| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.1 pm
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann): For many years, it was traditional for members of our party to say on occasions such as this that it was regrettable that legislation was being enacted for Northern Ireland by this abbreviated procedure, instead of being enacted properly on the Floor of the House. Were it being enacted properly on the Floor of the House through a normal Bill, it would be possible for the Bill to be comprehensive and apply to all parts of the United Kingdom, and thus to anticipate problems that might arise elsewhere. The Government should be aware that problems of a similar nature might well arise elsewhere.
It is necessary that the legislation goes through, and goes through quickly, because it is necessary that the issue be settled. Unfortunately, however, I believe that the form of the order will not settle the issue and may contain the seeds of future trouble.
The legislation would not be necessary if there were any proper law on the existence of the United Kingdom's national flag. The existence of the flag and the occasions on which it is flown are matters of custom, practice and administrative procedures, not of law. That was not a weakness in the past. It is part of the way in which we are accustomed to doing things, but it has caused a weakness on this occasion. Because of the difficulties that have arisen, it is necessary to put the flying of the flag on a legal basis.
That would not be necessary had nationalists in Northern Ireland observed the agreement. As was pointed out to the Secretary of State in an excellent intervention, the agreement is clear on the matter. It is clear about Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom. In the agreement, nationalists recognised the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom.
There is only one sovereignty and only one national flag, and the issue should not have arisen. It has arisen because some nationalists do not, in practice, operate the agreement and are failing to implement it. Obviously, Sinn Fein Ministers come into that category, but we wonder whether some other nationalists are in that category as well.
The Secretary of State was extremely kind to the Irish Foreign Minister in his reference to him. However, comments have been attributed to the Irish Foreign Minister, and not repudiated by him, in which he has asserted that the institutions in Northern Ireland should have no element of Britishness about them. That assertion is utterly unacceptable, quite wrong and completely contrary to the agreement. I hope that it is clearly squashed by the Government's action tonight. That mistaken view should not be sustained.
I fear that the legislation will not settle the matter that should have been settled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) pointed out, it should not have been a devolved matter at all. The existence of the national flag is not a regional matter. The existence and the treatment of the national flag should not come under the purview of a devolved regional administration; it should have been reserved as a constitutional matter. The draftsmen of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 slipped up. The order should have repaired that omission simply by treating the national flag as a reserved matter.
The order contains weaknesses. Making the order a matter of apparent discretion for a Secretary of State from time to time is a mistake. I accept that successive Secretaries of State from 1972 to now have, as a matter of administrative practice, issued a list of official flag days each year. However, the order will be matter of dispute in future. It would therefore have been better to place official flag days on a statutory basis and thus avoid future dispute.
A further mistake by the Secretary of State is to refer the matter to the Assembly. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for doing that, but the whole point of the constitutional provisions in the agreement was to settle such issues. Why is he pushing a constitutional issue on to the Assembly? How will that facilitate smooth working together? Putting a constitutional issue back on to the Assembly will be divisive; it will create division on constitutional lines. Does the Secretary of State want that? I am sure that his consultation procedure was well intentioned, but the order will be divisive.
The order will also be unfair to moderate nationalists. We know the position that extreme nationalists will adopt; we know what Sinn Fein will do. The order will make life difficult for moderate nationalists, including those in the Social Democratic and Labour party. Does the Secretary of State want that? The Unionists' position, and that of Sinn Fein will be clear. The only people who will be put in a spot by the Secretary of State's consulting the Assembly are members of the SDLP. From their practice in the past, I am sorry to say that they will probably feel that they have to be more nationalist and republican than the republicans. It is unwise to push them into that position when some of them do not want to be there.
There is an interesting contrast, which the Secretary of State mentioned, between the order and chapter 8, paragraph 61, of the criminal justice review. It states:
- We considered the removal of symbols but this could be misinterpreted as inconsistent with Northern Ireland's constitutional position.
The Secretary of State has rightly held up the criminal justice review as an example of good practice. He is right to do that. We urge him to be consistent and to extend its principles--which he upholds in the order with regard to Government buildings--to policing. Why except police stations? They should be treated in the same way as courts and Government buildings.
11.8 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): It is right that paragraph 4 (4) of the statutory instrument sets it in the context of the Belfast agreement. It is important to remember that the Good Friday agreement enjoyed the overwhelming support of people north and south of the border and the majority of both communities. Despite the uncertainties and vicissitudes of recent months, the agreement continues to enjoy majority support.
For some people, flags are merely coloured pieces of cloth. However, for others, they are potent symbols. I am aware of that because I have recently returned from North America. It is definitely the case in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) suggested. It would also be fair to say that, in Northern Ireland, if flags are a potent symbol, symbols are perhaps more potent than in many other parts of the United Kingdom.
Flags can be potent symbols in a positive fashion. They are symbols of community identity and sources of pride and celebration. However, they can undoubtedly cause offence and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, they can cause conflict.
In the right context, the Union flag, as my right hon. Friend correctly referred to it, or the green, white and orange tricolour can inspire bonhomie and a spirit of community. However, in the wrong context in Northern Ireland, they can undoubtedly inflame aggression. Not for nothing have flags been thought of as battle standards or battle honours, but we must consider them in the context of peace. We are working towards peace in Northern Ireland, albeit an imperfect one. The guns are mostly silent and the number of murders and bomb outrages has reduced.
To respond to a remark made by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) only this weekend, let me say that we are not talking about preventing the planting of bombs only in London. The overwhelming majority of Members on both sides of the House want an end to bomb outrages and murders throughout the United Kingdom. That is what we are working for. Although there is not as much violence and thuggery as there once was, we want them to end and we recognise that punishment beatings and knee-cappings are unacceptable. No Member of the
House accepts that such actions can be called community policing. They should be known as what they are--vicious, fascist gangsterism. They must end. Arms inspections are not in themselves sufficient; ultimately, they must lead to the total disuse and decommissioning of arms. That is the context in which we should consider an accommodation over flags.Last week, I was in Canada with other members of my Select Committee, which is why I am wearing a Union jack and maple leaf badge on my lapel. I celebrated my birthday exactly a week ago and attended a birthday party at which the Union flag flew next to the green, white and orange tricolour. At the risk of antagonising the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) even more than did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in a place of superiority over all was a blue flag with gold stars. I happen to share a birthday with the European Union, which was celebrating its 50th. I draw a veil of silence over which birthday I was celebrating.
I hope that a time may yet come when the Union flag can fly alongside the Irish tricolour or the flag of any other EU member--in Northern Ireland as easily as anywhere else--without inflaming bitterness and unhappiness. I take the points made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) but, until that time, it is perfectly sensible for the Assembly to seek accommodations on such matters in the first instance and it is totally right for my right hon. Friend to have the capacity to mediate where that cannot be achieved.
Tragically, many lives have been lost in Northern Ireland. Flags can be symbols of honour for lives lost, and that is the basis of battle honours, but there is a far better memorial for those who have lost their lives in Northern Ireland: pursuing the dangerous process of building peace--however difficult, tawdry and imperfect that may be--and ending the carnage and the needless sacrifice of innocent lives. I hope that the order can contribute to that purpose.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |