| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.5 pm
Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone): I welcome this opportunity to debate parades in Northern Ireland. I make no apology for belonging--like many others in my constituency--to the Orange Institution. Furthermore, I believe that some of the best people in Northern Ireland--some of the most honest and most respectable citizens--belong to that institution. We do not have to apologise for being members. Republican propaganda would taint us as bigots, but we certainly are not.
Many of the Orange Institution's members have given noble service in the part-time security forces protecting the people of Northern Ireland. Indeed, history shows that many members of the Orange Institution played a noble part in the two world wars of 1914-18 and 1939-45.
The object of the Orange Institution is to show loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen. Of course, IRA-Sinn Fein want to paint the Orange Institution black with their propaganda campaign. I want to remove some of the mists from the organisation. The Orange Institution does not march through Roman Catholic estates. Of necessity, when walking a public highway, it has to march past Roman Catholic estates, but it is not the practice of the institution to march through the estates and give offence.
Over the years, because of changing populations, changes have taken place in the Orange Institution's parades. There used to be a parade up Castle street in Omagh, but it does not now take place. There used to be an Orange parade through that most republican village, Carrickmore, but it does not now take place. Due to reasonableness and understanding and the changes in population, many changes have taken place by normal agreement.
There is now a deliberate attack on the marches of the Orange Institution; that is a direct attack on our Protestant ethos and culture. I have personal experience of the situation in my constituency, because each year two Orange lodges get together and march through the village of Mountfield to the local church, where they have a religious service, and then walk back again. They walk respectably, in order and peaceably, and over the years there has been no trouble in the village.
This year, because of events elsewhere in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein and the IRA have discovered that if they gather a crowd and threaten to sit down in the road, the police, rather than allowing the parade to go ahead, will stop it and do nothing about the Sinn Fein-IRA sympathisers. Last Sunday, the IRA-Sinn Fein trick meant that the Orange parade never got to the church; it was stopped.
The police interpretation of paragraph 4 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 in such a situation can only be perverse. Surely the order is intended to operate only if the parade is the cause of serious violence. Surely the police should reroute the parade only if the behaviour of those on the parade necessitates it. It is
perverse to argue that if a third party blocks the parade, it is the parade that should be stopped. People's legitimate rights are done away with, as on Sunday, when the Orangemen did not get to their church.
The police of course say that they have stopped the parade to prevent a breach of the peace, but surely anyone blocking the road to stop a parade is committing a breach of the peace. Surely the police are duty bound in that situation to prevent that, and to clear the roadway, so that those who are legitimately, lawfully and peacefully marching can go about their business. The Minister should consider the order again, and if the interpretation is not clear it should be altered to ensure that people have the right to march peaceably along the Queen's highway.
What is the point of 21 days' notice in relation to Orange parades? In the English legislation, there is no need to give notice for parades that are traditional, regular and yearly. If the police are doing their job and know anything about the community in which they operate, they will know about the Orange parades that take place annually.
The chief of police says that he welcomes the Parades Commission, and that decisions about parades should be taken out of his hands and given to a third party. Surely the fact remains that ultimately the police are responsible for law and order. To try to give the responsibility for public order to a third party is ridiculous, because the commission knows little about the various areas of Northern Ireland.
The commission will take advice from many different people, and we can rest assured that on some occasions its decision will be ridiculous. Only the local police know the exact circumstances, and it is up to them to take the decision. The commission will say that a parade is to be stopped, and the police may find that they cannot stop it; or the commission will say that a parade is to go ahead, and Sinn Fein-IRA will try to stop it, so the police will have to enforce a decision that they did not make and might not agree with. They will have to police the situation, and if they do not do what the commission says, they will be called the worst thing in the world.
Furthermore, many decisions in Northern Ireland go up the line to the Chief Constable. Often, the recommendation of the local police is not accepted, and what the local police commander who is active on the ground would like to do and considers reasonable is countermanded by his chief, away up at headquarters. That is intolerable because, as I understand the law, the commander on the ground at the time has to make the decisions and is responsible for them.
There is no doubt that the iniquitous Anglo-Irish Agreement has had a detrimental effect on decisions on Orange Order parades and that the Irish Government have put pressure on the British Government and the Northern Ireland Office to ban certain parades. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Chief Constable is open to such political interference. The Chief Constable is ultimately responsible for security and for taking the decisions; he should not be moved by political interference.
The Secretary of State seems to be travelling around and talking to this person and that, to one side and the other. Surely that is a very foolish exercise for a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Whatever decision she makes, or the police make, she will be accused of being on the wrong side.
Surely the Secretary of State's responsibility should come into operation only when she is asked by the Chief Constable to ban a parade. Surely going around in such negotiations prejudices her role. She has the obligation before making such a decision to consult the police authority; can we take it that she will do that?
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram):
It has been a long debate--longer than many of us expected.
Mr. Trimble:
The Minister has two hours.
Mr. Ingram:
I might just take that long if I thought that the hon. Gentleman would miss his flight.
Mr. Trimble:
I have missed it already.
Mr. Ingram:
The hon. Gentleman has missed it already.
I join the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) in congratulating the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on obtaining this debate, which has been helpful. The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) made his maiden speech earlier, and has now made another. If he makes a habit of that, we will never get home.
As Minister responsible for security matters and economic development, I should perhaps take issue with the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, South. It is not the purpose of this debate to deal with the economic consequences of public disorder, but I take issue with some of his conclusions about the impact on the tourist sector in Northern Ireland.
There is clear evidence that, while there was a very positive upsurge during the ceasefire, it has gone into serious decline. That causes unemployment and major problems in the rural areas of Northern Ireland. We should all take stock of that. It is difficult to achieve significant job investment in Northern Ireland while there are problems of serious disorder. The figures point to that.
Rev. Martin Smyth:
I agree with the Minister, but, as I said to Secretary Ron Brown, when he came with President Clinton, some American and other companies invested in Northern Ireland in the worst possible times. Companies could learn to invest in the best possible times. We should not give credibility to those who are trying to
Mr. Ingram:
This debate is not about the economic impact of public disorder, which we shall have other opportunities to debate. I know that hon. Members want as many jobs as possible brought to Northern Ireland, not only to their constituencies but to all parts of Northern Ireland. That is the task with which I have been charged, and I hope to work with them in future. I share the sentiment that we should not talk up the worst scenario, but should remember that bad scenarios affect those who make investment decisions. Sometimes we know only what we win, and not what we have lost as a result of past activities.
The issue raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South is clearly important because of the many worries that exist in Northern Ireland. I am genuinely grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to set out in detail the nature and extent of public order legislation as it applies to Northern Ireland. I would also like to deal with the actions being taken by the Government, and particularly by the Secretary of State, since she was mentioned in the debate, in seeking an accommodation and a resolution of the extremely difficult problems and differences between certain sections of what many rightly consider to be the deeply divided community of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South also raised specific matters relating to the application of the law as it stands in articles 7 and 20 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. He mentioned two specific cases with which I shall deal later. Let me set his remarks in context with specific reference to the legal framework within which the forces of law and order operate in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, South agrees that, in any democracy, it is a fundamental right for people to be able to express their views publicly. That right, however, is conditioned by the need to behave responsibly and to be conscious of the rights of others likely to be affected by the public expression of the views in question. In Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the legal framework within which those rights are mutually protected is set out in the public order legislation determined by this Parliament.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |