| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.14 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim): I support what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) said about the fascist thugs who continue to perpetrate outrages in Northern Ireland, but I say to him that I am glad that every person who watched a television programme on Sunday last saw a former member of the Executive, Mr. McGuinness, make it clear that he would not appeal to people who know those who are guilty of the crime of Omagh to give their information to the police. When a so-called Minister in a so-called democratic Government in this United Kingdom says in public that he would not encourage people who knew about such a diabolical outrage and such diabolical terrorism to go to the police, we realise what is at the heart of these divisions. They are not minor divisions; they are very major divisions.
The IRA made a statement, part of which has been given very little publicity, in which it forthrightly told us what it saw as the root causes of the troubles in Northern Ireland. First, there was the claim of this United Kingdom Government to hold sway in part of Ireland. Secondly, there was the partitioning of Ireland. Thirdly, there was the right of self-determination.
We have been told from the Dispatch Box that all who took up the agreement believed that the right of self-determination was vested in the people of Northern Ireland alone--that it was for them alone to decide their destiny. But here we have the IRA saying that that is not so: that one of the root causes that must be eliminated is anyone saying that Ireland as a whole has not the right to decide the destiny of the whole island, and therefore the destiny of the people of Northern Ireland.
The last point consisted of the IRA's wrongful accusation about the way in which republicans are treated under the law in Northern Ireland. Well, Northern Ireland people have not been governed in Northern Ireland for a very long time, so that is a charge against successive British Governments.
Those, then, are the root causes. The IRA went on to express its belief that, if what it was now saying was accepted, it would have a structure under which it could deliver to the people the removal of all those root causes.
Nothing will persuade the majority of people in Northern Ireland that they should join the Irish Republic. Nothing will persuade them that that partition will not remain; nothing will persuade them that they should give up their right of self-determination, and hand it over to a united Ireland; nothing will convince them that everything that is done in Northern Ireland is a strike against nationalist or republican people. Therefore, the structure that we are asked to accept by the Government is a structure to destroy the very things that the Government say will stay in place.
One of the questions put to the Secretary of State was the right question: why have the order at all? We are not talking about ordinary buildings, or about meeting-places where flags are displayed within. Many of us who go to European institutions know that the tricolour is displayed there, because Ireland is a member state of the European Union. We are talking about public buildings in part of the territory of the United Kingdom Government. Surely such buildings are different.
The other day, I asked the Prime Minister why the European flag was not flying on here, on the Houses of Parliament--here, in Westminster--for the same reason that it is allowed to fly in Scotland. I think the Secretary of State made a confession: it was through his wish that the flag was put up there. Well, the only laws that govern that are the laws of a commission, and that commission does not exist now. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was a member of it, and this matter was argued on it; but it could not agree.
The Secretary of State tells us that he is not going to bother. Surely he should have been troubled about what was happening, because it was in the commission that governs the Parliament buildings that the arguments were put, and it could not reach a consensus. Why? Because IRA-Sinn Fein wanted the tricolour to fly at the same level as the flag of this United Kingdom.
That is the real issue that the Secretary of State must apply himself to, but that is not in the order; it is left out. He told us that he did not think that he would enter into that realm, but surely that is the realm where the difference started.
The difference was carried on, as has been said, when the two Sinn Fein members of the Government refused to fly the flag. I do not think that the Secretary of State has power under the order to command those two members to
put up a Union flag over their offices. Does he? Does he feel that, when he gets the order, if those two members say, "We will not fly the Union flag," he has the power to enforce the flying of the Union flag over those offices? He needs to come clean on that one and to tell the House whether that is what he thinks he has.The order is to do with flags. It is not to do with the Union flag. Why, if it is in defence of one flag, are other flags mentioned? He needs to come straight with us tonight and to tell us because he knows perfectly well that the IRA will not give in on the matter. He knows that both Ministers, if they are returned, will not fly the flag. He knows that he does not have the power to make them fly the flag. What, then, will he do? What about the Parliament building, which has five commissioners who have already been divided on the issue, with no decision being taken?
Perhaps the Secretary of State would find out who commanded that the European flag should be put up in equality with the Union flag. I am a Member of the European Parliament, but I do not look at that Parliament as being equal with this House or with this kingdom. We are not part of a European super-state yet--please God, we never will be--but what I am saying is that that flag should not have been put up there. The Secretary of State is solely responsible at this moment for that flag, and he tells us that he had nothing to do with it. He needs to come clean.
