§ The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson)I beg to move,
That the draft Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.I am sure that the House will appreciate, in the current circumstances, the urgency for dealing with this issue this evening without, I am afraid, the usual courtesies of consultation, for which I apologise.It does not need me to point out that in Northern Ireland symbols matter a lot, and this is something that we need to address. Symbols represent the different identities and different traditions of those who live in this part of the United Kingdom and, like other symbols, flags have historically been a source of conflict that has driven people apart. My reason for bringing this draft order before the House tonight is not to perpetuate such symbolic clashes, but to try and ensure that they do not become a permanent source of division in the future.
Northern Ireland, in my view, has never had a better chance than now to leave behind it the divisions of the past. In under a week, I hope that, following the IRA's historic statement, the restored institutions will get down once again to the business of governing in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that these institutions—politics itself—have no hope of functioning smoothly and effectively until old constitutional sores and provocations are put to one side.
That was the thinking behind the Good Friday agreement, a framework in which both Unionists and nationalists can participate together in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. They can do so while remaining every inch a Unionist, nationalist or, indeed, republican, as they wish, as long as they do so by peaceful and democratic means. This is the foundation of the new dispensation being created in Northern Ireland.
Without in any way surrendering their fundamental political beliefs, both main traditions now agree on the fundamental constitutional issue. They agree that it should be settled exclusively on the basis of consent, with the will of the people, freely expressed, prevailing over guns, bullying and intimidation. In particular, the participants in the agreement explicitly accept:
the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland…is to maintain the Union and accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish…Let me say in parenthesis that I think that it is extraordinary that such an agreement, which enshrines the principle of consent, should be misrepresented by some people as putting Northern Ireland on a motorway out of the United Kingdom. That is emphatically not the case. All the Good Friday agreement does is put the people of Northern Ireland in the driving seat. They, and only they, decide and will decide where Northern Ireland goes. It cannot go anywhere, whether by motorway, highway or byway, without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, and with this Government it will not.As far as Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are concerned, let me make this clear: that means that the Union flag continues to fly over our buildings in Northern Ireland on the basis applied 264 elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The principle of consent was a cornerstone of the Good Friday agreement. As such, it must receive more than lip service, as too must another cornerstone—the principle of equality: that both traditions are equally valid and that there must be
just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both.
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)Can the Secretary of State guarantee the House tonight that, were it to give him the powers that he seeks in the order, only the Union flag will fly over government buildings in Northern Ireland?
§ Mr. MandelsonYes.
On this basis, let me address directly a concern which I know is sincerely held by some Unionists: that the rights of equality for the minority in Northern Ireland are currently in danger of cutting across the principle of consent enjoyed by the majority, that the agreement has led to a climate in which, bit by bit, the last vestiges of Britishness are being dismantled, and that the argument about flags is symptomatic of a deeper malaise.
I understand that analysis and the fears from which it springs, but I completely reject it. There may be a simplistic view among some nationalists—not, I hasten to say, my colleague the Irish Foreign Minister, who is too wise for such an approach—that the display of emblems of Britishness is somehow incompatible with the Good Friday agreement. That is emphatically not the Government's view. As long as, consistent with the Good Friday agreement, symbols and emblems are used sensitively and in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division, I see no difficulty in their use, and my actions will be based on that view.
§ Mr. MandelsonI will give way in a moment.
The fact is that the Good Friday agreement is no more about decommissioning Britishness than it is about suppressing Irishness. In a society such as Northern Ireland's, either approach would be wrong in principle and bound only to lead to the alienation of a significant section of the population. As I have said before, we will have failed if at the end of the day, with all that we are trying to do and all the progress that I believe we are making, we have simply replaced an alienated nationalist tradition with an alienated Unionist one.
Nor do I believe that, as the agreement is worked out, we will see any significant diminution in the sense of Britishness in Northern Ireland. Speaking for myself, I welcome that. The Union has great strengths and brings benefits to all those living in its constituent parts. But there is—and I take this as an example of where our actions are resisting any diminution of Britishness—no recommendation in the criminal justice review to drop the title "royal" in the courts of justice or the royal arms from the outside of courtrooms. I hope and believe that the royal family's close connection with and interest in Northern Ireland will be not only be sustained, but enhanced. Britishness, therefore, far from being on its way out, will remain while there is a population wishing to express it.
265 Against that background, let me turn to the issue of flags, unless the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) wishes to intervene at this stage.
§ Mr. RobinsonI am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. My intervention is on that issue.
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the provisions of the order and his remarks to the House would apply to Parliament Buildings, Stormont?
