Catholic Church Services
Private Members’ Business
Northern Ireland Assembly debates, 12 October 2009, 3:45 pm
David McClarty (UUP)
The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes in which to propose the motion and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.
John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin)
I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to withdraw his statement that he will “not attend a service in a Catholic Church”; further calls on the Minister to recognise that such a refusal to attend a Catholic Church service from an Executive Minister has no place in an inclusive society, and that as an Executive Minister he has a duty to serve, respect and engage with all sections of society regardless of their religious background.
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I ask Members to read the motion that has been tabled, because it calls on a Minister of the Executive to take action. It does not call for action from an individual or anyone else with deeply held personal beliefs but from someone who has consciously decided that they wish to serve in a power-sharing Executive.
The House heard from the United States Secretary of State today, and she told us that the Assembly is involved in building peace on a day-to-day basis. We will not always agree, and there will be heated and agitated debate, but our role is to build peace. Furthermore, the role of the Executive, which came out of the Good Friday and St Andrews Agreements, is to create a new beginning in this part of Ireland and to help the various communities and political factions to work together. It is not always easy to work together, and it sometimes proves difficult, but that is our role. However, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure feels that it is appropriate, as a Minister, to state publicly that he will not attend a service in a Catholic church. That is despite the fact that he made a conscious decision to become a Minister and to sign the Pledge of Office in which he pledged to work for all of the people in the North.
I am not a theologian, and the debate should not be on theology, religious beliefs, who is right or wrong or how they worship their God or their gods. That is not my role, nor is it the role of anyone in the House. We are politicians; our role is to legislate, and, in our unique circumstances, we must use our role to build peace on a day-to-day basis.
Can anyone imagine a Minister in any other Executive or Government in western Europe saying that he or she would refuse to attend a church service of another denomination? Can anyone imagine an English Minister saying that he or she would refuse to attend a service in a mosque or a Minister from the Twenty-Six Counties saying that he or she would refuse to attend a Presbyterian or Church of Ireland service? If that happened there would be uproar, quite rightly. However, it seems acceptable for an Executive Minister here to say just that and, whether he meant it or not, to insult over 40% of the population.
It is no good people claiming that some of their best friends are Catholics, because that is like people saying that some of their best friends are black after a racist remark has been made. There is no point in saying that. To create a new beginning and to be friends with and respect someone, that relationship must be built on the principle of respect. You may not agree with them. I am not asking the Minister to attend a Catholic service and to take the sacraments, and I am not asking him to agree with the sacraments. I am not asking him to do anything. In fact, I am not even saying that he has to attend a Catholic service at some stage. However, I object to someone in a power-sharing Executive that has been built out of the need to build peace and end sectarianism saying that he will not attend a service in a Catholic church and then expecting that statement to go unchallenged.
In England, a row is going on in the media over an allegedly racist comment that a TV personality made to a guest on a dance show. The row has taken up many column inches and editorials in the broadsheets and red tops. The papers are challenging the notion that such racist comments are acceptable in the modern era. That debate has gone back and forth, with apologies being issued and reassurances given that racism was not at the heart of what was said and that the TV personality wishes to tackle racism. However, an Executive Minister, calculating or otherwise, insults 40% of the population with his comment, yet it has been allowed to pass us all by. I have no doubt that other comments that he has made since he came into office will also come into play.
The motion calls on the Minister to withdraw his statement. It does not call on him to attend a church service or to put one in his diary — it does none of that. Nevertheless, the question that lingers in most people’s minds is —
Peter Weir (DUP)
Is the Member saying that it does not matter what the Minister does, as long as he says what he does that he is not going to do? [Laughter.]
John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin)
I will treat that intervention with the contempt that it deserves. I am saying that the motion does not call on him to put attending a church service in his diary. Other Members and I are challenging the Minister’s belief or mindset that says that it is OK to come out with such statements and not expect a reaction.
The question that must be answered is “Why?”. Why should he not attend a service in a Catholic church? I have attended services in churches of several different denominations, and I found them very interesting, very informative, very enjoyable and, in some ways, even spiritual. I was not struck down by a bolt of lightning when I left those services. Does the Minister expect that he will be struck by a bolt of lightning when he leaves a Catholic service? Is that where the belief comes from? Or is there a more sinister belief that says that those who attend services of Catholic worship are lesser people? If that is the case, it is a very concerning stance to take.
It is bad enough for a member of the public to have such views, and it is bad enough for that person to express them. However, it is totally unacceptable for a Minister of this power-sharing Executive, which was formed out of the Good Friday Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement, to make such a statement. Those agreements were put in place to build peace. One of the challenges that faces the Executive and individuals is how to tackle sectarianism and break down the old barriers that created sectarianism, hatred and division in our society. Part of peace building is looking deep into oneself and seeing what challenges one must overcome as an individual to ensure that peace is built in this society and to see that one’s work and role is to build that peace and not cause greater division.
I wait in expectation for the Minister’s response; perhaps he will explain why he felt it necessary to make such a statement, especially as he was being interviewed in his capacity as a Minister. I note that he will be responding to the debate as a Minister. That shows, therefore, that he believes that the issue fell into the ministerial pot. It is beyond me why he felt it necessary to come out with such remarks and why he has felt it necessary, since he has come into office, to target nearly every aspect of the Catholic, nationalist and republican community’s lifestyle. That appears to be his hobby horse. He does not appear to be promoting arts and culture; he appears to be demonising people’s arts and culture, and now he is demonising their religious beliefs.
I am not here to lobby on behalf of any religious faith; all Churches have perfectly capable leaders, spokespeople and people in high office for that very reason. It is not my role. I am not taking the role on, and have no wish to do so. There are people to do that job. However, when a calculated insult seems to have been offered to 40% of the population, the House deserves, first, to hear from the Minister why he said what he did, and, secondly, to ask him to withdraw the statement, because there is no logical reason for it.
Everyone has their own personal beliefs, but the Minister knew when he took on the role as a Minister in the Executive that he would face challenges. If he is not up to the challenges of a power-sharing Executive, of creating peace on this island, and of tackling sectarianism, he should go even further than the motion requests and step aside. If he cannot live up to the pledge and the spirit of his ministerial office, he should step aside, because unless we tackle sectarianism in all its forms, we are doomed to repeat our history. For a Minister to say that he will not attend a service in a Catholic church is blatantly sectarian.
Gregory Campbell (DUP)
The only thing on which I find myself in agreement with Mr O’Dowd is that Members should read the motion. That is always a good place to start. I would have thought that Members would have done so anyway without any persuasion on the part of the Member for Upper Bann.
When considering the motion, we have to look at the incident to which it refers. My understanding is that the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure was asked a straightforward question on the radio. The question was not flagged up in advance, but was asked during an interview. When that happens, I assume that most people would expect an honest answer. Having got the honest answer, the honourable Member proceeded to table the motion.
To all intents and purposes, the motion seems to say that if a Minister has particularly religious or evangelical personal views and expresses those views openly and honestly in an interview, under certain circumstances that viewpoint almost automatically debars them from office. That is what the motion says. It appears to be an attempt to gag the Minister politically and to dictate what he can and cannot say. The movement to which the honourable Member for Upper Bann and all his colleagues belonged for more than 30 years was a dab hand at gagging, although it was not political gagging that it engaged in. It was more direct gagging, and events took courses beyond gagging. Fortunately, however, as I have said many times, we have moved on, even though sometimes the rhetoric seems to suggest that people want to go back.
The motion says that the comments to which it refers have no place in an inclusive society. I would have thought that the right of a Minister, an MLA, public representative, or, indeed, any member of society, to express their sincerely held views when asked a direct question is part and parcel of an inclusive society. I would have thought that it is the antithesis of an inclusive society to assert that people can say certain things as long as we agree with them, but if they say things to which we take exception, their part in an inclusive society will be withdrawn. That is what the motion appears to smack of.
Not in a radio interview, but during last week’s Question Time to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, another Minister made comments in response to my honourable friend the Member for Strangford Mr Hamilton that caused offence in our community. The DUP did not table a motion that stated that such comments are not part of an inclusive society.
Peter Weir (DUP)
If the DUP were to follow the example of the party opposite, we would be so deeply offended that we would wait for around three months before tabling such a motion.
Gregory Campbell (DUP)
I am glad that the honourable Member mentioned that. It has not gone unnoticed that that length of time elapsed before the motion was tabled.
The honourable Member for Upper Bann Mr O’Dowd made the most spurious reference that I could imagine. He said that the motion was not an attempt to ask the Minister to attend a Catholic Church service. However, the motion addresses the fact that the Minister said that he will not do that. The Sinn Féin motion, therefore, attacks the Minister for not doing something that Sinn Féin does not want him to do. I am sure that some people would like the opportunity to psychologically analyse that. I would be interested to hear their conclusions.
Outside the Chamber, Minister Ritchie of the SDLP gave an interview in which she made a comment about the Orange Order. Many people on these Benches and outside the Chamber took exception to, and were offended by, those comments. However, we did not table a motion to ask her to withdraw those comments.
Gregory Campbell (DUP)
Yes, I will, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker.
This is a free society. The Minister is entitled to his personal religious views, and he is entitled to express them. None of those views counteracts or runs contrary to the duty to serve, respect and engage with all sections of society. The Minister has eminently displayed his ability to do that, and he will continue to do so.
Danny Kennedy (UUP)
On a day when much international opinion has been directed and focused towards Northern Ireland, it is deeply unfortunate that the Assembly is debating a motion of this nature. The motion does not reflect today’s Northern Ireland — a Northern Ireland in which good neighbourliness and common decency lead people across the traditional religious, cultural and political divides to respect one another’s religious traditions.
Many people in Northern Ireland will wonder exactly what the motion is about. It is quite noticeable that the Church leaders who were in attendance for this morning’s proceedings have not deemed it necessary to stay for this debate. At weddings, funerals, carol services, Remembrance Day services and other civic functions throughout Northern Ireland, people from the Protestant and Roman Catholic traditions, people from other faith communities and people from none interact with and show respect for one another. I strongly believe that that sense of good neighbourliness and common decency, which is shared by the vast majority of people across the community, has sustained Northern Ireland through its darkest days and can now provide the foundation for building a shared future.
I understand and strongly share the convictions of the reformed faith, but I regard my views as personal, and, in most cases, I regard them as private to me, even in the conduct of my public service as a Member of the Assembly or as a member of my local authority, Newry and Mourne District Council.
Of course, reference has been made to certain statements by various Ministers. It is worth reflecting that, in the past, the Education Minister praised a hunger striker as being a role model for young people. The deputy First Minister described partitionism as evil, which leaves those of us who believe that the creation of the state of Northern Ireland was both necessary and positive in no doubt as to what he thinks of us. It is no wonder, therefore, that OFMDFM is making little or no progress towards a shared future when the habit of making such statements is so deeply ingrained in certain parties.
On the specific matter that is dealt with by the motion; I must say that the right to freely exercise one’s conscience and religious beliefs is a fundamental cornerstone of a liberalist, pluralist society. That belief is also strongly affirmed by the faith traditions that contribute so much to the life of our community. The very idea that we could compel a Minister to act contrary to his or her conscience is both deeply disturbing and illiberal.
The party that proposed the motion appears to have a new-found belief in respecting the sanctity of Catholic acts of worship. That comes from a party that, within recent living memory, sought to justify the murder and attempted murder of judges and their family members as they left Mass. That comes from a party that blatantly ignored the words of the spiritual leader of the Catholic tradition, the Pope, who, in Drogheda in 1979, said that “murder is murder is murder.”
My party understands the obligation that public service places on elected representatives to respect our community’s diverse religious traditions. It also understands that the free exercise of conscience must be respected. The motion does a huge disservice to both those truths. The Ulster Unionist Party will oppose it.
When I read the motion, my immediate thought was whether the issue is people’s most important concern at present, or whether it was yet another attempt by Sinn Féin to divert attention from the Assembly’s continual failure to deliver anything of value to Northern Ireland’s people. I will return to that matter later.
I want to state clearly that it is not for me or anyone else to tell Mr Nelson McCausland the layman which churches he should or should not visit. He is entitled to his convictions, however much they may differ from those of other people, and to practise them as he believes best.
However, it is a different situation when we talk about the obligation of Mr Nelson McCausland, the Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure. By accepting ministerial office, and knowing the demands that come with it, the Minister should, at all times, demonstrate a willingness to respect other people’s religious convictions.
Like his ministerial colleagues, Minister McCausland is paid for his work out of the public purse. The taxes that go towards his income are not collected from one particular section of society. Taxpayers — whether they are Protestant or Catholic, belong to other denominations or are non-believers — contribute to the Minister’s salary and to the running of his Department.
Therefore, I suggest that Minister McCausland is not exempt from carrying out all his ministerial obligations. His advisers must ensure that selectiveness is not permitted to sideline his obligations. He is expected to be a Minister for all people: he cannot be a Minister for some.
At a time of crisis in hospitals and throughout the Health Service, and when thousands of men who were once employed in the construction industry are doing what Phil Coulter wrote about — walking the dog — I ask whether Mr McCausland’s comments should be elevated to such a major point of concern. The education system is an absolute mess. The conundrum of the transfer procedure remains the ultimate riddle about which the Minister of Education is still guessing.
Farming and many other industries are living through the greatest period of uncertainty that they have ever faced. During a time of such economic unrest, the best that Sinn Féin can come up with is to bring a divisive religious motion to the Assembly; a motion that, regardless of its failure or success, will do absolutely nothing for Northern Ireland’s people.
How many people went to bed last night either worrying about, or being delighted at, Minister McCausland’s remarks? I imagine that very few did. In the privacy of their homes, the majority of people are more concerned about health and education issues, lack of employment opportunities, shortage of money for housing and home repairs, paying their mortgages, and other concerns.
On another line of thought, albeit somewhat hypothetical, Pope Benedict XVI is contemplating a visit to the United Kingdom in 2010. However, what will his Irish advisers, who are considering the possibility of inviting him to Ireland, make of the Minister’s attitude and the fact that the Catholic religion has been dragged down to the level of political debate by Sinn Féin.
We all remember when Pope John Paul II was prevented from coming North in 1979 because of IRA violence. It would be ironic if history were to repeat itself and another Pope was advised to stay away from the North.
I am not qualified to make authoritative comments on religion or to advise anyone on religious practices. However, I wish to quote a deceased cleric who travelled the world promoting shared futures and peace. I ask the Minister and Sinn Féin to consider the words of the late Fr Mychal Judge, who visited Northern Ireland during millennium year.
Fr Judge had a message for all, and it was not directed at any specific religion or religious grouping. He said that, when people get to heaven, God would not ask them to which denomination they had subscribed but only how much they had loved him and how much they had shared their lives with others. He went on to say that his findings on the human condition were that such divisions persisted for reasons of power and control, and all that does is cause conflict and its inevitable consequences. I share the late Fr Judge’s thinking. However, as the comments of Minister McCausland and Sinn Féin verify, the scene in Northern Ireland has, sadly, not really changed in almost a decade.
The SDLP will continue to promote the term “shared future”. I occasionally hear other parties paying lip service to that. I do not view the Minister’s comments as being part of any shared future strategy; however, I think that he must be given the chance to work towards that. I do not consider the ongoing antics of Sinn Féin, either inside or outside the Assembly, as being part of outreach programmes. In fact, the direct opposite is true.
Trevor Lunn (Alliance)
The Minister’s comments raise problems in respect of the requirements in the ministerial code and the Pledge of Office. I am surprised that no Member has yet read out the relevant sections of either of them, so I will.
The ministerial code requires Ministers to:
“operate in a way conducive to promoting good community relations and equality of treatment”.
The Pledge of Office states that Ministers must:
“promote the interests of the whole community represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly towards the goal of a shared future”.
I doubt that any Member would disagree that that is a basic requirement of holding public office. Neither the ministerial code nor the Pledge of Office actually mentions religion. However, they imply that Ministers are required to behave in an even-handed and impartial way. I know that the Minister will respond to the debate, so I want to know whether he thinks that his comments bring into doubt the impartiality that is implied by the Pledge of Office and the ministerial code.
My party had a considerable discussion about this issue today.
Trevor Lunn (Alliance)
There might have been minor nuances in the difference of opinion.
One section of the party believes that a Member is perfectly entitled to his or her point of view, and that is my view. When I say “Member”, I mean ordinary Members of the Assembly. However, I think that the Pledge of Office and the ministerial code put an extra onus on Ministers to go beyond that.
I wonder whether Mr McCausland has the same objection to going to other non-Protestant services. What is his stand on attending a mosque or a Jewish synagogue? The job of Minister carries certain requirements. I do not imagine that Ministers are frequently asked to go to church services. A mayor of a city might have to do that as part of his or her civic duty. I certainly had to, but perhaps Ministers do not have to.
If a very prominent figure in the arts world were to pass away in any other jurisdiction in the world — I hesitate to use a name, but I am talking about someone of the stature of Seamus Heaney — it would be normal for a Minister with responsibility for culture, arts and leisure in that jurisdiction to attend the funeral. I wonder how our Minister would respond to that sort of request.
We had a discussion about what the word “attendance” means. Does it mean participation? I will put that one to bed straight away; as far as I am concerned, if someone enters the precincts of a church during a service and stays for its duration, he or she is participating.
I respect Members’ rights to make comments. Recently, Mr McCrea Jnr made a comment on the subject of the Pope being the Antichrist. I totally disagree with that, but it appears that he can say things such as that as a private citizen and even as an MLA. That is a pity. I think that it is a different matter when a person is speaking as a Minister, which brings me back to the Pledge of Office and the ministerial code.
The motion calls for the statement to be withdrawn. I do not think that there is much chance of that, and I do not think that it would make any difference if the statement were withdrawn. Such a statement cannot really be withdrawn; it was a straightforward declaration. However, I agree with the second half of the motion, which states:
“as an Executive Minister he has a duty to serve, respect and engage with all sections of society regardless of their religious background.”
To me, that sums up the matter, perhaps more than the requirement for the withdrawal of the statement. The Alliance Party is going to have to support the motion, but I am trying to be even-handed about it. [Laughter.]
Peter Weir (DUP)
Perhaps the previous Member who spoke goes to show that there is often nobody more illiberal then a liberal.
In recent days, some Members opposite have falsely accused my party of trying to drag Northern Ireland back to the 1950s and into some sort of one-party rule. Yet, if the motion is passed, its import will drag us back to the 1550s, to the days of Queen Mary and compulsory attendance at Catholic churches. That is the import of the motion, essentially. It indicates clearly that there is no place in any ministerial team for anyone who will not worship at every church available. Therefore, I urge everyone who believes in freedom of religion and freedom of conscience to join us in the “No” Lobby today. I hope that the Alliance Party will have some sort of last-minute Damascene conversion, if that is not an inappropriate phrase, and join us in the “No” Lobby.
Mention has been made, particularly by the Member who spoke previously, of the Pledge of Office and the need to engage with all sections of society. Everyone, including the Minister, accepts that there is a need to engage with all sections of society. He has not said that he will not go into a Catholic church; he has not said that he will not deal with the Catholic community; he has not said that he will not meet Catholic representatives. What the Minister said specifically is that he will not participate in a particular form of worship.
We are told, and it has been said in the debate, that we live in a free, liberal and tolerant society, although one may sometimes question some of the implications of that. Yet, it seems strange that there is a great sense of tolerance except when some Members express their religious views. In such cases, there is no tolerance at all. We have seen a number of occasions on which Members, having expressed a particular religious viewpoint, have been subjected to a form of witch hunt. That is particularly acute when it comes to those who express an evangelical Protestant viewpoint.
If a motion came before us condemning a Muslim Member of the Assembly for refusing to go to a particular religious service, everyone, rightly, would say that the motion was racist and sectarian in nature.
It would be fundamentally wrong to condemn a Muslim for refusing to go against his or her beliefs. However, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure seems to be an appropriate Aunt Sally for the Members opposite. If we are to accept the ideals of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, there must be freedom to attend church services, and freedom not to attend church services if someone believes that it is wrong to do so. Choosing a place of worship is a fundamental freedom.
Mention was made of respect. Henry III, King of Navarre, who was a Huguenot and became the King of France in the 1590s, famously said that Paris was worth a Mass. He meant that he would swallow his pride, swallow the Catholic wafer and take part in the Mass so that he could become a king. Does that show respect for religion? If the Minister went to a church service believing that it was fundamentally wrong and hypocritically went through the motions, would that show respect for the Catholic Church, or any religion?
I will peel away the layers of the motion to show what lies behind it. As has been said, it is not about the Pledge of Office, because the Minister is engaging with all sections of society. The motivation for the motion is not offence caused to the Catholic Church, because, as I said, the Members opposite were so offended that they tabled the motion a mere three months after the Minister’s comments. The party opposite did not seem worried about offending the Catholic Church when it was engaged in 30 years of murder and mayhem: there was no great point of high theological principle back then. The motion is more about incidents such as that in Galbally, where there was a commemoration of terrorism, than it is about transubstantiation.
The Minister is a bête noire for the republican community and it seems to be “Kick Nelson McCausland Day”. That is not an acceptable basis —
Peter Weir (DUP)
We should promote and support freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Anyone who has a sincere belief in those ideals and in liberty will join us in the “No” Lobby.
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom a rá go mbeidh mé ag labhairt i bhfabhar an rúin seo.
The subject of the motion is important because it goes to the heart of what is expected of Ministers as they carry out their duties. The debate comes on a day when the Assembly voted to adopt a new code of conduct. No smokescreen based on the visit of Hillary Clinton, or a Member mixing the Pope up with Maggie Thatcher, will change that. A Member said that the issue being debated may not be the most important thing on people’s minds. We accept that, but it is an important matter and should be debated in the Assembly.
On 9 July, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure said on the BBC that he would not, on a point of principle, attend a service in a Roman Catholic church. That is a complete contravention of any interpretation of the Pledge of Office. If that pledge is to mean anything, it must ensure that Ministers act and serve in the best interests of all people. In accepting their roles, all Ministers should commit to not making religious belief a barrier to carrying out their duties in an impartial and non-partisan manner.
The Minister’s statement contradicts that sentiment and fundamentally undermines his ability to say that he is carrying out his duties without fear or favour. No one on these Benches, or anyone anywhere, would expect Ministers to alter any well-held views that they have, no matter how absurd or quaint others may regard them. However, adopting a blanket-ban approach to any religion undermines a Minister’s ability to do his or her work. Gregory Campbell propagated the idea that a person who gives an honest answer to an honest question is absolved from all wrong. If a position is incorrect, it is incorrect: honesty does not come into it, and the Minister needs to learn that.
His stance is a product of days long since passed — they certainly should have long since passed. Indeed, we should perhaps have left such views behind in the Dark Ages. The Minister’s statement is wrong, and that is why we have adopted our position.
Gregory Campbell (DUP)
I am happy to take up the offer to make an intervention. The Member spoke about personally held views. Is he saying that, if a Minister is asked what his personally held religious views are and he answers honestly and if his view is of a particular kind, that automatically debars him from being a Minister?
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin)
No. I wish to make two points. First, that is not what you said from a sedentary position. You did not take the opportunity to repeat in your intervention what you said when you were sitting down.
Secondly, through the Chair —
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin)
Through the Chair, I want to note that that is not what the Member said when he was sitting down.
Secondly, I have already said that, even if a person holds an honest position, if it is incorrect, it is incorrect. Racists might be asked whether they believe that other races are inferior. They may give an honest answer and say that yes, they believe that they are, but they are wrong — that is the point that we are making here today. The Minister’s position is wrong; that is all that we are saying. By being wrong, he is, in our opinion, in breach of the ministerial code.
None of this happens in a vacuum. Only last month, in a debate in this Chamber and on three radio programmes, the Minister gave his sense of what he believed to be the shared future. He is entitled to do that, and he was not a bit behind the door in saying how he felt that others had failed to meet his definition of a shared future. Indeed, the benchmark that he put forward for the definition of “shared” was how reasonable people would react to certain given situations. Therefore, the question for the Minister now is his own question: would it be reasonable for people in the twenty-first century to expect Ministers in an Executive — indeed, all Members of this Assembly — to attend religious services as part of their ministerial or Assembly functions? In my opinion, it would. The Minister’s current position exposes his narrow view of what “shared” means. He is saying, “If my vision or sense of ‘shared’ is not accepted by other people, I rule you out, and you will not be part of that society.”
The purpose of the motion is very simple. There are no hidden agendas. The motion is up front; there is no sense of my trying to say something that is not in the Order Paper, which I do not think that many Members have read. The Minister should take the opportunity today to address the matter by asking himself the very simple question —
David McClarty (UUP)
Order, order. We are not going to have a tennis match from one side of the Chamber to the other. Mr McCartney, you have 40 seconds.
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin)
Thank you very much, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The question for the Minister to ask himself is whether reasonable people would view him as someone who is not capable of acting in a fair and non-partisan way. His position, as stated, serves only to undermine his ministerial integrity. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.
David Simpson (DUP)
If ever there was a debate in this Chamber that shows the true depth of Sinn Féin’s moral, ethical and political bankruptcy, this is it. In the past year, we witnessed the fortieth anniversary of the civil rights movement. All those Members on the Sinn Féin Benches, including those who cobbled together this motion, would claim to be inheritors of that movement. I may be wrong, but, from what I recall, one of the claims that supporters of the civil rights movement made is that nobody should be denied employment, discriminated against or denigrated on the grounds of his or her religion. However, Sinn Féin, in an official Assembly motion, has today tossed all those fine words in the bin. According to Sinn Féin, people are entitled to have their faith honoured and protected only as long as they are not an evangelical Protestant whose beliefs differ from the claims and activities of the ecumenical movement.
Of course, there is another side to this. What does Sinn Féin always tell us? It tells us that it follows in the footsteps of Wolfe Tone and wants to bring together Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter. However, today we can see the truth: Sinn Féin never meant a word of it. Today, thanks to Mr O’Dowd, Mr McElduff and Mr McCartney, we see the truth: anyone who dissents from the modern ecumenical movement has no place in this new Ireland, as they call it.
For 40 years, members of the IRA, Sinn Féin’s night shift, lay in the drains and crawled on their bellies to slaughter people on the sole grounds of their religion. During today’s debate, the day shift has set out its stall. Whereas the IRA sought to deny Protestants the right to life, Sinn Féin seeks to deny the wrong kind of Protestant the right to hold a job. Perhaps we are supposed to be glad of that progress. Perhaps we are supposed to be glad that, instead of regarding all Protestants as legitimate targets who can be justifiably killed on the grounds of their religion, Irish republicanism now only takes the view that some Protestants should be denied the right to hold public position on the grounds of their religion. I am not inclined to be glad with such progress. Of course, that is the Sinn Féin view.
Where does the SDLP stand on the matter? Will it actively oppose Sinn Féin’s attempt to create a modern-day Spanish Inquisition in Northern Ireland? The debate also raises serious questions for the Catholic Church and, indeed, for every component part of professing Christendom. Does it support this attempt to coerce a person’s religious conscience? Does it subscribe to Sinn Féin’s attempt to force individuals to recant their religious convictions? Does it endorse this crude but clear attempt to deny people the basic right to think, believe and worship according to the diktats of their conscience? We have a right to expect an answer from all those angles: from the SDLP, the Catholic Church and from across the religious spectrum.
I will try my best to substitute for my colleague.
A person who wants to be respected should respect. In our divided community, respect is required across the political divide. We must respect both political traditions and the people who represent them. Equally, there are religious differences in our society that are, in many ways, coterminous with the political divisions. We should respect one another’s religion as much as we respect one another’s political beliefs. Therefore, it behoves every Member, whether Catholic or Protestant, nationalist or unionist, to respect and to be respected. It is important that we all abide by and aspire to that principle.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
It is desirable that individual Members show such respect. However, Ministers in the Administration here have a duty to show that respect. A person who becomes a Minister, the chairperson of a council or the mayor of a borough must divest himself or herself, to some extent, of party-political association. That person must represent the whole community. Ministers are no different from the Lord Mayor of Belfast or the mayor of Lisburn; they should show respect for the whole community and represent the community at large.
I do not believe that, as Mr Simpson suggested, anyone is saying that people should compromise their religious beliefs. A person does not compromise his or her religious beliefs by entering a Catholic church in which a service is taking place. People do not have to participate actively, but they must show respect for those who belong to that religious tradition. It is important that Members of the Assembly who become Ministers do that. It is desirable for all Members of the House to do that, whether they are entering a Catholic church or a Protestant church or attending a Catholic service or a Protestant service. That should surely be everyone’s basic duty.
The matter does not simply end there as far as religion is concerned. It extends further into the political field. There are those in this House, particularly on the Sinn Féin Benches, who would refuse to attend any event at which members of the British Royal Family were present. Surely that is wrong, but I do not hear Sinn Féin Members saying that it is wrong. Indeed, the Member for Upper Bann Mr O’Dowd criticised the leader of the SDLP recently for attending the opening of the new wing of Altnagelvin Area Hospital in Derry because the Queen took part in the official opening.
The application of any standard must be consistent; it seems to me that, in this matter, Sinn Féin is being inconsistent and is open, rightly, to criticism. It may well be that, as P J Bradley said, this is simply a diversion from the profound political difficulties in which Sinn Féin finds itself at this time. Whether or not that is true, there are principles in this divided society that politicians should adhere to; they should represent the common good, and they should do things that, perhaps, they do not like, such as attending a Catholic service in a Catholic church. If that creates goodwill in our community, helps to bridge the divide and helps to create a shared future, surely that is a good thing.
I know Nelson McCausland personally, and I know that he has deep religious feelings and beliefs. I respect those feelings and beliefs, but I do not believe that asking him to attend a Catholic church service compromises his religious beliefs. I believe that he, in fact, enhances his religious beliefs by creating in our society an open and respectful culture.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it now practice in this House that, when a Member does not turn up for a debate, one of his party colleagues is called in his place? That is in sharp contrast to what happened to one of my colleagues when he was about 45 seconds late for a debate.
William Hay (Speaker)
The Member knows that I was not in the Chair at that time. I will consider the issue, and I am prepared to come back to the Member directly or to the House.
Allan Bresland (DUP)
This is not only a disgraceful motion; it is offensive, bigoted, sectarian and intolerant. Those who tabled it should hang their heads in shame, but at least it reminds us that their commitment to equality comprises nothing but hypocrisy and emptiness. Like squawking parrots, Mr O’Dowd, Mr McElduff and Mr McCartney have been trained to repeat wonderful words such as “equality” and phrases such as “inclusive society”, “parity of esteem” and “ending sectarianism”, but I fear that they have absolutely no idea what those words really mean. They have no understanding of fairness or true equality; indeed, they are the enemies of those values. They have no interest in them; they never had and never will.
Sinn Féin has long talked of its vision for a new Ireland in which everyone, Protestant and Catholic, would be equal. It was saying that even during the years of the IRA’s campaign of terror, when people were murdered simply because they were Protestants.
We did not believe Sinn Féin then, and we do not believe it now. That party will, of course, tell us that it has no problems with people holding religious views, as long as they keep them to themselves and do not let those views affect how they do their work.
The motion basically states that, if people hold public office, they are not allowed to have a conscience, especially if it is a Protestant one, and that they must attend a form of worship that they do not agree with and cannot accept. Again, those are the bully-boy tactics that Sinn Féin is long famous for. It reminds me of Germany in the days of Hitler. Perhaps Sinn Féin would like all Protestants to be marked with a “P”, just to make things simpler.
To see an example of religious bigotry, sectarianism and hatred, we need look no further than Sinn Féin. The motion states that the Minister has:
“a duty to serve, respect and engage with all sections of society regardless of their religious background.”
I agree entirely. That is what my colleague Nelson McCausland has done since he took up office. He will continue to do that and do it well without the need to attend a service in a Roman Catholic church. How does Sinn Féin square the motion with the refusal of its MPs to attend Westminster? Surely, by the logic of the motion, their absence from Westminster is wrong?
I fear that the bigotry displayed in the motion is also to be found on the SDLP Benches. That party’s record on the issue is not good either. The great civil rights party has been quick to condemn evangelical Protestants who have expressed strong religious views. SDLP Members have argued that such views are not compatible with public office. How does the SDLP feel about a Protestant being ordered to attend a Mass against his wishes?
Where does the Roman Catholic Church stand on the motion? I would be very interested to know. If the motion is passed, it will send out an alarming signal not only to Protestants but to all who value and cherish civil and religious liberty. I oppose the motion.
Wallace Browne (DUP)
I rise to support — to oppose the motion. [Interruption.] I support the previous Member, and I oppose the motion. [Interruption.]
Wallace Browne (DUP)
It is my firm conviction that any Executive Minister has a duty to serve, respect and engage with all sections of society, whether the person or persons concerned are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist. However, I utterly reject the narrow-minded and baseless assertion that adherence to a religious principle that requires non-attendance at a service based on different theological principles has no place in an inclusive society.
Wallace Browne (DUP)
I regard the right of an individual to decide whether he wishes to attend a particular religious service or to attend none as a vital component of his or her religious and civil liberties. I am sure that Mr Maginness would agree.
The House should not assume from what I have said that I believe that there are no political or religious principles that may, in certain circumstances, lead to social division. I recently read that Islamic religious law, as applied in Iran, permits a man to marry a non-Muslim woman but forbids a woman to marry a non-Muslim man. Clearly, that religious rule would appear to most of us in this society to be socially divisive and discriminatory against women. However, a rule requiring non-attendance at a particular religious service seems to be completely unobjectionable. It would have absolutely no effect on the people participating in that service; they would be completely free to worship as they please and without hindrance.
The Minister has demonstrated, on many occasions, his full commitment to the building of a shared and inclusive society in Northern Ireland. In the short period since his appointment, he has engaged fully with all the major sporting organisations, and he has promoted artistic and cultural events across all sections of the community. In the light of all that, the wording of the motion is particularly regrettable. Indeed, the motion’s implication that the Minister is not fulfilling his duty to serve, respect and engage with all sections of society could be considered inflammatory.
There is no doubt that the motion has caused great offence to several religious groups and has perhaps made community tensions a little worse. The Minister is a man of great integrity and high moral principle. It is utterly absurd and offensive to call on him to recognise his duty to society, given that he has never neglected that duty in any way. I strongly oppose the motion.
Nelson McCausland (DUP)
Soon after my appointment to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, I was interviewed by the BBC. In the course of that interview, the journalist asked me whether I would attend a service in any church at all. I was honest with him and explained that, although I would attend a cultural or community event in a Roman Catholic building, I would not attend a service of Roman Catholic worship.
John O’Dowd said that the view that I expressed was a calculated insult. I remind him of the next sentence of the interview, in which I stated that my position does not mean that I do not have good relationships with Roman Catholic people. I do not want to offend them, and I am sure that they do not want to offend me. In the course of my ministerial duties, I have attended a concert by the Ulster Youth Choir at Clonard monastery already, and I may well attend an event in that Roman Catholic building again in the future. I have attended events in Roman Catholic schools, and I am sure that I will do so again.
For me, the issue is one solely of worship. I emphasise that because, as reported in the latest edition of the ‘Limavady Northern Constitution’, Sinn Féin councillor Paddy Butcher said that I had refused to enter a Catholic church. Gerry Kelly made the same point in a Radio Ulster interview. By the time that the motion was proposed today, however, Sinn Féin had managed to check the facts and get them right. That message should be passed back to Paddy Butcher and to Gerry Kelly, given that he is not here.
I must add that I did not raise the issue, because I believe that it relates to a situation that will not arise. I merely answered a question that was put to me, and I stated something that is a matter of personal conscience. I emphasise that I am a Minister of culture and sport, not a minister of theology. However, both John O’Dowd and Alban Maginness asked why I hold the view that I hold. I hold it for a number of reasons, and I assure John O’Dowd that it has nothing to do with bolts of lightning.
There are significant theological differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism that concern fundamental issues of the Christian faith. This is not the place in which to explore those differences, but I take the position that I have because of such theological differences. I will say in passing that if one looks at the standard publications and documents of the Roman Catholic Church and the historic Protestant statements of faith, right across the range of Protestant denominations, those differences are noted, whether they are in the Westminster Confession of Faith of Presbyterians, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of Ireland, John Wesley’s sermons and notes, the Savoy Declaration of the Congregationalists or the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. There are many people to whom such doctrinal differences will mean nothing at all, but, as a Christian, saved by the grace of God on the cross of Jesus Christ, I hold that those are important matters that go to the heart of my Christian faith, because they are about salvation, redemption and grace; they are not peripheral matters.
I believe also in civil and religious liberty and in freedom of conscience. Those are long-established principles that can be traced back 300 years. Indeed, the concepts of civil and religious liberty were very much at the heart of the Bill of Rights and other documents associated with the Glorious Revolution. Moreover, in a more contemporary light, the right to freedom of conscience is enshrined in international human rights law, and, if it is a right, it is for everyone, including MLAs and Ministers in the Executive. I will add also that we have seen the Roman Catholic Church demand that same right of freedom of conscience, especially in areas such as the work of Roman Catholic adoption societies, and I agree with those organisations on that matter. However, the Sinn Féin motion before us seeks to deny a Minister the right to religious liberty and freedom of conscience and is a denial of those basic human rights.
It seems that Sinn Féin is demanding that, in order to hold ministerial office, a person should be required to attend worship in a church of a particular denomination. That is something for which there is an interesting historical precedent. In 1704, soon after the death of King William III, the Test Act was introduced in Ireland, and it required that anyone holding public office should attend communion in the established Church of Ireland. Dissenting Protestants and Roman Catholics who did not attend communion in the parish church were, therefore, barred from public office. The effect of the Test Act was that all the Dissenters, or Presbyterians, on the corporations in Belfast, Londonderry and other towns were removed from office in what was an act of religious discrimination. Eventually and thankfully, the Test Act was abolished, and the cause of religious liberty in Ireland prevailed, but now it seems that Sinn Féin and some others want to introduce a new Test Act of their own making. They want to promote religious discrimination, and anyone who supports the motion is supporting religious discrimination.
Tom Elliott (UUP)
Does the Minister accept that it is duplicitous of Sinn Féin to propose such a motion when only a few weeks ago, it objected to the local authority in County Longford giving a civic reception for a group of Orangemen from County Fermanagh who were visiting there?
Nelson McCausland (DUP)
I thank the Member for that helpful intervention and for that information, which sheds some light on the attitudes and motivations of members of Sinn Féin.
The motion refers to an “inclusive society”, but an inclusive society is a tolerant society and one that respects the personal faith of every individual. Therefore, an inclusive society has a place in it for the evangelical Protestant, just as much as for anyone else. How can society be inclusive if there is no place in it for those of us who are traditional evangelical Protestants? How can a society that excludes evangelical Protestants from ministerial office be inclusive?
Alban Maginness used the word “respect”. I always seek to respect the rights of others, and I simply ask that others respect my right of conscience and my right to civil and religious liberty.
I do not disagree with the final part of the motion: how could anyone? I agree that:
“an Executive Minister has a duty to serve, respect and engage with all sections of society regardless of their religious background.”
However, that should be true of all Members of the Assembly. I serve, respect and engage with all sections of society, irrespective of their religious background, and that includes the Roman Catholic community. I, as an evangelical Protestant, may share common cause with the Roman Catholic Church on a range of social and moral issues, particularly on the sanctity of human life, as I am unashamedly pro-life and pro-family.
It is interesting to recall that when the forum on the bill of rights discussed the right to life of the unborn child, I and other members of my party voted for a pro-life position and engaged with a representative of the Roman Catholic Church on that and other matters. The party that sits opposite, and whose members tabled the motion, took the contrary view.
The interview that gave rise to the motion took place at the start of July, and it is now the second week of October. Why is Sinn Féin raising the issue three months later? Is Sinn Féin seeking to divert attention from its shortcomings?
Nelson McCausland (DUP)
Is it seeking to divert attention from the issues that I raised about its abuse of GAA premises at Galbally? Is Sinn Féin seeking to divert attention from its failure to embrace a shared and better future?
In my private life, I have always sought to show respect to members of other Churches. I may disagree with them and I may express that disagreement, but I respect their right to hold their views. Most people recognise that the real reason for today’s belated and discriminatory motion is that Sinn Féin is seeking to divert attention from itself. The motion is framed in the language of liberalism, but it is intolerant, inconsistent and discriminatory.
Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ní nach ionadh, beidh mise ag labhairt i bhfabhar an rúin seo. Ní aontaím le PJ Ó Brollacháin nuair a deir sé nach bhfuil an díospóireacht seo tábhachtach: tá sí thar a bheith tábhachtach.
Unsurprisingly, I will speak in favour of the motion. I disagree with earlier contributors to the debate who suggested that it is not particularly important; it is an extremely important debate.
John O’Dowd commenced the debate by reminding Minister Nelson McCausland that he is a Minister in the power-sharing Executive. As such, he has signed the Pledge of Office that includes the obligation:
“to serve all the people … equally”.
Mr O’Dowd asked how it would be received if a Minister in England or elsewhere in Ireland said that he or she would not attend a mosque or a Presbyterian church. There would, of course, be uproar.
The word “respect” was much used throughout the debate. John O’Dowd suggested that the Minister was guilty of making a calculated insult and causing offence to more than 40% of the population of the Six Counties, and he asked why he had done so. In the latter part of his speech, the Minister set about answering that question.