Those who have foolishly negotiated with terrorists are to blame for the mess that they are in. They cannot negotiate with IRA terrorists or other terrorists and think that they will get democratic attitudes from them because those terrorists are determined that they will not bow and kneel to democracy. They are dealing not with people who will be reasonable, but with people who will forward the republican agenda. By their actions, they have made real, true and just peace less likely than ever before. Negotiating with them gives them legitimacy. People think, "They have been in government. They must be democrats," but they are not. One of them, as I have mentioned, told the world, "If people knew who did the Omagh bombings, I would not be calling on them to go to the police." Where else would they go?
Think of the atrocities of Omagh. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who has responsibility for the victims, is sitting on the Front Bench. He knows what happened in Omagh. It is dreadful to think that a Minister in Northern Ireland is saying publicly, "I will not call on anyone who has information to go to the police." How else can the people who did that awful act be brought to justice? Those are the issues that the House should be aware of.
In bringing forward this legislation, the Government play entirely into the hands of terrorists. It is the legislation that they want. They are quite happy. When there is an issue about the flag, it will be made a major issue. As I have said, the Secretary of State will not be able to make them do anything. In Northern Ireland, we have flags flying everywhere by default around the area where the new markets have been formed. There is a tricolour on perhaps every pole. If one says anything about it to police, they say, "We cannot interfere with it. There would be trouble." What are we going to do? What is the Secretary of State going to do?
Mr. Öpik: I have an Estonian background, and the Estonian flag means a lot to me, although I respect the
tradition and culture in which I have grown up--including the Union jack. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the position of those who support the case for flying the tricolour is nevertheless respectable? Regardless of whether he agrees with their position, surely, from a human perspective, he understands why they set such store in a flag.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am talking not about people flying flags--that is nothing to do with this--but about flags on public, Government buildings. Would the hon. Gentleman debate in the House if someone moved a motion that a foreign flag should fly on Government buildings here?
Mr. Öpik: I would if it were an Estonian one.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I certainly look forward to seeing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency a motion in his name saying that that is what he wants. I know rightly that that is not what he wants, and that he would not even sponsor such a suggestion. We are dealing with Government property and with public buildings.
Public buildings are defined as those in which the majority of people are civil servants. A majority of people in the Stormont building are not civil servants, but staff members of the Assembly. They are employed by the Assembly. The Assembly even considered a rule that they would not be civil servants, but direct employees of the Assembly. The particular order that we are debating is therefore not even clear in its definition of a public building.
We are addressing the issue of what flag flies on a public building, and who commands that the flag should be flown there. If people want to put up tricolours and fly them, that is their business, but they should do it in keeping with the law. If one were to put up a Union jack in an area of Belfast where it was likely to cause a breach of the peace, it would be taken down by police. However, they are not so ready to take down tricolours in predominantly Unionist areas. Those are the facts of life.
What can we expect from a Secretary of State who believes, as he does, that he has to refer to the agreement when he addresses this particular issue? The agreement talks about parity of esteem, but what is parity of esteem? Is it giving equal esteem to the two flags? If so, and if that is what the agreement meant, of course I can understand IRA men arguing that the flag should fly along with the Union jack. However, I do not think that any Member of this House believes that the Secretary of State, when he looks at the agreement and sees "parity of esteem," must immediately say, "Yes, both flags must fly." But that is how those men have interpreted the phrase's meaning, and that is what they will continually fight for.
There will be fights. Does the Secretary of State really think that, because he is the final arbiter, there will be no rows over this matter? Does he really think that all will be lovely in the garden? It will not be, and the House should know that.
The order will enable the Secretary of State, if he so desires, to prevent the flying of the national flag on Government buildings in Northern Ireland. He can say, "I am dealing with flags, and the Union flag is not to be flown here." However, he will have no right to direct a
Minister to refuse to fly the national flag. The Secretary of State has got to come to a decision about what he is going to do and what concessions he will make.It is all right for the Secretary of State to say today, "There are really no concessions to be made. There is no road to a united Ireland. There is nothing really happening. All in the garden is wonderful." All in the garden is not wonderful. We have today's debate in the House on what national flag should fly over Government buildings. The fact that we have to discuss the issue shows that all is not well. The issue was supposed to be settled, but the Executive refused to deal with it, because some people thought that there would be such a hullabaloo that the Executive could not keep together. I trust that the Secretary of State will state unequivocally that there is only one flag that should fly on public buildings and that is the flag of this nation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |