of flag days is decided by royal proclamation. Despite the Secretary of State's intervention, we, as an integral part of the United Kingdom, have been flying the flag in conjunction with all other parts of the United Kingdom. The constitutional issues raised by this debate were recognised and established in the Belfast Agreement, and we have heard it all hashed through several times today. Both Governments - and I will quote it again, as some people do not remember or cannot read -
"recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status."
Paragraph (iii) says
"it would be wrong to make any change in the satus of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people."
In paragraph (v) the Governments
"affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people."
The agreement goes on to talk about diversity, identities, tradition, and all the rest. On constitutional issues, Annex A is unambiguous:
"It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom."
We are not anywhere else; we are in the United Kingdom.
It is alleged that some members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service asked two Sinn Féin Members whether they wished to fly the Union flag. Can we believe it? It is mind-boggling. Civil servants, who have been dictating that they knew policy, and everything else, for years, when we had our Westminster Ministers here, did not know what to do in the circumstances.
It appears that in law Northern Ireland Ministers do not have powers. Those lie with the Departments of the Government in Northern Ireland. It appears that Departments are legally bodies incorporate and that the Northern Ireland Civil Service had the power to advise Ministers how and when to fly flags. The Ministers did not have the right to ban the flags.
When the question arose, what did the civil servants do? In the usual Civil Service manner, they referred the matter to their legal section. Again they could find no regulation governing the flying of Union flags on Government buildings. For civil servants, that is rather strange. Have they never heard of the recognised fall-back expedient? In the absence of formal or written agreement, it is totally acceptable to refer to custom and practice. With 78 years of custom and practice behind them, there does not appear to have been a man, or even a woman, to point that out.
So much for the majority will, the status of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign Government, traditions, civil and cultural rights, parity of esteem, just and equal treatment, identity and ethos. If the SDLP and Sinn Féin, as representatives of the Nationalist people, cannot accept that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, their support for the Belfast Agreement must be questioned.
If they cannot accept this basic tenet of the agreement, what is their attitude to giving reciprocal recognition to the principle of full respect for and equality of civil, political, social and cultural rights and parity of esteem, identity, ethos, and aspiration to both communities? The agreement recognises the existence of Northern Ireland, not the North of Ireland. A major step forward, which would help to assuage some of the Unionist community's concerns, would be for a party to take a small step towards recognising the will of the majority and the status of Northern Ireland by representing a community other than its own. Respect must be given to the power of the sovereign Government and to the civil and cultural rights of others.
Member states of the European Union are obliged to recognise the land frontiers and the sovereignty of their neighbouring states. It is inconceivable that the Government of the Republic of Ireland should lend legitimacy to the view of Sinn Féin and the Women's Coalition that the tricolour should be flown alongside the Union flag. There is no precedent in European Union history for any such impingement upon the sovereignty and identity of any state. This debate is not about negative arguments - its aim is to establish and reinforce the indisputable expectation that citizens and taxpayers of a country should recognise the symbols and identity of that country. This debate is about the recognition of sovereignty and the flying of the Union flag with dignity on all public buildings on recognised dates.
I want to see an end to abuse of the national flag, such as when flags are left fluttering their lives away on lamp-posts. I hope we will reinstate the Union flag as a state emblem which can be flown with order and with respect and causes no offence to any citizen of our country. I re-emphasise the expression "citizen of our country". We are citizens here.
Mr P Robinson:
When the Belfast Agreement was signed, it was clear to many of us that the incompetent Unionists who drafted it left very serious flaws in the text and that many holes existed which would be exploited later. I expressed this view at the time of the referendum and have done so on many occasions since then. Mr McCartney is correct in saying that the so-called constructive ambiguity, which Mr Trimble vaunts as the hallmark of the Belfast Agreement, has allowed him to fool many of his party members and ordinary Unionists into thinking that the only possible interpretation of it was the one he made himself.
Mrs Carson expressed the view that her interpretation of the Belfast Agreement was the only possible one. Clearly, her interpretation was inadequate, otherwise we would not be discussing this matter here today. It is because of their incompetence in dealing with the issue that this Order and these Regulations have to be discussed by the Assembly today. The Ulster Unionist Party has something to answer to the community for.
The Chairperson indicated that the Committee made the sensible decision to ensure that a full report was produced. We could have gone into the Committee, used the Chairperson's casting vote, passed many propositions on a majority basis, ignored everything else and brought forward what would have been a Unionist report to the Assembly.
5.15 pm
What would have happened? The SDLP and Sinn Féin would have put down a petition of concern, and there would not have been sufficient numbers from both sections of the community for a cross-community vote. The Committee's report would have collapsed, and no advice would have gone to the Secretary of State. This was the option that faced us. Saner heads recognised that it would be better to let the Secretary of State see the weight of opinion in the Assembly, as defined by the Committee, and this resulted in a series of propositions. The level of support for each was gauged, and the results are in the report for the Secretary of State to see.
I agree with my Colleague. I suspect that there was a clear intention on the part of Nationalists to ensure that a Unionist perspective from this Assembly would not arrive on the desk of the Secretary of State. However, it has turned out otherwise. The Ulster Unionist Party, when given the opportunity to show its support for other propositions, was able to support every one of the propositions made by the Democratic Unionist Party - apart from one. The one proposition that the Ulster Unionist Party felt unable to support was a simple one. The Democratic Unionist Party argued that there should be no prohibition on the flying of the Union flag on Government buildings at any time - no prohibition. It did not say that it should fly at all times, but it removes the prohibition, which was expressly put into the legislation. The Ulster Unionist Party want a prohibition. They want it to be an offence to fly the Union flag on Government buildings, except on a dozen or so days in the year. I find that difficult -
A Member:
Will the Member give way?
Mr P Robinson:
I would if I had not been restricted on time. If the Member made an inadequate speech, he has only himself to blame. He should not attempt to make an inadequate contribution during mine.
I want to congratulate the Chairman for the job that he has done and to join with other Colleagues who mentioned the role played by the Clerk and all of the staff who assisted us. My Colleague was, perhaps, a little too harsh on Mr John Dallat. I think there was a feeling - and it could yet be true - that he is actually a closet Unionist. I think he was standing outside the door waiting for us to get a Unionist into the Chair before he would come through it. He was standing outside the door to help us get the right processes underway. It is unfair of people to suggest that he was sleeping in his bed instead of doing his duty.
Nonetheless, the SDLP position is certainly one of confusion. This was clearly identified by my Colleague, Mr Ian Paisley Jnr. During the course of this debate there were several references to the SDLP's position and whether it was that no flags should fly or that flags were acceptable on some occasions. Mention was made of Down District Council. I wonder why no one mentioned Craigavon Borough Council. The SDLP entered into an agreement to fly the flag there. There is no condemnation or disapproval from the SDLP on the Craigavon composition. Therefore, I must assume that it has a soft spot for its representatives in Craigavon and agrees to some extent with what they are doing. The SDLP is presenting a totally confused position. In Down its position is no Union flag, in this Chamber it is no Union flag, in the Senate Chamber it is a Union flag sometimes, and in Craigavon Borough Council it is a Union flag on certain days of the year. I wish it would get its act together. It seems to be in some considerable confusion.
As far as the Northern Ireland Unionist Party (NIUP) is concerned, there is also some confusion. I note that it intends to abstain on this motion, along with Sinn Féin/IRA and the SDLP, although Sinn Féin/IRA have not made it clear whether they are abstaining. At any rate, the NIUP position is that its Members are going to be the mighty men and carry out a legal challenge.
According to tonight's 'Belfast Telegraph' they will need their money, as they will be fighting elections everywhere. So before they spend it on a fruitless challenge, perhaps somebody should tell them about the supremacy of Parliament? An Order in Council was passed in the House of Commons, which granted the Secretary of State legal authority for what he is doing. They are entitled to say that they do not like it - I do not like it; I voted against it - but it has been passed and they cannot make a legal challenge against it. From time to time fuzzy thinking comes in from both the Northern Ireland Unionist Party and the Ulster Unionists. They asked "What reason have Unionists to participate on this Committee?", and they are entitled to an answer.
I opposed the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 in the House of Commons. I opposed the Belfast Agreement. They opposed the Belfast Agreement, but that does not stop them from participating in this Assembly. They applied some restrictions on their involvement in it, but not on their receipt of remuneration from it. Why do they do it? They do it because their election manifesto, like my manifesto, said that they would come here to fight on behalf of the people they represent and to take a stand for the Union. That means taking a stand for the Union flag as well, because it is one of the symbols of the Union. Although there is no legal challenge open to us to overturn what the Secretary of State has done, we will take every possible step and use every measure available to show our opposition to what he and the Government are doing at the behest of the Ulster Unionist Party.
Do not forget where this came from. Some Members from the Ulster Unionist Party will remember an Ulster Unionist Council meeting where their deputy leader produced a little piece of paper from his inside pocket and told everyone that he had resolved all of the problems on policing and flags. Unfortunately, the Committee did not accept my proposal for that document to be brought before us so that we could see what undertaking the deputy leader of the Ulster Unionist Party was given. It is clear that any problems that we have in relation to flags stem from the Ulster Unionist Party because the problems were not dealt with during the negotiations on the Belfast Agreement. The undertakings that their deputy leader claimed to have amounted to absolutely nothing. We are here to stand for the flag. It is a symbol of the United Kingdom. Long may it fly.
Mr Foster:
Today's attack by Mr Peter Robinson was an assault on the Unionist Party. One of his greatest attacks was in Clontibret. Which was the more vicious?
