Parading:  Demonstrating Respect, Restraint and Tolerance in Contested Parades and Associated Protests

Private Members' Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 12:15 pm on 1 July 2014.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Sinn Féin 12:15, 1 July 2014

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate.  The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech.  One amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List.  The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech.  All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes, in the absence of a formal agreement on a new way forward for contested parades and associated protests, that it is essential that everyone involved, whether participants, spectators or protestors, demonstrates respect, restraint and tolerance for those of differing opinions.

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker.  I trust that, given the current circumstances here in Northern Ireland, the motion will be debated in a calm and respectful manner and that comments will be helpful to the situation as opposed to being unhelpful.  It is unfortunate that, during the multi-party talks, we could not find agreement on the issue of parades and related protests.  We came reasonably close to getting an overarching agreement.  However, even if we had reached that agreement, it would not have dealt with a number of the contentious parades.  That is a major difficulty that we will have, even if we find the resolution that we are looking for.

While we accept that the vast majority of people are content to have respect and tolerance for a culture or event that they do not have any affinity with, do not agree with or do not support, it is clear that there is a section of people who will not tolerate an opposing culture or opinion.  That is not new:  intolerance has been ongoing for decades and, indeed, centuries.  Many citizens have been murdered by terrorists due to the intolerance of the terrorist community, who could not accept them for what they were, whether that was because of their religion, their basic principle of wanting to serve the community as a member of the security forces, their culture or because of some twisted or vindictive reason.  Even in recent decades, it has been an ongoing problem.  In the mid-1980s, republicans opposed parades in the Obins Street area of Portadown.  An agreement was eventually reached that the Orange Order would not use that route; instead, it would use the Garvaghy Road route.  However, of course, as we are aware, just 10 years later, republicans opposed that route, and they have stopped the parade for many years.

Around the same time, we had similar problems in places such as the Ormeau Road in Belfast, Bellaghy, Pomeroy and Newtownbutler to name but a few.  We have seen another upsurge in more recent times, particularly in parts of Belfast.  Ardoyne and Twaddell is an example of how republicans have increased tensions in the area and put a wedge between communities and community relations in general.  Of course, that is a means to an end for republicans.  Anything they can do to create problems for the unionist and British culture, they will do.

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance

I am conscious that the Member has quite a time to go.  I do not dispute the rightful condemnation of violence, but is the Member going to address any offences committed by people participating in parades that have contributed to community tension?

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

Of course.  The point that I was going to make, had the Member waited, was that, sometimes, those on parade and those supporting parades have questions to answer.  Not every action that they carry out is appropriate or acceptable.  However, small numbers on both sides of the argument are determined.

I may not support, appreciate or accept every part of society here; I may not like some events or the organisations that participate in them.  I highlight one example, as I quite often do:  the GAA.  I do not have an affinity with GAA culture or sport at all.  Some people from that organisation have given me personal abuse in the past.  However, I do not link the organisation to that; I have respect and tolerance for that organisation, what it does and how it plays its games.  I do not point out that a small number of people in that organisation do not give me respect.  I do not lump them all in as one, just as I ask others not to lump in all those in the parading organisations who do not behave in the way that most would expect them to behave.  I hope, in fairness to Mr Lyttle, that that goes some way to addressing his query. 

The point about republicans is that nothing will ever be enough.  If they do not get what they want, they will increase tensions and, what is more worrying, increase violence.  That is what happened in recent years in the Ardoyne/Twaddell area.  I have here a number of police reports going back to 2009.  If you analyse them, you will establish that a small amount of the violence and tensions came from the loyal orders and the Protestant/unionist community, whereas the vast majority of the trouble, tensions and violence came from the republican/nationalist sections.  I believe that that is what prompted the Parades Commission to make its decisions in recent times.  Why else, if it had read those reports, would it have banned last year's return parade past Ardoyne and through Twaddell?  In my opinion, it was for no other reason than the fact that the threat of violence from the nationalist/republican community was greater.  In recent weeks, the same attitude has been adopted by the Parades Commission.  It gives in to the greatest opportunity for violence. 

I will refer to my more localised situation in Newtownbutler.  For many years, parades in Newtownbutler were banned or restricted.  Indeed, they are still restricted.  If you ever want to watch an inoffensive parade, go to Newtownbutler in County Fermanagh, where you will see one small band leading a group of loyal orders, whether Orangemen or Royal Black Preceptory members, up the street.  One of the most disgraceful decisions that the Parades Commission made was when it stopped the Orange Order parade at the bottom of the lane that goes on to the main road and did not allow people to go back to their hall.  What do you do when you stop a parade?  Loyal orders normally play the national anthem.  They were stopped right outside a home that people would term nationalist.  Out of respect, the Orange Order members moved away from that home so that they would not be playing the national anthem outside it.  If they had have been allowed to go back to their hall, they would have gone inside to play the national anthem, away from any prospective trouble that it might have brought about.  That was a Parades Commission nonsense, and we still witness that to this day. 

Where will we develop the respect and tolerance that I referred to?  Over recent years, even Members of the Assembly have inhibited the Police Service in its role.  I hope that people take cognisance of this debate, but, most importantly, I hope that the Parades Commission takes cognisance of it.  At this stage, I warn that nothing will ever be enough.  The Parades Commission has insisted in recent years that dialogue take place.  We have read many of its determinations that dialogue must take place.  I can tell you that, for the last 10 months, and others will be able to relate this much better than I can, dialogue has taken place with all sections of the community in the Ardoyne/Twaddell area.  At least, I understand from the community that I represent that dialogue has taken place.  Some from the nationalist/republican community may be sore that they have not been involved in that dialogue, but that is not the fault of the loyal orders; that is for others to answer. 

The talks have taken place.  We have heard that, for the last number of years, talks were offered by the Orange Order in Portadown but rejected by the nationalist/republican community.  The loyal orders have done what they can.

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

My time is nearly up, I am sorry. 

They keep moving forward, they want to progress and they want tolerance and respect, but that is not being reciprocated.

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance

I beg to move the following amendment:

At end insert:

"; and calls on all organisations and parties involved, particularly elected representatives, to demonstrate unambiguous adherence to the rule of law.".

I rise to support the motion and to propose the amendment.  I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue.  I welcome the motion and agree that, in the absence of new arrangements to adjudicate on parades and protests, principles such as respect, restraint and tolerance should govern our approach to parades and protests in Northern Ireland.  However, the Alliance Party believes that the motion could be strengthened by an explicit reference to the need for the principle of an unambiguous adherence to the rule of law as well.  We have put that forward, and we hope that the motion as amended will receive the united support of the House today.

I do, however, hope that these words will be followed by positive actions.  On a number of occasions, we have seen statements put forward by the Executive and the Assembly but the actions following that have not met the high standards of the statement.  We have seen members of the proposing party, the Ulster Unionist Party, frankly, whip up tension by telling international mediators to go home when their party leader was in negotiation with that international mediator around these difficult issues. 

We have seen people paint the Alliance Party as anti-British in relation to some of these issues, which is a disgrace and is false, not least considering the members of our party who have given service to Britain and British values in most important ways.  Those people have talked cultural war and community tension into existence, the consequence of which is sustained dereliction and deprivation in areas that need redevelopment the most, relocation of business and reduced foreign direct investment.  It is putting our Police Service in the position of being a shock absorber for failed political leadership.  Although I do not agree with every PSNI approach, I would like to put on record my thanks to every PSNI officer who has served our community by upholding the law in some of the most difficult circumstances imaginable.  I encourage them to maintain their restraint and professionalism in those situations that they find themselves in.

I hope that the motion that has been put forward today is a departure from some of that difficult behaviour that we have seen in recent times, and I hope that we will see more leadership.  I hope that we will see more reference to the positive aspects of cultural expression in Northern Ireland.  Queen's University research has shown that the number of parades in Northern Ireland has doubled since 2005.  We now have around 4,600 parades, the vast majority of which pass without restriction in a peaceful, enjoyable manner for those involved.  Indeed, our marching bands are at an all-time high.  Some would say that loyalist culture has never been better represented.

Photo of Gregory Campbell Gregory Campbell DUP

The Member alluded to the Queen's University research.  Does he agree with me that a considerable amount of the increase can be vouched for by applications that are put in by people who have their legitimate parades thwarted and who go through the motions of reapplying on hundreds of occasions to try to get the one parade, which, if it had been granted, would have meant that that increase would be nothing like what it has been perceived by the research, and also that many of the parades that he has alluded to are not loyal order parades but are ordinary annual band parades that occur on a regular basis?

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance

There is obviously a mixture of parades.  I do not think that anybody should object to following the proper procedure in order to have a peaceful, democratic right to exercise their parade.  I will also reference the positive work that goes on in community development with many of the people involved in that cultural expression and, indeed, the fact that, in any democratic society, parading, festivals and those types of organisations should be regarded as positive and as making a positive contribution to society.

It is remiss, however, in an unfortunately still deeply divided society like Northern Ireland not to realise that there are real issues and that it will require fine human rights balances at times.  We must ensure that all cultural expression is done within the rule of law and in an inclusive manner.  Indeed, the OFMDFM community relations strategy, Together: Building a United Community, clearly suggests that all public space is shared space.  It is not an aspiration, but a principle that is set out in the strategy.  It is not, as I have heard many people falsely say, neutral or anaemic space, but is about the behaviour that takes place while you are in that space.  It should be based on dignity and respect and should not be about triumphalism or intimidation.

From the point of view of the Alliance Party, the approach to parades and protests must be based on human rights, take account of responsibilities and be about improving relationships.  There are, of course, rights to assemble and rights to a private life, key principles in the Good Friday Agreement about freedom from sectarian harassment and, indeed, the aspiration of our Executive to see all public space as shared space.  As MLAs, we should make it absolutely clear that violence never pays.  It has always been counterproductive and self-destructive and it has always divided rather that united this community.

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance

Who to?  I will take here and then here.  Go for it.

Photo of William Humphrey William Humphrey DUP

I thank the Member for giving way.  Can you tell me, as someone who has spent his entire adult life working with young people in north Belfast, how I tell people, particularly young people, that violence does not pay, when the Parades Commission rewarded the violence of republicans in 2012 and when the House, only a few weeks ago, refused to sanction a Member who willfully broke the law?  How do I tell people — how do you tell people — that violence and lawbreaking does not pay?

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance

I want to make it very clear that I supported the sanction.  I think that it was a missed opportunity for the Assembly to make clear what type of behaviour is unacceptable.  Unfortunately, we missed those opportunities on other occasions with MLAs from other parties.

I say that violence does not pay.  You tell me the state of community relations in the area where you are having to work extremely hard to repair them?  Violence and the threat of violence is not productive, and because other people behave in a violent manner should not lead you to encourage anyone else to meet that violence with violent behaviour.

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice

The Member rightly says that violence should not pay.  However, how can anyone analyse the Parades Commission's decisions on the Ardoyne and not conclude that violence most certainly has paid for those who have used and threatened it.  It has shaped the determinations of the Parades Commission, which simply bowed to the biggest stick.  Is that not the story of Ardoyne?

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance

I am sure that the Parades Commission would robustly disagree with that analysis.  I do not think it is helpful.  The Parades Commission has to consider a number of things, and once a determination is made it is incumbent on all elected representatives to uphold that lawful determination.

Frankly, words are not enough.  There have been opportunities.  We had the shared future strategy in 2005, a draft cohesion, sharing and integration strategy in 2010, Together: Building a United Community in 2013, the Haass process and now another opportunity with party talks.  Elected leaders need to get their heads out of the sand, and we need to deal with these issues.  If people want an alternative way to deal with parades and protests they should show leadership and create it, but, in the absence of any new arrangements, as the motion suggests, Parades Commission rulings must be respected and adhered to as the rule of law.

There can be no equivocation or cherry-picking of what the rule of law is.  That equivocation and cherry-picking is heard by people across our community, who take their lead from elected representatives, and it is wholly unacceptable.

A statement was released by the leaders of the DUP, UUP, Sinn Féin, SDLP and Alliance last year.  In it, they said:

"violence is not acceptable in a democratic society, nor is it inevitable".

They also called for:

"the law to be respected and upheld at all times."

They continued:

"Whatever any of the parties may believe about the wisdom of any Parades Commission determinations, it is the lawful authority dealing with these matters and its decisions must be observed."

I appeal to all elected representatives to make their actions in the coming season match those words that were set out last year.

All violence is wrong and should be condemned from whatever quarter it comes.  The former Parades Commission, however, clearly rewarded violence, and it rewarded wrongdoing.  It is important to remember that it also rewarded the threat of potential violence. 

For republicans at Ardoyne, there is no shared space and there is no shared future.  The current Parades Commission, of course, has followed sadly along those same lines of continuing to reward the threat of violence and enshrine a nationalist veto.  Rewarding violence, evil and wrongdoing is wrong.  It undermines democracy, and it undermines the rule of law.  For some 125 years, lodges from Ligoniel have processed down the Crumlin Road.  I have to say to nationalists, if they do not come down the Crumlin Road — and nationalists are happy for them to come down the Crumlin Road; they are just not happy for them to return along the Crumlin Road, even at 8.00 am or 9.00 am.  Where do they process, then, for their human rights and civil rights to be recognised?  Do they go down the Oldpark Road or the Cavehill Road, or do they go down the Cliftonville Road?  It is strange that nationalists are prepared to tolerate morning parades but that they absolutely reject an evening parade on 12 July.  Six minutes of intolerance.

I believe in civil and religious liberty.  I am a proud unionist, and I am confident of my history, tradition, culture, heritage and politics.  I am confident, and I accept others' traditions and their right to celebrate their culture, and I respect their right to do so.  "Tolerance", "respect", "accommodation" and "dialogue" are words that we have heard much of from nationalists, and I hear constantly from nationalist and republican politicians about dialogue and the need for dialogue to resolve issues. 

Around the issue of Ligoniel lodges, there has been dialogue now for over 10 years.  The current process started before Christmas, when nationalists failed to turn up.  There were intensive talks in March and April, and, unfortunately, they led to no resolution.  I have to say that when nationalists talk about dialogue, they are being completely disingenuous.  Sinn Féin, the SDLP, CARA and GARC have opposed an evening parade.  Their starting point is no evening parade, and that veto is continuing to be protected. 

The opposition to a traditional Orange parade was not simply a policy that was thought of on the hoof.  It was hatched by Sinn Féin and the IRA, going back to a speech when Gerry Adams revealed it all in Athboy, when his mask slipped.  People like Mac Cionnaith, Nelis and Rice were deliberately put in place.

How can unionism and loyalism reach accommodation with those who talk of dialogue and want local solutions when these parties campaign against parades, lobby the police against parades, lobby the Parades Commission against parades and, in the case of the SDLP and Sinn Féin, protest at those same parades, including church parades?  Gerry Kelly said last year in relation to the Orange brethren at Twaddell and the Crumlin Road:

"They can stand there all they like.  They won't be getting up."

Paul Carson recently said on 'Spotlight':

"We will mobilise thousands to come to Ardoyne if a parade is allowed up."

His words were echoed by Dee Fennell, another dissident spokesperson from Ardoyne in the 'Belfast Telegraph' last week.  I was recently part of a joint delegation to the Parades Commission, when the chair of the commission said in relation to Ardoyne:

"There is absolute rejection from what we have heard from all nationalist parties to an evening parade."

So, accommodation, shared space, shared future, dialogue, tolerance, respect — there is not any.  There is absolute rejection from all sides.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Sinn Féin 4:00, 1 July 2014

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Photo of William Humphrey William Humphrey DUP

Last week, Gemma McKenna of Sinn Féin said:

"We maintain the view that there is no rationale for any loyal order parade in this area".

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Sinn Féin

The Member's time is up.  I call Daithí McKay.

Photo of William Humphrey William Humphrey DUP

There is no tolerance for the Orange tradition in this place.

Photo of Daithí McKay Daithí McKay Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.  We will be supporting the motion and the amendment.  It is important that the motion highlights the absence of agreement, because that is the real issue here — the absence of agreement on parades, flags and the past.  When I looked at the research paper and at the speech that I made the last time that we discussed parades, it seemed like Groundhog Day; we are going over the same issues again and again.  The only way that we are going to resolve that is by engaging with the talks process that is being put in place, following on from the developments of the Haass proposals, engaging positively, and not having an eye on the next election down the road but thinking about how this will secure better outcomes for the future of all society. 

Indeed, I wish the new Chief Constable well in his role over the summer period.  The proposer of the amendment was right to say that the police, in recent years, have become the shock absorbers because there has been an absence of agreement around all these issues. 

Many parades take place that are respectful and where participants do not wish to cause offence.  They are dignified and pass off peacefully.  There are good examples, and we look to Crumlin and Derry, where accommodation and agreements can be made if there is a willingness on all sides. 

But this is not an issue that cropped up only in the past number of years; it is not something that was conjured up by Gerry Adams, Gerry Kelly or anybody else.  This has been going on for hundreds of years.  This is part of our history.  If you go back to the 1800s or back to the early 20th century, you will see that there were always issues around parades, and they have never been resolved.  This is an opportunity to resolve these issues once and for all. 

We need to learn from last year's mistakes.  We cannot afford to see a repeat of any Grand Old Duke of York act up to Ardoyne, whether that is at the behest of the Orange Order leadership or elsewhere, because that is not good for police officers and their safety, it is not good for business or the image of Belfast, and it is not good for young unionists who get involved at the interface and end up having to go into the criminal justice system, the process and the slippery slope that leads to unfortunate social outcomes.  Those are the consequences of a lack of leadership on parades in Belfast and elsewhere.

The Parades Commission should be allowed to get on with its job without being threatened by the DUP, the Orange Order and others, and without pressure being exerted by the NIO and other parties.  We need to ensure that the role of the Parades Commission is respected, because we have not come to an agreement on the way forward on parades, flags and the past.  Until we reach that agreement, I cannot see how anybody can complain about the Parades Commission, given that they did not follow through on previous negotiations. 

The public want these issues dealt with.  I spoke to a taxi driver in Belfast the other day, and he was fearful because of some of the rumours that he had heard about what might happen over the coming days and weeks.  That will obviously permeate throughout the city and the business community, and it will affect tourists as well.  The economic and social consequences of this are not a price that I feel is worth paying. 

We need to move this issue forward.  People do not want to see the policing budget spent on camps and parades and being taken away from community policing in rural and urban communities.  They want to see that money put on the front line where it belongs.

Photo of Caitriona Ruane Caitriona Ruane Sinn Féin

Does the Member agree with me that the money spent currently on Twaddell Avenue would be far better spent on welfare and protecting the most vulnerable?

Photo of Daithí McKay Daithí McKay Sinn Féin

I absolutely agree.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Sinn Féin

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Daithí McKay Daithí McKay Sinn Féin

Some of the areas and interfaces that are affected as a result of parades are some of our most deprived societies.  The proposer of the amendment

Photo of Daithí McKay Daithí McKay Sinn Féin 1:00, 1 July 2014

I will not take another intervention, sorry.

The proposer of the amendment referred to that as well.  So, those who end up being involved at the behest of some politicians' words end up entering the criminal justice system and a vicious cycle of deprivation.  We need to break that cycle.  We need to ensure that there is agreement on parades, flags and the past — issues that dog our society every summer.  People are sick and tired of it; the police are sick and tired of it; we are sick and tired of it.  It is about time that unionist parties in the House showed some leadership, first and foremost for the benefit of their community.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Sinn Féin

Before I call the next Member to speak, I remind Members of two things:  first, the actual language and text of the motion; and, secondly, to be mindful that words spoken here resonate in our community.  The mover of the motion was wise enough to remind us of that.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

The SDLP will support the amendment and the motion.  However, when you cut through all of this, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker — this may touch on the point that you have just made — in the times and weeks in which we are living and in the debate that we are having, does it not come down to whether people in every party are prepared to say today that, whatever may happen over the next two weeks, their parties will advise people, wherever they may be in Northern Ireland, to accept the decision of the Parades Commission

I make that point for a number of reasons.  First, more than any other party, last autumn the SDLP was publicly and privately profoundly critical of the Secretary of State's decision to stand down the previous Parades Commission, to reduce the membership of the current commission to five, to reduce the number of days that it works and so on and so forth.  That was because we saw, in doing that, the potential for bad outcomes.  Despite our concerns about how the British Government, and the Secretary of State in particular, conducted themselves at that time, and whatever about the democratic right to peaceful protest, we are telling people, unambiguously, to accept the decisions of the Parades Commission.  Save for the Alliance Party, we can say that with more integrity and authority than any other party in the Chamber.

Not very long ago, the party on the Benches to my right referred to the Parades Commission as "cheerleaders for sectarianism" and "obsolete".  Those words have been echoed by other parties in the Chamber too often and in too many disputes over too many years. In doing so, they undermined the rule of law.  Whether you like it or love it, the Parades Commission, as an institution over all these years, is the expression of the rule of law in our society.  So the question is this:  is every party prepared to say, during and at the end of this debate that — whatever transpires over the next days; whatever our misgivings about the Secretary of State and her conduct; whatever our views might be about the Parades Commission and the democratic right to peaceful protest — we accept the determinations?

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

I will.  We in the SDLP have found certain Parades Commission determinations over the years difficult, but we told people to accept them.  That is the standard of this debate; that is the standard of these days; that is the standard that we have to live up to on 12 July.

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

I thank the Member for giving way.  Will he reflect back to — I need to check the date, but I think that it was1998 — when their elected representatives in Portadown strongly opposed the decision to allow a parade down Garvaghy Road and, as far as I recall, protested very strongly, [Interruption.] maybe legally.

Secondly, will he reflect on supporting the petition of concern that stopped the Assembly bringing sanctions against Mr Gerry Kelly, who broke the law in north Belfast recently?

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Sinn Féin

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.  On the first point, I was with Bríd Rodgers on the Garvaghy Road when the decision was made at a political and policing level to send a parade down it.  It was the first Parades Commission that then laid down the principles at the heart of disputes in this society.  In the year that it was established, and in making the first decision about the Garvaghy Road, it said that, at the heart of disputes about parades, were relationships and that relationships needed to be resolved in order to resolve parading disputes.  It said that to resolve relationship disputes, you needed sustained, direct and meaningful dialogue.

Photo of Alex Attwood Alex Attwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

I will in a second.

That is what the Parades Commission said.  So, yes, there were times when even I was on the Garvaghy Road, objecting to what the police and the political authorities had decided, but the Parades Commission then laid down principles.  If our society, our communities, our protesters and our Orange lodges had lived up to the standards of sustained, direct and meaningful dialogue in every year since, we would be in a better place.

In the next number of days, the political parties will have to challenge themselves again to engage in direct, sustained and meaningful dialogue.  We do not need the appearance of talks, which is what we have; we need direct, sustained and meaningful dialogue.  In that space, we can create the paradigm shift that we need to resolve the multiple expressions of conflict and division that are all around us in the Chamber and in our society.

Photo of Nelson McCausland Nelson McCausland DUP

The motion refers to the need for "respect, restraint and tolerance".  Is it too much to ask, then, that nationalists and republicans show sufficient respect, restraint and tolerance to enable them to get to the point at which they do not oppose and object to three small lodges and one band returning home on the Twelfth night along the main Crumlin Road to their starting point at Ligoniel?  Is it too much to ask?  Is there sufficient respect, restraint and tolerance on that side of the Chamber to allow them to do that?

They may vote for a motion that speaks about those things, but the reality is that there is no respect or tolerance.  Five minutes — 10 minutes at the most — is all that it would take for the brethren and the band to return home.  However, 10 minutes of tolerance is too much for the SDLP and too much for Sinn Féin.  They could not even find it in their hearts to show 10 minutes of tolerance.

My colleague William Humphrey referred to the speech by Gerry Adams in 1995, in which he pointed back to 1992 and said:

"Three years of work went into creating that situation and fair play to those people who put the work in."

On the Ormeau Road and in Portadown, Fermanagh, Newry, Armagh, Bellaghy and Londonderry, the work was put in by Sinn Féin to create that situation.  Daithí McKay took us on a journey back through the centuries.  However, in the years since 1992, when the Sinn Féin machine went into operation on this, there has been a sustained attack by republicans on Orange culture and tradition, and not just on parades.  Alongside and linked in some way to it, as pointed out earlier this year by the Grand Secretary of the Grand Orange Lodge, has been the burning down of Orange halls.  In the 25 years before the Sinn Féin campaign, 39 Orange halls were burned down; in the 10 years after it began, 192 were burned down.  Between 2010 and 2012, some 114 attacks on Orange halls were reported to the police.  If burning down that number of Orange halls is not a cultural war — and I noted that Mr Lyttle said that he does not like the term "cultural war" — I do not know what it is.

As regards the parade at Ligoniel up the Crumlin Road, the first Orange lodge was formed there in 1865.  They have been parading there for 150 years.  That road is generally seen as a shared road.  It has on it a car wash, a public library, an ambulance station, a health centre and shops.  Those are, or should be, used by people from both traditions.  Is it too much to ask that Orange brethren are allowed to return along that road?

What republicans want to do is sectarianise the road.  They want to claim control of it.  The reality, in the case of Ardoyne, is that it is people who are not in the Chamber, the dissident republicans and GARC, who are the tail wagging the nationalist and republican dog.  They are scared to face them down.  Two years ago, GARC brought 1,000, 2,000 or whatever number of people — a howling mob — out onto the front of the Crumlin Road.  That was a shambles that was authorised and approved by the Parades Commission.  At the very point where Orange brethren should have been having a peaceful, dignified parade up the road, the road was occupied by a howling mob of people going down, throwing missiles and howling abuse.  Is that the sort of society that we want?

I noted that Alex Atwood spoke about the principles of the Parades Commission.  The principle of the Parades Commission is to reward violence.  Dee Fennell said in the 'Belfast Telegraph' the other day:

"We told the Parades Commission that in the past we have shown our willingness and ability to use radical means to stop parades taking place.  We said we would do so again ... We would have mobilised people and we would have blocked the road".

We have seen what "radical means" actually means on the streets of north Belfast.  Talk about dialogue.  There have been 10 years of dialogue.

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Sinn Féin

The Member's time is almost up.

Photo of Nelson McCausland Nelson McCausland DUP

What is there left for brethren there to talk about with republicans and nationalists?  Are we down to discussing the colour of the laces on their shoes?  That must be about the only thing that has not been talked about after 10 years of dialogue, and still there is no tolerance.

Photo of Maeve McLaughlin Maeve McLaughlin Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.  I support the motion and the amendment.  The motion rightly calls for the principles of respect, restraint and tolerance to be upheld.  The motion and the amendment highlight the responsibility that is placed on elected representatives.  The Assembly should, and must, endorse these principles.  Equality should not be simply a buzzword; it must be actioned.

My constituency in Derry has done that.  Derry has very clearly sent out the message that we can negotiate, take risks and accommodate.  Increasingly, in Belfast, the lack of engagement with residents' groups, the illegal protests, the cost of policing these protests set alongside —

Photo of Maeve McLaughlin Maeve McLaughlin Sinn Féin

No, I will not.

All that, set alongside the continuing work in Derry, means, as the deputy First Minister said recently, that it has become a tale of two cities.

If we are genuinely serious about inward investment, tourism, job creation and the ensuing economic growth, we also need to be serious about resolving the parades issue.  We, in the House, must all ask ourselves this question:  why is there not dialogue or negotiation with a view to finding agreement?  Negotiation should not take away from anyone's culture.  We can work collectively towards marches that are not contentious.  Equally, residents who have problems or issues should be listened to.

We should effectively take on what are our responsibilities.  After all, we are the elected representatives.  We are the people who are supposed to give leadership, come up with the initiatives, programmes or projects, and sit down in a calm, rational and mature way.  We do not have to do it in this Chamber.  We were able to do it in the city of Derry, in a process very much accommodated by the DUP's own Willie Hay.

Photo of Maeve McLaughlin Maeve McLaughlin Sinn Féin

No, I will not. 

It was a process very much facilitated through the Speaker of the House.  It was greatly encouraged by, and did indeed greatly encourage, the process of negotiation and accommodation.  It was a process that involved dialogue and risks, but it also involved accommodation based on the principles of respect and equality.  The question before us is this:  if that process can work in Derry, why can it not work in Belfast?

Photo of Sydney Anderson Sydney Anderson DUP

I must declare an interest:  I am proud to say that I am a member of the Orange Institution, the Royal Black Institution and the Apprentice Boys.  As a representative of Upper Bann, I come from a constituency that has experienced more than its fair share of difficulties over parades.  Despite what some would have us believe, the parading issue in Portadown has not been resolved; far from it.  We have just had another example of it in the last few days, and I will return to that in a few minutes.

The motion speaks of "respect, restraint and tolerance".  I agree that those things would go a long way towards resolving the problems surrounding parades.  For many decades, there was little or no difficulty over parades simply because there was that mutual respect, restraint and tolerance.  For many years, traditional loyal order parades passed off in a peaceful manner, and I believe that the vast majority of the nationalist community is still quite prepared to let the Orangemen have their day.

The parading issue has been hijacked by republicans determined to create a range of contentious parades, conveniently selected to cause maximum tension and disruption.  Sinn Féin and the SDLP lecture us about civil rights, equality and parity of esteem, but this is nothing but hypocrisy, for it is quite clear that those parties are determined to do all in their power to deny the Protestant/unionist community its civil and religious liberties.  I go further:  to me, Sinn Féin and the SDLP are guilty of bigotry and sectarianism.  Loyal order parades are Protestant parades.  Nationalists demand the rerouting of sectarian marches, but this really means Protestant parades and often Protestant Church parades.  The real sectarianism is to be found among those who oppose these loyal order parades.

All that is well illustrated by the parade planned for last Saturday in Portadown.  That one-off parade and service was simply to rededicate an arch in memory of a member of the Parkmount arch committee who sadly passed away a few months ago.  It was along a short stretch of road known locally as Victoria Terrace, which is not part of the Garvaghy Road; neither is it part of the impasse over the Church parade returning from Drumcree Parish Church along Garvaghy Road.  False assertions about the whole issue are part of the propaganda and war waged by Breandán Mac Cionnaith, who was once trained by Sinn Féin, and today is still supported by Dolores Kelly, who is not in the Chamber, and John O'Dowd, who is in the Chamber.

Victoria Terrace contains 22 houses occupied by ethnic minorities, Protestants and those of mixed religion.  I surveyed most of those homes last week and not one of the residents had any objection to the parade.  In fact, they saw it as part of our culture and they said that they had enjoyed the recent junior Orange parade at the end of May.  Some residents felt that they were being used by those opposed to the parade and no one had sought their views.  Residents also felt that they were being placed in danger because of this particular campaign.

What we are now witnessing in Portadown is another illustration of republicans and nationalists seeking to further exclude and alienate Protestants and to take control of another area, which is adjacent to and within yards of a public park, which is undergoing a shared space programme to the tune of over £5 million of EU funding.  That park has been a no-go area to the Protestant/unionist people for over 40 years, and now we have these same people trying to further extend the alienation of the Protestant/unionist people by denying them their right to walk along Victoria Terrace.

The hard-line attitude being taken by Mrs Kelly and Mr O'Dowd in supporting Breandán Mac Cionnaith sends out a very alarming signal to the Protestant/unionist people of Portadown and beyond.  It is a case of "not a Protestant about the place" and marking out more territory.

I was part of a delegation led by David Simpson MP that recently met the Parades Commission about last week's parade.  We presented new evidence and were left with a clear impression that it would consider the issue again.  Of course, that was a forlorn hope.

Photo of Paul Givan Paul Givan DUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Paul Givan Paul Givan DUP

Having met the Parades Commission, does the Member agree that, given the way it handled that decision by doing that U-turn, it has, some would say, lost any credibility that it ever had, if it had credibility in the first place to lose?

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Sinn Féin

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Sydney Anderson Sydney Anderson DUP

I certainly agree with my colleague.  We put forward an argument on that occasion and thought that the issues were being addressed.  We thought that we had put forward a very robust argument as to why this should be overturned, but the decision that was originally taken and then overturned shows that the Parades Commission was prepared to listen to untruths, because that is what they were.  As I have already said, the Parades Commission was told untruths about the people along Victoria Terrace.

There are those on Garvaghy Road who state that the parading issue in Portadown is a dead duck.  Let me assure those people that it is still very much a live issue and will continue to be so until nationalists and republicans display respect, restraint and tolerance towards their Protestant and unionist fellow citizens.  That way, Portadown and other areas can move forward with genuine hope.

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.  It is very regrettable that we are even here in the Chamber this afternoon discussing this matter.  As both my colleagues have said, our party will support the motion and the amendment, and why would we not?  When you consider what the motion suggests and says and what the amendment calls on all of us to do, why would we not subscribe to all of that?  Quite clearly, we are more than happy to support the motion and the amendment.

The remarks from Tom Elliott, who proposed and spoke to the motion, really added nothing to the discussion.  With all due respect to Tom, it added nothing to the debate.  It gave us no new information and nothing additional to consider; it merely rehearsed a number of the arguments that we hear frequently.  I do not believe that the vast majority of the public out there, if they tune into this debate this afternoon, would, first of all, be at all surprised.  I think that they are likely to be disappointed and more likely to be bemused that we are having this discussion in the Chamber today despite the fact that talks are starting tomorrow.  So, within 24 hours, all the parties at senior levels will have dedicated discussions/negotiations around this and other very important matters that are left over from the Haass discussions.  I think that most people will be scratching their heads and wondering, since we are going into negotiations, why we are having this debate in the Chamber today at all .  I would have liked Members either not to have moved the debate this afternoon at all, which I think would have been the sensible thing to do, or, in the absence of that, if we are to have a discussion, I would have liked us at least to address how we might conduct ourselves in the negotiations that are starting tomorrow.

It is very late in the day.  This is already 1 July, and the Haass talks ended six months ago.  Notwithstanding that, they recommence tomorrow, and we have had a period of party leaders' discussions on and off for the past couple of months.  Tomorrow commences a set of negotiations, and none of us knows where they will go.  Our party is very committed to making sure that they are successful and that we conclude the business laid out by the Richard Haass and Meghan O'Sullivan final paper because, quite clearly, the way to resolve these issues is through dialogue, respect and, unfortunately, regulation and enforcement, if that has to be the end result.  We have many examples — Members have addressed this already in the debate — of where parades have been more successfully conducted because there has been some local dialogue.  We have heard how the situation in Derry was addressed.  We have heard what happened in Crumlin and other places.  Even in my city, Belfast, there have been some examples of, where there have been discussions, some understanding being reached locally to minimise a lot of the problems.  However, we still have a small number —

Photo of Gregory Campbell Gregory Campbell DUP

The Member referred to a number of locations where dialogue has occurred but he did not mention Portadown.  Portadown Members are here on all sides, but my understanding is that repeated attempts have been made to get dialogue in Portadown, but that those who say they represent people on the Garvaghy Road will not have that dialogue.

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle.  The fact is that, when people want dialogue, it is like everything else:  if people are invited in to dialogue, they have to have an understanding that it will be meaningful and respectful.  It is up to people to decide — [Interruption.]

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

Order.  Allow the Member to continue.  The Member has the Floor.

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

I am doing my level best to be very patient and generous. [Interruption.]

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

Thank you, Mr Speaker.  I am trying not to rile up Members opposite because I know that, getting into this period of the year, it is quite difficult for them to keep settled. [Interruption.]

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

Order.  The Member has the Floor.

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

That is my direct personal experience of growing up in the city of Belfast, which I will never leave, by the way, because I love my city.  I do not like aspects of it, but that is par for the course. 

I am determined to send the message that, tomorrow, an opportunity will commence for all parties to enter negotiations with an absolute commitment to resolve the problems.  That is what we need to do.  That is what people out there want to hear.  They do not want to hear a meaningless debate in the Chamber that only facilitates some people rehearsing the arguments. 

Daithí McKay and other Members referred to other situations.  Ardoyne is not just a current problem.  Many would cite Ardoyne, 1969, as a milestone in this phase of the conflict.  But Portadown, 150 years ago, was a problem.  I am not even going to say where the problem emanated from, but the problem was there.  Parades in that part of the world were universally banned for quite some time because of difficulties.  For me, the legacy of what we have learned over the years has to be that, where people are committed to respectful dialogue and serious engagement, we can get a positive outcome for those who want to parade or those who feel offended by certain aspects of some parades.  Where we have tolerance, respect and a dignified celebration of our culture, rather than people going to the toilet outside chapel gates —

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

— we can get a resolution that meets everybody's needs in a respectful manner.  Tomorrow, the clock starts ticking for all the parties to do that.

Photo of Colum Eastwood Colum Eastwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

It is very difficult, as has already been said, to play any part in the debate and, at the same time, try to keep tensions reduced and things calm.  Everybody has their own perspective on the issue.  There is not just one issue but a number of issues, across the North.  People have different feelings about all those issues and difficulties.  I will do my best to try to heed Mr Elliott's advice.  Whatever the content of his speech, his plea for calmness and tolerance is the right one.

We need to acknowledge, as the Principal Deputy Speaker said, that what happens in here is heard out there and that we are in a very difficult time.  Every year, we come to this time of year, and, unfortunately, it is difficult.  Whatever people say, a lot of the issues that have already been talked about have not just arrived in anybody's in tray; they have been there for a long time.  Parading is a historic issue in Ireland and one that we have never really got to grips with.  Luckily, parades can pass off peacefully in many areas, but there are many reasons why they do not in other areas and why people feel that parades should not go through particular areas.  The bottom line in all this is that, whatever we come up with in these talks, we have a process for dealing with parades right now.  I cannot honestly see a very different process coming out of any negotiation.

The process at the moment is that we have an independent commission that decides on controversial parades.  That is as good as we are going to get.  We go to negotiations, as we do in all negotiations, with a will to try to solve things, and I hope that everybody else does the same.  However, we need some sort of independent arbiter to decide on these issues.  If people cannot decide on them themselves through negotiation, respect and long, hard slog, somebody will have to make the call.  Many times, I will not like the call and, many times, other people will not like it either, but we have to be prepared, as Mr Attwood said, to live with those decisions.  It does not mean that we cannot protest them, but it means that we have to do so in a peaceful, dignified and respectful way.  That goes for everybody, whatever the decision may be.

Members talked about the PSNI.  Over the last 18 months to two years, we have put members of the PSNI in the firing line from people from different sections of our community, and that is not good enough.  We have all, thankfully, signed up to the justice system, to policing and to the rule of law, and we need to do everything that we can to protect those PSNI officers whom we put in harm's way but also to protect the communities that have to suffer this, year in, year out.

Derry was mentioned.  I am not going to stand here and lecture anybody, because Derry is not Ardoyne, Portadown or a whole lot of other places.  However, the principle that underpins what has happened in Derry — you know it very well, Mr Speaker — is one of constant conversation, where people will get round the table when difficult issues are on the horizon and talk things through.  That is not always easy; we do not always come to it

Photo of William Humphrey William Humphrey DUP 1:30, 1 July 2014

I am grateful to the Member for giving way.  You are quite right; I do not know the situation in Londonderry but, clearly, both sides in Londonderry were willing to reach an accommodation and to show tolerance and respect.  Given what other unionist representatives and I were faced with when we went to the Parades Commission, if you are confronted with a situation where it is said that there is absolute rejection of a parade from all nationalist parties — including yours — what exactly do people who want to parade do in that context?

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

The Member has an added minute.

Photo of Colum Eastwood Colum Eastwood Social Democratic and Labour Party

Sometimes, we are all very good at talking about our rights, but with rights come responsibilities.  Sometimes, you have to step back and say, "I do not want to exercise that right today", because you think that it will cause mayhem on the streets of Belfast, Portadown, Derry or somewhere else.  We all have responsibilities to ensure that everything that we do is done in a respectful way and in a way that understands that we have to appreciate everybody else's opinion.  I encourage everybody in north Belfast and Portadown to get round the table to try to resolve these issues.  My party will not be found wanting when it comes to that; it never has been before.

Someone on the other side of the Chamber said that we were scared to face dissidents down.  I can tell you that we are not afraid to face dissidents down; we face them down every day.  I just hope that the same spirit of facing down the dissidents in our community and those who are determined to cause mayhem in the streets of Belfast or anywhere else is carried through by Members on the other side of the Chamber.

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice

Parading is, above all, an expression of culture and, particularly in our historic situation, that is how it has evolved.  Of course it is right that for centuries, perhaps, there have been instances of conflict in that regard.  However, it is indisputably clear that, in recent times, there has been an accentuation of the difficulties over parades, not by accident but by design.  That design has already been identified in this debate by the quoting of the remarks of Gerry Adams in the mid-90s, when he pointed out that what was now happening with parades, stopping and protesting about parades, was, indeed, no accident but was the design of Sinn Féin.

That is what we have seen ever since.

This year, the focus is, of course, on Ardoyne.  That is because it epitomises much of the issue at the heart of this.  If parading is an expression of culture, it comes down to a question of the capacity for toleration of others not of that culture to abide and permit the expression of pursuit of that culture.  The very fact that Sinn Féin had a hand in orchestrating opposition to that indicates where it is coming from.  That is why unionists, and I include myself, see all of that as part of that orchestrated cultural war in which Sinn Féin is engaged.  You can reduce that to a number of quite compelling factors.  One is that Sinn Féin is a party that demands shared government but is not prepared to share the public road.  It has the audacity to say, "We demand, as of right, to share in government, but we will not tolerate, permit or allow the sharing of public space."  That attitude persists.  Maybe the lesson should be learned that it is a quid pro quo in some respects. 

It was pointed out that what is asked for at Ardoyne is for public space to be processed for a few minutes.  Those who say no demonstrate their deep belligerence and bigotry in so doing.  Then, of course, they are helped on by the pernicious, perverse Parades Commission.  I say "perverse" because — take the Ardoyne decision — it decides, quite rightly, that it is appropriate for the Orangemen to leave their hall, but, perversely, that they cannot return.  Why is that being said by the residents of the area, who put themselves in the way of being annoyed by that parade?  It is another way of their saying to the Orangemen that, "There is no home for you here.  You are not coming home here.  This is not your area.  This is our exclusive, 'Ourselves Alone' area."  That is why they argue that, "You can leave it in the morning, but you shall never return to it because it is not your home." 

That is the message that Sinn Féin and the SDLP, by their belligerence, convey to those of the Protestant and unionist tradition about what should be that shared space up the Crumlin Road.  We had some sanctimonious lectures from Mr Maskey about all of those things.  They should look in the mirror and see why it is that they are so belligerent and bigoted in their inability to show the modicum of tolerance required for a resolution to the situation.

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

The Member must bring his remarks to a close.

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice

They have been told, "No talk, no walk".

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

The Member's time is gone.

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice

Maybe, if there is no walk, there should be no talk.

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance

Some Members have questioned the purpose of the debate.  I think that the opportunity to endorse the important principles of respect, restraint, tolerance and upholding the rule of law is an important one.  I thank the Members who took that opportunity and responded in the spirit of the motion.  I regret that some used the type of inflammatory language that does not help these extremely sensitive situations.

Tom Elliott rightly condemned extreme violent intolerance from some people who call themselves republicans, and I agree with that condemnation. 

William Humphrey said that, for republicans in Ardoyne, there is no shared future.  Whilst today's debate was about principles rather than individual areas or decisions, I regret that the challenge was not taken up by some of the Members and parties that it was aimed at to try to explain what their vision of a shared future actually is.  I agree with Mr Humphrey about comments from Gerry Kelly like:

"They can stand there all they like."

That is some of the unhelpful, inflammatory language that I referred to earlier.  To say that there is absolutely no rationale for loyal order parades in that area challenges some of the principles set out in Together:  Building a United Community, including that all public space should be shared space.  I think that there are challenges for all Members of the House to respond to some of those types of comments. 

We have to get away from labelling areas as nationalist or unionist.  That flies in the face of the OFMDFM Executive target of building one united community in this region, where all public space is shared space.  I think that Members, especially those in the DUP and Sinn Féin, which hold the positions of First Minister and deputy First Minister, should respond to the contradiction that lies within that. 

William Humphrey asked me what he should say to young people in his area about violence.  I encourage him to tell them that violence has done absolutely nothing for this community, other than achieve criminal records, injury and loss, destroy community cohesion and prevent community development across our community.  To engage in violence also does a great disservice to the many responsible people involved in the organisations that he said he represents and engages with.  Peaceful, lawful and democratic action is key to responding to these issues, and I am willing to represent and meet anybody who has legitimate concerns within that context. 

Alex Attwood rightly said that a core concept that must come out of today is that, regardless of disagreements, we must accept the determination of the Parades Commission as the rule of law.  He also helpfully said that, whilst rights and responsibility are important, relationships are key, and I agree with that.  If Mr Attwood were in the Chamber, I would ask him — I am sure that he can respond to this on another occasion — whether he therefore agrees that to deal with parades in isolation will not get the job done and that, although we can change the architecture for parading, we must have robust good relations strategies in place that encourage equality, good relations and mutual respect across our community.

Nelson McCausland

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

On the contentious parade in Ardoyne, does the Member agree that it is vital that local resolution not only be tried but be successful to resolve that continuing situation?

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker

The Member has an added minute.

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance

I wholeheartedly agree.  Strong leadership from the Assembly and from elected representatives is obviously key, but, ultimately, local dialogue has to take place to reach a resolution to what is now an extremely entrenched issue, unfortunately.

We again had accusations of a "cultural war", which I regard as an astoundingly dangerous and unhelpful phrase.  Nelson McCausland and Jim Allister both mentioned that.  Burning down Orange halls, attacking Catholic churches and other sectarian crimes are heinous, counterproductive and violent sectarianism, but to talk of wars against entire cultures is astoundingly dangerous, and, to be frank, to associate the Alliance Party with that at times is an absolute disgrace.  We need to get away from that type of language and get back to building the united community that we want to see.

Maeve McLaughlin said that this was an opportunity for the Assembly to endorse the principles set out by the motion, and I wholeheartedly agree with that.