Gregory Campbell suggested that people are entitled to articulate their religious or evangelical views, and that that should not debar anyone from office. He said that Simon Hamilton was greatly offended by Martin McGuinness last week. Peter Weir wondered why there was a three-month delay in bringing this motion before the Assembly. That was answered very recently by John O’Dowd when, from a sedentary position, he explained that there was a summer recess.
Peter Weir (DUP)
Will the Member therefore confirm that this was the first opportunity to have this motion put the Order Paper and that Sinn Féin has not selected other motions ahead of it?
Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin)
I do not know whether the Member is suggesting that there are more important motions, but we suggest that this is a very important motion. We went through the normal procedure to secure its tabling today.
We were told that the Minister has, so far, eminently displayed his ability to act as Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure. That would not be universally accepted in the Catholic community, the nationalist community or the republican community. If a vox pop were done, it would be evident that Nelson McCausland is a Minister who does not inspire any confidence at all in the wider community.
Danny Kennedy suggested that the motion was bad timing. Of course, there would never be a good time for a motion like this from Danny’s point of view. I think that, at one point, Danny said that he would vote in favour of the motion, but he may have changed his stance. He said that it was all about interaction with good neighbours, and he talked about partition. He then confused what the Pope said at Drogheda with what Margaret Thatcher said.
Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin)
I will not, in this case.
Unfortunately, P J Bradley said that this debate was not the most important that could come before the Assembly. I agreed with much of what he and Alban Maginness said, but it occasionally appears that if Sinn Féin says that today is Monday, the SDLP will say that today is not Monday; it is the day before Tuesday. It increasingly appears that the SDLP will say that something is black if Sinn Féin says that something is white.
Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin)
The Member is introducing a non sequitur to the debate. It is not relevant. My point was — [Interruption.]
Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin)
My point was that the SDLP, in the Latin vernacular, tends to play ad hominem instead of addressing the issues.
Trevor Lunn was much more constructive. I welcome the fact that the Alliance Party will support the motion. That is an example of a party reading the motion on its merits and individual strengths and then, in its wisdom, deciding that this motion is worthy of support: no other agendas, just worthy of support.
Peter Weir took us back to the 1500s. He felt that Nelson McCausland has become an appropriate Aunt Sally for Sinn Féin. However, if Peter were to examine the track record of Nelson McCausland in his three months as Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure with respect to a whole range of issues, he would see that Nelson is doing quite a good job of alienating himself from —
Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin)
I will not give way in this case.
Raymond McCartney said that a lot of the debate was a smokescreen and that, effectively, the Minister’s comments are a contravention of any possible interpretation of the ministerial pledge. I agree. Raymond talked about this being a product of the Dark Ages.
He reminded Members that the Minister is good at lecturing us all on a shared and inclusive future. However, ask any nationalist or Catholic member of the public about Nelson McCausland and they will echo the ‘Irish News’ letter-writer who said that he may have received a broad education, but he is extremely narrow-minded.
Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin)
I will not; I will proceed to the end of my speech now, if the Member does not mind, but I hope that he is keeping well, apart from that. [Laughter.]
David Simpson seemed to be a latter-day convert to republicanism when he quoted Wolfe Tone; I welcome that. [Interruption.]
Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin)
Mr Simpson was a good advocate for Theobald Wolfe Tone, and he asked where the SDLP stood on the motion. Alban Maginness then set about answering that question, and, again, respect was the key word for Mr Maginness. He felt that one does not compromise religious beliefs by entering a chapel where mass or a Catholic service may be taking place. Mr Maginness then went on to say that the motion was a diversion from Sinn Féin’s “profound political difficulties”.
That was Alban Maginness talking to Sinn Féin, the party that topped the poll in the European elections in which Alban failed to secure a seat, yet he lectures us on our “profound political difficulties”. He talked about disagreeing with Sinn Féin when it did not seem to make any sense.
Allan Bresland then spoke —
David McNarry (UUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you guide the House on whether it would be correct for the Member to declare whether or not he is speaking as Chairman of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee?
William Hay (Speaker)
Order. The Member should take his seat. That is certainly not a point of order.
Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin)
I will resist the opportunity to ask whether David is speaking as Deputy Chairperson of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee.
William Hay (Speaker)
Order. Take your seat. [Interruption.]
Order. Every Member has had an opportunity to speak on the motion. I certainly did not call Mr McElduff as Chairperson of the Committee; that was absolutely clear. Carry on, Mr McElduff.
Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin)
Not in this instance, David. [Laughter.]
The Member knows fine well, or at least he ought to know, that I am speaking in a party political capacity.
East Belfast Member Wallace Browne said that he supported the motion, then quickly corrected himself. He said that Nelson McCausland was a man of great integrity and high moral principle — I am sure that he owes Wallace Browne a tenner for that.
I will move to a conclusion. The Minister é féin denied that his remarks were a calculated insult and once more went down the line of saying that some of his best friends are Catholics, as outlined by John O’Dowd. The Minister said that he had been to Clonard Monastery; we welcome that. I again ask whether there is an element of incitement to those who are not theologically minded or theologically aware of the great differences of salvation, redemption and faith when a Minister publicly declares what sets us all apart.
I invite the Minister to in future concentrate more often on a public declaration of commonalities and similarities. I will end with that. I ask everybody to unite behind the motion.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 35; Noes 41.
AYES
Ms Anderson, Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Brolly, Mr Burns, Mr Butler, Mr W Clarke, Mr Dallat, Dr Deeny, Dr Farry, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Mr Lunn, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCarthy, Mr McCartney, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McGlone, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McKay, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr P Ramsey, Ms S Ramsey, Ms Ruane, Mr B Wilson.
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr F McCann and Mr McKay.
NOES
Mr Beggs, Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Cobain, Rev Dr Robert Coulter, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Dodds, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Sir Reg Empey, Mrs Foster, Mr Gardiner, Mr Hamilton, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Mr McFarland, Miss McIlveen, Mr McNarry, Mr McQuillan, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Paisley Jnr, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mrs I Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr S Wilson.
Tellers for the Noes: Mr T Clarke and Mr G Robinson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Adjourned at 5.27 pm.