A Member:
Play it again, Sam. You have used it 20 times already.
Mr Foster:
It is a good one.
I read the report and find it most offensive that we have to discuss the Union flag, because our Government have failed again. This motion should never have been brought before the Assembly - all of this was decided in the referenda several years ago, in spite of what Mr Peter Robinson says. At that time the participants in the Assembly, Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland agreed that Northern Ireland, in its entirety, would remain part of the United Kingdom and would not cease to do so without the consent of the majority. I am not aware that any change has since taken place.
That means that this state is under the sovereignty of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It follows then that the Union flag, and none other, is the sovereign flag of this jurisdiction. That is contained in the terms of the Belfast Agreement.
No further procrastination on the flying of the Union flag is necessary. As usual, the Government have been weak on this issue, and others have used it as an excuse to undermine David Trimble. How pathetic is that?
We continue to hear the hackneyed phrase "parity of esteem". Parity of esteem is a just entitlement under the sovereignty of Her Majesty, but not of the sovereignty of Her Majesty. There is one jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, and it is that of Her Majesty. Let us not insult her by saying otherwise.
It is true that today's politicians may be characterised by their vain attempts to change the world and their inability to change themselves.
The ungracious, divisive attitude of Mr Dallat and the SDLP has surprised me.
The jurisdiction of Her Majesty in all the aspects of the Assembly is unambiguously evident in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Act states
"A Bill shall become an Act when it has been passed by the Assembly and has received Royal Assent."
It also says
"The executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in Her Majesty"
and
"executive powers of Her Majesty in relation to Northern Ireland shall be exercisable on Her Majesty's behalf by.a Northern Ireland Minister or Northern Ireland department."
All Ministers are therefore acting in an executive role for, and on behalf of, Her Majesty. That is what was signed up to in the agreement; there is no question about that, even though some people might want to move the goal posts. Surprisingly, Jane Morrice seemed to be trying to reopen a debate that had already been resolved in the agreement.
Is this a double-cross or a sign of a lack of integrity? It has been said of politicians that they will double-cross a bridge when they come to it. Is this argument about respecting the sovereign flag of this jurisdiction hard evidence of a lack of political integrity, or are some people doing a U-turn, thus failing to fully implement the agreement that they have accepted?
Mr P Robinson:
Look who is talking about U-turns.
Mr Foster:
The Ulster Unionist Party is fully implementing the agreement; it has no hesitation about that. Our stance is the same with regard to the crown on the crest of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The crown is the symbol of Her Majesty's sovereignty; it is portrayed on the crest of every other police force in the United Kingdom. It must be remembered that we are part of the United Kingdom; we seek no more than the agreement that received the overwhelming backing of the people in a democratic vote.
The Union flag is entitled to be flown on all Government buildings, as prescribed in the paper. It is also the solemn duty of Government to preserve the crown on the crest of the RUC. Any move to do otherwise would be insulting and offensive and would deny the sovereignty of Her Majesty in this part of her realm. We must never forget that, and that has been accepted in the agreement. The matter has been resolved, and no one can move the goal posts.
For too long the Government have welshed on their duty to citizens in this part of the realm. The Union flag must be flown with dignity and decorum on the designated days, not as an act of offence but out of respect for the sovereignty of Her Majesty. The crown must be protected as a symbol of that sovereignty too. The motion is a further step in the full implementation of the agreement ratified by the majority of people two years ago.
Rev Dr William McCrea:
I want to congratulate the Chairman of the Committee on the excellent task that he has carried out. We appreciate that it was a difficult task, considering that there are so many diverse opinions on the matter, which, we were told, was already solved. The hon Member from Fermanagh and South Tyrone said a moment ago that, really, there is no issue - it is a non-issue. That is far from the truth. In fact, the people of Northern Ireland have been sold a con trick. We are told by one pro-agreement group that everything was in the agreement, that everything had been agreed and signed up to and that the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom was secure. We were told that everything was hunky-dory - in fact, so hunky-dory that the same Minister came to the despatch box a few weeks ago and reported from the cross-border bodies on behalf of his Colleague, Barbara Brown. Everything was wonderful.
Since the Assembly came back from recess, we have heard a raft of reports from cross-border bodies and cross-border meetings. There seems to be more cross-border meetings and cross-border bodies than there are meetings within the Province. It seems that the Irish Republic has more to say about what happens in Northern Ireland than the United Kingdom Government. That is the reality of the Belfast Agreement, and it exposes the total treachery of the Belfast Agreement. The people of Northern Ireland were sold a lie.
That the issue should ever arise is indicative of the folly of the Belfast Agreement. We have heard several interpretations of what the agreement means and what it stands for with regard to the flag. Now we are told that we can fly the flag on certain days. That is very gracious. However, we are not allowed to fly the Union flag on 12 July - that would be offensive. But we are allowed to fly it on other days.