§ Mr. MandelsonI have considered that matter. In the circumstances, I believe that it would be better to leave the arrangements for Parliament buildings—which have worked quite satisfactorily to date—to the Members of that Assembly. If the matter has to be reviewed, then reviewed it will be, but the hon. Gentleman will accept that the problem has been not at Parliament buildings, but elsewhere.
It would be surprising indeed if all evidence of the past clashes and conflicts in Northern Ireland disappeared overnight. Of course, it will not do so. As I have said, the flying of flags has been a battleground in the past, and proved something of the same during the first weeks of the devolved Executive. Under direct rule, the position was that the Union flag was flown from all Government buildings on certain set days. Those included most of the days on which the Union flag was flown from Government buildings elsewhere in the United Kingdom. However, also included were some extra days specific only to Northern Ireland; for example, St. Patrick's day and 12 July.
The basis of flag flying is, formally, a royal command by Her Majesty issued on the royal prerogative. There is no other basis in law. Under devolution, those powers of the royal prerogative were transferred, in respect of devolved matters, to the individual Northern Ireland Ministers and Departments. During the 10 weeks of devolution, there was—broadly—a common position among the Northern Ireland Ministers on how they should exercise their prerogative powers in relation to the Union flag within their respective Departments.
The result was that most Departments flew the Union flag from all their buildings on all the specified days. However, two Departments, under the instructions of their Ministers, did not fly the Union flag at all. Let me make it clear: I believe that this difficult—though symbolic—issue would be best resolved by the Executive Committee itself and I believe that the best way of doing so is by accommodation on the principles of the Good Friday agreement and the principle of respect for both identities.
I believe that practice in Northern Ireland should reflect practice elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)I think that the Secretary of State has half answered the question that I was about to put. When one reads the Good Friday agreement—especially the first pages of the text—is it not clear that there can be only one answer, under the agreement, as to what flag should be flown over Government buildings? Therefore, the actions of certain members of the Executive in not doing so flew completely in the face of the text and the spirit of the agreement.
§ Mr. MandelsonArguably, yes. That is why I am taking this action this evening. It is not for me to rehearse 266 arguments that are better put by those who believe in them—notably Sinn Fein Ministers and members of the Executive. The argument that they would put to the hon. Gentleman, if they were here, is that the Good Friday agreement also enshrines respect for the identities, the ethos and the traditions of all in the community; and that they should not be forced to accept and to fly the flag—the chief emblem or symbol—of somebody else's tradition.
None the less—
§ Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim)Will the Secretary of State give way?
§ Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down)Will the Secretary of State give way?
§ Mr. MandelsonIf hon. Members do not mind, I should like to make a little progress.
Notwithstanding the argument that those Ministers and members of the Executive would put to hon. Members if they were here, the Union flag remains the flag of the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a constituent part and, while that is the wish of the majority of its people, the flag will continue to fly over Northern Ireland.
As I said, this matter is best resolved by the Executive. If it were possible to reach a collective view and to move by consensus, I should welcome that. An initial attempt was made during the early stages of the Executive.
However, I do not want to see the Executive consumed for weeks and months by shadow boxing over an essentially symbolic issue. I want to see the Executive build up a sense of common collective purpose and approach to the business of governing Northern Ireland in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
Therefore, the draft order provides me with a reserve power to set regulations on flag flying from Government buildings. I shall use this reserve power only if it becomes clear that the Executive is unable to agree a way forward and the issue is becoming a palpable source of division among its members.
§ Rev. Ian PaisleyOn parity of esteem, does the Secretary of State believe, in this instance, what the negotiator of IRA-Sinn Fein told the people of Northern Ireland last night on television? He said that the two flags must fly and that that was the only way that there could be parity of esteem. He said that the tricolour must fly beside the Union flag on these buildings.
§ Mr. MandelsonThe negotiator said that as an act of generosity, but it is not a view that I accept and it is not my definition of parity of esteem.
Moreover, if I believe that it is best to exercise the reserve power, I shall exercise it in consultation with the Assembly and the Executive. The draft order requires me to consult the Assembly on any regulations that I may be minded to make, and to take into account any views it reports to me on those regulations. It also requires me to have regard to the provisions of the Good Friday agreement and it requires any regulations to be approved in both Houses of Parliament.
§ Mr. Robert McCartneyIf Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and if, as the Secretary of State suggests, the same regulations on flying the flag as apply in the rest of the United Kingdom should properly apply in Northern Ireland, why cannot the matter be solved by simply stating that instead of through the process of consultation?
§ Mr. MandelsonThe hon. and learned Gentleman will acknowledge and accept that, at the moment, this is a devolved matter. I do not want to go simply crashing into the situation; I want to show respect for the principles of devolution that the House has previously debated and agreed. All that I am doing at this stage is asking the House to agree a draft order that will enable me to bring forward regulations to regulate these matters if local parties, local politicians and Ministers are simply unable to reach agreement among themselves on the best way forward. That would surely be the preferable and the ideal course for them to take. However, as I say, if they cannot do that, I do not want to sit back powerless, watching a not unimportant but ultimately symbolic issue continuing to divide the Executive and pulling apart what might otherwise be a potentially consensual approach on other matters in the Assembly. Bigger and greater matters, other than the flying of the Union flag, are of direct relevance to the people of Northern Ireland and they are there for the Executive and Assembly to trouble themselves with.
§ Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)I accept the Secretary of State's point that there are other important issues, but surely this is the constitutional issue of the flag of the nation flying throughout the nation and throughout the kingdom wherever that may be. It is not a devolved issue for Northern Ireland, but one that affects the kingdom as a whole.
§ Mr. MandelsonAt the moment—and until the House agrees the draft order—it is a devolved matter.
§ Rev. Martin Smythindicated dissent.
§ Mr. MandelsonIt is a devolved matter and it also has very great constitutional implications not just for Northern Ireland, but—I readily accept—for the United Kingdom as whole. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the House should address itself in the way that it is doing to the draft order that I am asking it to agree.
§ Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)If the Secretary of State exercised his powers in the order only in accordance with the unequivocal undertakings that he has given to the House—for example, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—this evening, would it not follow that the consultation exercise, which is provided for in the order, would be a sham? Indeed, does it not mean that the Secretary of State would be rendering himself vulnerable to judicial review? [Interruption.] I should be very happy to give him the benefit of my experience.
Would not it be far better to avoid any such difficulties and for the Secretary of State to act on the suggestion that was just made to him? He should give effect to those unequivocal undertakings in this order and provide that in the event that the Executive Committee is unable to reach 268 agreement, the Union flag will fly on Government buildings in Northern Ireland as it does in the rest of the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. MandelsonObviously, I defer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's experience of judicial review, which is superior to mine. [HON. MEMBERS: "So far."] Indeed, so far. Every day that I have woken up in Northern Ireland, I have been exposed to the perils of judicial review. The situation is not quite as simple as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says because the prescribed days for flying the national flag can change from year to year.
There is another flag that some might want to fly in Northern Ireland; indeed, it was recently flown from the Parliament buildings. I do not want to provoke the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I refer to the flag of the European Union. The flying of all sorts of flags has to be regulated.
I hope that a common-sense arrangement, respecting the principles of the Good Friday agreement—and I mean all the principles—can be arrived at.
§ Mr. William Cash (Stone)Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. MandelsonNo. Many other hon. Members want to participate.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way.
§ Mr. MandelsonAs I was saying before I was nearly so rudely interrupted, I think that it is possible—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Only one Member can address the House at a time. The Secretary of State is trying to make a speech.
§ Mr. MandelsonWith reasonable good will on the part of all members of the Executive—
§ Mr. MandelsonNo, I have made it absolutely clear that I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is not giving way. I can hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, so the hon. Gentleman should also be able to hear him.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI hope that the hon. Gentleman—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman should sit down while I am addressing the House. I hope that he is not going to make a bogus point of order because he has been unable to intervene.
§ Mr. CashMy point of order is simple, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I may say so, the Secretary of State is misleading the House with respect to an important point about the Belfast—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman will have to withdraw that statement. The Secretary of State is not misleading the House. No Member is misleading the House.
§ Mr. CashI am perfectly prepared to say that the Secretary of State has misinterpreted the Belfast agreement—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman is withdrawing his statement?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw his statement that the Secretary of State is misleading the House. Will he do so?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw the statement?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWell, there is no point of order. I call the Secretary of State.
§ Mr. MandelsonAs I was saying, I hope that with a reasonable amount of good will on the part of all members of the Executive this matter can be properly resolved. Rather than see the enthusiasm, vision and high hopes with which many people greet the prospect of a return of devolved power to Northern Ireland frittered away on endless symbolic disputes such as this, I am prepared to try to settle this potentially divisive issue myself. It is on that basis that I commend the draft order to the House.
§ Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)I accept the Secretary of State's apology and explanation of why he could not give the House, myself and other spokesmen more notice of the draft order. We are in a fast-moving situation and it was right and proper that, at short notice, the draft order was brought before the House.
As far as the order goes—although I do not think that it goes far enough—it is broadly helpful. I think that hon. Members would agree, in reflecting on legislation that we passed a year ago, that we were unwise to have transferred to the Executive the decision on flags flying from public buildings. That view is now clearly shared by the Secretary of State. The order, to all intents and purposes, but not as specifically as we would like, will ensure that the decision is a reserved matter.
I shall briefly describe the Opposition's position; it is very straightforward and simple. We are the first to acknowledge readily, happily and warmly that Northern Ireland is very much part of the United Kingdom. It is absolutely clear that, by way of consent, the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. While that consent is forthcoming, which I hope will be for a very long time, it must be right and proper that Northern Ireland is treated exactly the same as the rest of the United Kingdom—no better, no worse—and that on the matter of flying flags on public buildings, it should be treated identically to other parts of the United Kingdom. That is my understanding of what 270 the Secretary of State said, particularly in his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
I endorse the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) that, given that the Secretary of State is so clear and so much in agreement with us, we cannot quite see the point of the order not being more specific and clear—that the matter is reserved and the Secretary of State rightly believes that, as Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, it should be treated identically to the rest of the United Kingdom.
§ Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that there are wider implications? We also have devolved bodies in Scotland and Wales. Is he agreeing with his hon. Friends on the Back Benches, who seem to imply that any time such a body disagrees about something, we in London should simply step in and say that we will take over? Surely there is a principle that devolution must be allowed to work, and therefore the terms of the order make more sense than his hon. Friends have suggested.
§ Mr. MacKayI am grateful to the hon. Lady because she neatly takes me to my next point.
Huge offence was caused because two Ministers in the Executive, both representing Sinn Fein—the Minister for Education and the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety—refused to fly the Union flag on days when it was flown elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and instead wished to fly the tricolour. That has been very harmful to the process that the hon. Lady and I support. Therefore, it must be right and proper that the matter is reserved. As the Secretary of State rightly pointed out just a moment ago, that means that the Executive can get on with more relevant matters and he can make the final decision.
§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)The Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that only the Union flag will fly, but I am not entirely clear whether Sinn Fein Ministers will still be able to refuse to fly any flag. Is that right?
§ Mr. MacKaySubject to the Secretary of State putting me right, my understanding of the order is that if agreement cannot be reached within the Executive, he will take the decision. He has made clear to our right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst what his decision will be. Those Ministers will not be entitled to overrule the Secretary of State's decision in respect of their public buildings. I do not see the Secretary of State rising to tell me that I have misinterpreted the order—in fact, I think that he is now vaguely acknowledging that I am correct. That is as close to confirmation as I am likely to obtain from him, and I am grateful for that apparently positive movement. I think that we can take my answer as accurate.
I have a word or two to say to any Members of Parliament who are thinking of opposing the order. If they do so and they win, the status quo will remain. It is distinctly possible—even probable—that a new Executive 271 will soon be formed, and the rules state that that Executive must contain two Sinn Fein Ministers. Therefore, the result of rejecting the order will be a return to the situation in which Sinn Fein Ministers provocatively fly the tricolour instead of the Union flag. I cannot believe that that is what those hon. Members want.
We support the order, but we regret that the Secretary of State has not gone further and put in the order his clear and unambiguous response to questions asked today. He has clearly and categorically said that, as and when he takes over responsibility for the matter, which I fear that he will inevitably have to do—deep down, he knows that the Executive will not agree on the flags issue, which was the subject of fundamental disagreement between Ministers of different parties within the Executive—the Union flag will fly on public buildings on appropriate days, exactly as it does elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)I still require clarification. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Secretary of State would in any circumstances permit the tricolour and the Union jack to be flown side by side on a public building? I hope that the answer is no. Through my right hon. Friend, I say to the Secretary of State that the issue is not merely symbolic: as one Member said, it is constitutional, and that is more than symbolic.
§ Mr. MacKayIt is not for me to stand at the Dispatch Box and translate the Secretary of State's words, but my understanding of his remarks is that they were absolutely clear and unequivocal—to echo my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. If and when—in my view, when—the matter becomes one for the right hon. Gentleman's decision, the Union flag and the Union flag alone will fly from public buildings, exactly as it does in Macclesfield and elsewhere. I think that the Secretary of State is now nodding, so we have an absolute, categoric answer.
To conclude, we support the order, even though we regret that it is not more straightforward. None the less, we are pleased that, in replying to various interventions, the Secretary of State has, from the Dispatch Box and from a sedentary position, made clear what the position will be when he is in charge of flags. For that, we are grateful.
§ Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)First, I have a small gripe about the process of communication. I understand the importance of moving quickly to keep pace with events and circumstances that change hourly, if not minute by minute. However, it has been difficult to obtain information: at one point, I was given the impression that officials had no knowledge whatever of what would happen tonight, even though it had been announced to the press and, through the Government Whips Office, to other parties that the order would be debated tonight. I understand that the situation is fast moving, but the "I can neither confirm nor deny" approach was not 100 per cent. helpful. Perhaps we can tighten up communication between the parties on such matters.
My main point relates to how issues of devolution and flags have been handled elsewhere. In February, there was a debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly about the 272 flying of flags. An Alliance party staff member was asked to research the attitude adopted to flags by the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. He telephoned the Scottish Parliament first and was passed around several extensions before he found anyone who could tell him which flags, if any, were flown from the building. Upon calling the Welsh Assembly, he was greeted by a long silence from a Liberal Democrat researcher, who went to look out of the window and was astounded to find not only the Welsh flag and the Union jack, but the European flag flying over Cardiff. Interestingly enough, that did not cause a walk-out or any suspension of the process of the Welsh Assembly—[Interruption.]—although I know that some members of the Opposition think that it should.
Not surprisingly, flags have taken on profound symbolism in Northern Ireland, as the debate suggests. In that context, it makes sense to put the order through Parliament. The Secretary of State has been clear about the implications. However, I should like to think that what is needed is a not a change of flags, but a change of attitude. That is the ultimate goal of the process.
The challenge is not to attempt to eliminate the difference and the strongly held national identities in Northern Ireland. Instead, we should try to eliminate the fear of the difference and start to value that difference. Once we do that, I have no doubt that the flags issue will fade away into the ether, and more importantly, we will make significant progress in valuing the difference between the communities and getting on with the process of allowing Northern Ireland to govern itself.
§ 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.
273 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.
274 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.That is right. The Secretary of State rightly said that the criminal justice review provides for the retention of the word "royal" on the royal courts of justice, its badge and the flag. It is right to do that. However, what did the Patten commission do with policing? It might remove the word "royal" and it recommended the removal of the badge and the flag.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 275 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.
§ 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.
276 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 277 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. ÖpikI have an Estonian background, and the Estonian flag means a lot to me, although I respect the 278 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 PaisleyI 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?
§ Rev. Ian PaisleyI 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 279 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.
§ Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down)It is evident from some of the speeches that have been made tonight that the true significance of the symbolism of the flag in Northern Ireland has been misinterpreted. In Surrey or Cardiff or many other places, the flag is taken for granted, just as constitutional rights are taken for granted. The citizens of those places know that their British citizenship will never be called into question. Only in those areas of the United Kingdom where there is a real fear and appreciation that British citizenship is conditional is an extra importance attached to symbols.
The Secretary of State suggested that there had been a tremendous breakthrough, but it is abundantly clear from the opening paragraph of the Provisional IRA's statement that there will be no lasting peace in Northern Ireland until the basic causes of the conflict are removed. That means the end of partition, the end of the British claim to part of Ireland and self-determination on an all-Ireland basis. The first paragraph of that much-heralded breakthrough says specifically that there will be no lasting peace until partition and the British presence are removed.
The next paragraph makes it clear what the Provisional IRA considers to be the true import of the Belfast agreement. If the agreement is fully implemented according to their Provisional IRA's specification, it will provide a political context in an enduring peace process that will give the potential for meeting all its objectives. If it does not provide that potential, there will be no lasting peace and the Provisional IRA will have recourse to its weapons, which it has not and will not put beyond use.
What significance does that have for flags? The pro-Union people of Northern Ireland have seen their Britishness and their position in the United Kingdom as British citizens constantly eroded. The Royal Ulster Constabulary's name is to be changed. Why? Because the word "royal" is an indication of its Britishness. Even though the crown in the RUC's insignia is coupled with the harp and the shamrock, it will be removed because it is deemed unsuitable. It is a British symbol. The royal coat of arms has traditionally been set above a presiding judge. It will be removed because it is said that it in some way intimidates litigants or causes them to be unhappy. I have practised in Northern Ireland courts for 40 years and 280 represented all shades of opinion, all denominations and all political allegiances. I have never heard a single client make such a suggestion. Nevertheless, the insignia must be removed. The Minister for External Affairs, Mr. Cowen, has made it abundantly clear that all the symbols of Britishness in Northern Ireland must go. The pro-Union people have become increasingly conscious of the importance of their symbols, because they have become increasingly conscious of the substance that those symbols represent being removed.
I am sorry to say that I view the order as a piece of political expediency. It was evident that the issue of the flag would be a major obstruction to the new seismic shift—the conditional offer from the IRA that if the process delivers Irish unity it will withhold the use of its arms, but will not dispense with their availability. The truth is that the issue of the flag, like the suspension that will be put on the determination of the RUC name, will be put on hold to lull Unionists into a false sense of security that something may yet happen that will preserve their symbols.
Under the order, it is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State to decide. On what principles will he decide? If the principle of consent means what it is declared to mean—that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom until such time as a majority decide otherwise—where is the problem? If we are part of the United Kingdom, we are entitled to fly the flag on public buildings on such occasions as is done in other parts of the United Kingdom. That being the case, what need is there for a devolved Assembly, which derives all its powers from the constitutional rights vested in this Parliament, to decide what is a constitutional issue? The Secretary of State need simply state that he has decided. There need be no consultation. He should say, "This is a constitutional matter. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. I, in discharge of my constitutional obligation, declare that the flag of the United Kingdom, and that flag alone, will fly on the public buildings of Northern Ireland in the same way as it flies on the public buildings of Canterbury or Salford."
There is no need for the order unless it is a political expedient, designed purely to put on the long finger what will be equally divisive. At great length, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) detailed all the mischiefs that will arise from this proposal. They were amplified by the contribution from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). Those mischiefs are real and they will occur, but they could be knocked out in one stroke by the Secretary of State acknowledging the real meaning of the principle of consent, which he alleges is in force, and acting upon it. The rest is mere surplusage, which will create more mischief than it was designed to remove.
The Secretary of State should reflect on what has been said tonight because, as Dr. Faust found, there is a moment of reckoning, when the Mephistopheles of making this discretionary decision will return and will knock on the door of the Secretary of State—or, possibly, his successor—and say, "Now is the moment of truth, what are you going to do?" At that time, it may not matter for the people of Northern Ireland, but it will be another stain on the integrity of this House.
§ Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)I shall be very brief. Of course, there can be no question but that it is the civic duty of any person with information about the Omagh bombings, or any other atrocity, to give that information to the proper authorities.
Two principles are involved in the discussion of the order: we must stick to the terms of the Good Friday agreement, and we must stick to the principles of devolution. The order is sensible because it does not say that the Secretary of State will take over and make a decision that the Northern Ireland Assembly has been unable to make. Rather, the order makes it clear that the Secretary of State would regulate the flying of flags only after the Executive Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly had failed to reach agreement. The order therefore provides an opportunity for the Assembly to reach that agreement.
I accept that that is a difficult proposition, but it is safe to predict that the Assembly will encounter many other difficult decisions. Its members will simply have to learn to work together and to find solutions with which at least the majority of the population—and preferably everyone—can manage to live. It is true that the SDLP will be put in a difficult position, but other elected members of the Assembly will be in difficult positions in other contexts as the months and years pass.
Finally, if members of the Assembly cannot manage to work through a problem such as this, what hope is there that they will come to sensible decisions on bread-and-butter issues such as housing, health, education, and so on, which affect all the people of Northern Ireland? Let us hope for some common sense in this matter. We must realise that no one has it easy in the context of Northern Ireland.
§ Mr. William Cash (Stone)I read this weasel order with great sadness. Paragraph (3)(1) states:
The Secretary of State may make regulations regulating the flying of flags at government buildings.Leaving aside the fact that the word "buildings" has been misspelled, that paragraph makes one wonder to what body the word "government" refers. If the order is needed at all, to what "government" will it apply?The short answer is that there is complete ambivalence in the mind of the Secretary of State, who has no answer to the question for reasons that I shall explain to the House.
Paragraph (4)(2) states:
The Assembly shall, within such period as the Secretary of State may specify, report to the Secretary of State the views expressed in the Assembly.In other words, the Assembly will merely go through the motions of reporting. Paragraph (4)(3) provides that the Secretary of State "shall consider any report", but what does that mean? It means that he will think about a report. There is no need for him to make a decision, as he is merely under a requirement to "consider" any report.282 The crucial point arises in paragraph (4)(4), which states:
In exercising his powers under Article 3 the Secretary of State shall have regard to the Belfast Agreement.It was on the point of "shall have regard" that I intervened on the Secretary of State earlier.Some of us have some small experience of looking at the nuts and bolts of legislation. This order will have the force of law when the House agrees it tonight, as will no doubt happen, yet the Secretary of State will not have to comply with the Belfast agreement, only "have regard to" it.
I assure the House that the Secretary of State, and those who drafted the order, know exactly what the words "have regard to" mean.
This is extremely difficult territory. I do not accept that the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) or any others in the House do not realise exactly what the order involves. To put up a flag on a Government building, in terms of regulating the flying of flags on Government buildings, is not merely a symbolic act, but a declaration of the constitutional status of that Government building. According to one newspaper report today, the Union jack is apparently not flown on our embassy in France. It is an extraordinary state of affairs.
I have no objection to people wanting to declare their allegiance, but I want to know what their allegiance is. The order gives no one any confidence about the continuation of the flag that represents the constitutional status of the Government of the United Kingdom, with respect to Government buildings, in this House.
I say to the Secretary of State that I am extremely disappointed at the order, as I am with others in the House. It is a sell-out, and the Secretary of State knows that it is a sell-out. I have got used to sell-outs in relation to the United Kingdom with regard to a number of treaties that have been passed in the House. I need say no more, because everybody knows what I am talking about. [Laughter.]
Just as other Governments are created, parallel to and absorbing the Government of the United Kingdom in respect of this Parliament, so, with respect to Northern Ireland, there is the gradual absorption—some may think imperceptible—which is none the less relentless, through the continuing diminution, reduction and assimilation, provided by orders of this kind, of the government of the people of Northern Ireland into another constitutional status.
The Secretary of State knows this, because nobody with half a wit could fail to know it. It is very simple; it is going on. All the talk about the consent of the people of Northern Ireland will mean nothing when, bit by bit, gradually, by absorption, the government of the people of Northern Ireland is subsumed by orders of this kind.
§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) talked about difficult territory. The implementation of devolution puts 283 us into difficult territory, because it is new territory for many of us. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) talked about the erosion of the citizenship of pro-Union citizens in Northern Ireland. He was, if I may say so, using extreme language.
We must remember that the principle of consent is the linchpin of the establishment of democracy and the Assembly in Northern Ireland. Whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman may say, that holds fast, just as it holds fast for Scotland. If a majority of the people of Scotland said that they wanted independence, this or any future Government would have to accept the will of the people. The principle of consent is very important. At least the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) emphasised the importance of the principle of consent in his opening remarks in what was, for him, quite a brief speech. We all share his revulsion for those who commit murderous acts of terrorism. We also share his revulsion for those who acquiesce in such acts of terrorism. It must be exceedingly difficult to sit down in a newly constituted Assembly with the apologists for such people—on both sides of the fence, incidentally. That cannot be easy for hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is in every sense difficult territory. But at least these people are in a democratically elected Assembly.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) talked about custom and practice determining the question of the flying of the flag. Perhaps he will allow me to be facetious for a moment. The only time I see the two flags being waved almost side by side is at Ibrox or Parkhead when Celtic are playing Rangers. That is when we see it in Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the flying of the flag of the state should be a reserved matter and that this is a deficiency in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I disagree wholeheartedly, because such a matter should be left to the devolved Assembly or legislature. I must admit that even though I took part in—
§ Mr. Grieverose—
§ Dr. GodmanI do not have time to give way.
Although I took part in most of the debates on the Scotland Act 1998, I cannot remember whether the flying of the flag is a matter devolved to Scotland. [Interruption.] I learn that it is a devolved matter. I have visited the Scottish Parliament on a number of occasions, and I know one of its Members quite well, but I cannot remember whether I saw the saltire the last time I was there. We have people in Scotland who would like to see the saltire flying there, at the parliament of an independent Scotland.
§ Mr. Grieverose—
§ Dr. GodmanTime is against me. The hon. Gentleman will have to accept my apologies for not giving way.
I wish to tell the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that I think tonight's debate is a precursor of a perhaps much livelier debate on a Bill that will come before us in the near future.
284 I also disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on police reform. If I had the power with regard to the design of a new police uniform, which is badly needed, I would change the colour from green to blue. Saying that may lose me a few votes among some of my Celtic supporters, but I believe that blue, not green, is the colour of a police uniform. However, I will not go down that road.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the order is needed. The Union is strong. The Northern Ireland people are, in every sense of the word, citizens of this United Kingdom, but I have to tell right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is a Union that is changing quite dramatically. The Union to which some of them pay such undying allegiance has largely disappeared, with devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I disagree fundamentally with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. As my right hon. Friend said, the Union flag remains the flag of the United Kingdom, and that is based upon the principle of consent. That must be determined by the representatives in the Assembly. If they fail to come to an acceptable compromise, I can well understand why my right hon. Friend feels that he needs the power to step in and sort things out, but it is better that the MLAs determine this than that we do it here in London.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 8.
| Division No. 198] | [11.55 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ainger, Nick | Corston, Jean |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Cotter, Brian |
| Allen, Graham | Cousins, Jim |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Cranston, Ross |
| Austin, John | Crausby, David |
| Barnes, Harry | Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) |
| Barron, Kevin | Cryer, John (Hornchurch) |
| Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) | Cummings, John |
| Bennett, Andrew F | Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) |
| Benton, Joe | Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire |
| Best, Harold | Dalyell, Tam |
| Betts, Clive | Davey, Edward (Kingston) |
| Blackman, Liz | Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) |
| Blizzard, Bob | Davidson, Ian |
| Bradley, Keith (Withington) | Day, Stephen |
| Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Dean, Mrs Janet |
| Browne, Desmond | Dobbin, Jim |
| Burden, Richard | Doran, Frank |
| Burgon, Colin | Dowd, Jim |
| Butler, Mrs Christine | Drew, David |
| Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) | Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) |
| Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) | |
| Cann, Jamie | Efford, Clive |
| Caplin, Ivor | Ellman, Mrs Louise |
| Casale, Roger | Etherington, Bill |
| Caton, Martin | Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna |
| Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Flint, Caroline |
| Chidgey, David | Flynn, Paul |
| Clapham, Michael | Foster, Rt Hon Derek |
| Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) | Foster, Michael J (Worcester) |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) | Fyfe, Maria |
| Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) | Gardiner, Barry |
| Clelland, David | George, Andrew (St Ives) |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | George, Bruce (Walsall S) |
| Coaker, Vernon | Gerrard, Neil |
| Coffey, Ms Ann | Gibson, Dr Ian |
| Colman, Tony | Gilroy, Mrs Linda |
| Connarty, Michael | Godman, Dr Norman A |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Gordon, Mrs Eileen | McGuire, Mrs Anne |
| Grieve, Dominic | McIntosh, Miss Anne |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | McIsaac, Shona |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew |
| Grogan, John | McKenna, Mrs Rosemary |
| Hall, Patrick (Bedford) | McNulty, Tony |
| Heal, Mrs Sylvia | McWalter, Tony |
| Healey, John | McWilliam, John |
| Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) | Mallaber, Judy |
| Hepburn, Stephen | Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter |
| Heppell, John | Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) |
| Hesford, Stephen | Martlew, Eric |
| Hinchliffe, David | Maxton, John |
| Hope, Phil | Meale, Alan |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Michael, Rt Hon Alun |
| Hoyle, Lindsay | Miller, Andrew |
| Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) | Moffatt, Laura |
| Humble, Mrs Joan | Moran, Ms Margaret |
| Hutton, John | Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) |
| Iddon, Dr Brian | Mountford, Kali |
| Illsley, Eric | Mullin, Chris |
| Ingram, Rt Hon Adam | Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) |
| Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) | Naysmith, Dr Doug |
| Jamieson, David | Norris, Dan |
| Jenkins, Brian | O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) |
| Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW) | O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) |
| O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury) | |
| Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) | Olner, Bill |
| Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) | Öpik, Lembit |
| Keeble, Ms Sally | Organ, Mrs Diana |
| Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) | Osborne, Ms Sandra |
| Kemp, Fraser | Palmer, Dr Nick |
| Kidney, David | Pearson, Ian |
| Kilfoyle, Peter | Pickthall, Colin |
| King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) | Pike, Peter L |
| Kumar, Dr Ashok | Plaskitt, James |
| Ladyman, Dr Stephen | Pollard, Kerry |
| Lawrence, Mrs Jackie | Pond, Chris |
| Laxton, Bob | Pope, Greg |
| Lepper, David | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Leslie, Christopher | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Lewis, Terry (Worsley) | Prosser, Gwyn |
| Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) | Purchase, Ken |
| Luff, Peter | Quinn, Lawrie |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Rapson, Syd |
| McCabe, Steve | Rendel, David |
| Macdonald, Calum | Rooney, Terry |
| McDonnell, John | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| McFall, John | Roy, Frank |
| Ruane, Chris | Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion) |
| Russell, Bob (Colchester) | Timms, Stephen |
| Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) | Tipping, Paddy |
| Ryan, Ms Joan | Todd, Mark |
| Savidge, Malcolm | Touhig, Don |
| Sawford, Phil | Trickett, Jon |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Truswell, Paul |
| Shipley, Ms Debra | Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) |
| Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) | Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) |
| Singh, Marsha | Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) |
| Skinner, Dennis | Turner, Neil (Wigan) |
| Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Smith, Angela (Basildon) | Vis, Dr Rudi |
| Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S) | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale) | Wareing, Robert N |
| Watts, David | |
| Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) | White, Brian |
| Smith, John (Glamorgan) | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W) |
| Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) | |
| Southworth, Ms Helen | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Squire, Ms Rachel | Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy) |
| Steinberg, Gerry | Winnick, David |
| Stevenson, George | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
| Stinchcombe, Paul | Wood, Mike |
| Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin | Woolas, Phil |
| Stringer, Graham | Worthington, Tony |
| Stunell, Andrew | Wray, James |
| Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) | Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock) | |
| Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S) | Wyatt, Derek |
| Taylor, David (NW Leics) | |
| Taylor, John M (Solihull) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Temple-Morris, Peter | Mr. Mike Hall and |
| Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) | Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe. |
| NOES | |
| Beggs, Roy | Swayne, Desmond |
| Gorman, Mrs Teresa | Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield) |
| McCartney, Robert (N Down) | |
| Paisley, Rev Ian | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Robertson, Laurence | Mr. William Cash and |
| Robinson, Peter (Belfast E) | Rev. Martin Smyth. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That the draft Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.