Paul Givan again questioned the credibility of the Parades Commission.  This is a Member who, during an OFMDFM Committee meeting, called the Parades Commission "anti-Protestant" and was suitably rebutted by a parades commissioner whose family holds Orange Order membership.  So the credibility of that accusation towards the Parades Commission is wholly unfounded, and it is unhelpful in the spirit of today's debate.

In conclusion, an increasing number of people in our community are fed up with our inability to address these types of issues and move on from them.  Derry/Londonderry has shown leadership on these issues, and, indeed, people want to hear about other issues, such as the increasing number of jobs and apprenticeships that are being created.  People want to hear about and focus on those issues.  So I hope that is the message that we send from this Chamber today.

Photo of William Hay William Hay Speaker 1:45, 1 July 2014

I call Michael Copeland to wind on the motion.  The Member has 10 minutes.

Photo of Michael Copeland Michael Copeland UUP

Thank you, Mr Speaker.  I may not even need the 10 minutes on this occasion, which, I am sure, will be very welcome.  This portion of a debate is traditionally called "winding up", and I would say that there have been a good deal of useful contributions from pretty much all quarters, and I found something of merit in some of the things that were said by most people.  I did note a degree of winding up, which could be expected in a debate of this nature, even when it is not the winder-up who is winding up.

The truth is, if we aspire to live in a democracy, incumbent on that is the notion that you will hear things that you do not like.  Incumbent on that notion is the reality that you will see things that you do not like, and the truth is, when you take it upon yourself to restrict someone else's freedom to say things and do things, you actually challenge your rights in that society.

Parading, walking and demonstrating were the terms that I always heard used in connection with Orange, Black and Apprentice Boys' parades in the past.  Marching — and I know something about marching, having once been a soldier — does not equate to a lot of what goes on at Orange, Black and Apprentice Boys' demonstrations.  They are walks and parades, and they were not designed to give offence, following the routes that they traditionally followed.  Then, some years ago, for whatever reason, there was talk of marching, which gave, in my view, a militaristic and aggressive resonance to the parades that was not there originally.

Tolerance, respect and restraint should not only be confined to contested parades.  Those values should be present in every relationship that every citizen has with every other citizen in this country.  We can talk in this place until we are blue in the face, and the truth is that on a particular night, at an interface or at a protest or demonstration, our society will be reduced to the lowest common denominator by he who throws the first stone.

There is much myth about the content, even of the music, which, on occasions, is contested.  I well remember Michael Fisher of RTÉ pursuing me up Templemore Avenue, wanting to know why one of the better-known flute bands in east Belfast had just passed by playing 'The Patriot Game', which is a well-known tune in Irish nationalism and, indeed, republicanism.  The truth is that the band was not playing 'The Patriot Game'; it was playing a tune called 'Tramp! Tramp! Tramp!', which grew from the American civil war, came to Ireland with the Fenian movement and became 'The Patriot Game'.  It then came north of the border with the words, "No Priest, Pope or Holy Water", set to the same piece of music.  The same piece of music.

The people for whom I feel most sorry are those who have been made to feel that their sense of being is in some way unfit to be seen by their neighbours.  The people who feel that the colours that they wear render them a lesser human being and that their expression of who they are should be subject to regulation by a body such as the Parades Commission.  I am sure that body is well intentioned, but some of the decisions that it has made down the years have, on occasion, made things worse because, once you surrender the principle of citizenship in a democracy, all else — all else — comes onto the table.

God knows, the United States is an example of many good things, but it is also an example of many bad things.  Some years ago, protected by the constitution of the United States, an awful grouping of people — neo-fascist white supremacists — paraded through the Jewish district of one of the major cities, the notion being that if the constitution protected scum like them, it protected everyone.  We need to create the notion that a person's liberties and rights are not restricted by law, but defended by law.  That, at some stage, I am sure, will give a very major difficulty when the coin flips on to its other side.

Photo of Michael Copeland Michael Copeland UUP

Chris, not today.  There is an angst felt by members of loyalist flute bands.  They are viewed in disparaging terms by many, yet they are extremely democratic organisations.  They raise their own money.  Their leadership is only as good as the first vote of no confidence.  They teach young people music, and they take them off the streets, but they are castigated because of initials on a drum or because of a symbolism on a uniform.  Then they see those who castigate them for those things perambulating around with children armed with AK47 rifles, and they see sporting clubs being named after people who would be adjudicated by them as being dead terrorists.  The thing does not seem fair.  It may well be — I may be stupid — but it does not seem fair. 

It is that growing sense of resentment and feeling of being under pressure, coupled with economic decline and the removal of the great things that were once there when people were proud to go to work and make things and stamp "Made in Belfast" or "Made in Northern Ireland" on them.  They now find that education prepares them for a life of being dependent on others.

Culture is a very valued thing.  Aberrations of culture can be dangerous.  This is the ninety-eighth anniversary, I think, of the commencement of the Somme offensive.  It is coming close to 2·00 pm here.  In our time, it began at 7·00 am.  There are famous pictures of soldiers of Irish, Catholic, Ulster and Protestant heritage performing deeds that I can only stand in awe of.  Tonight, in my constituency, there will be one of the oldest Somme anniversary parades.  It will be accompanied by tension and by screens to separate the citizens of the Short Strand from the citizens of the Albertbridge Road, for their mutual safety.  There will be young people there with Union flags tied round their waists — they are young.  There will be alcohol consumed on the streets from blue bags.  All the ingredients are there in preparation for the first stone.  They do it because they do not know what it is about.  They do not know the magnitude of what took place over 100 years ago in France, yet an aberration of history drives them to express themselves in ways that will cause them no good.  The answer to this lies not in those who wish to parade, but with those who wish to restrict the basic freedoms that should be available in every democracy.

The amendment includes the word "law".  I thought that the aspiration inculcated in the initial motion made respect for law quite clear.  I served the law.  Sixty three thousand people served the law with me, and many hundreds of them were killed.  To this day, many thousands are affected by the injuries that they received, and many thousands more are affected by the mental trauma of what they witnessed.

My wife was 18 years of age when a bullet passed through the constable beside her on the Springfield Road before hitting her.  No one can tell me about the price of defending law.  I have tried to explain my thoughts to those in the Chamber as best I can.  I hope that, as this place settles down and begins to discharge its obligation towards people to defend them from the real ravages of poverty, unemployment and educational underachievement, which affect all our people, regardless of race, religion, colour, creed or gender, the sacrifice on the Somme may well have been worth something.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes, in the absence of a formal agreement on a new way forward for contested parades and associated protests, that it is essential that everyone involved, whether participants, spectators or protestors, demonstrate respect, restraint and tolerance for those of differing opinions; and calls on all organisations and parties involved, particularly elected representatives, to demonstrate unambiguous adherence to the rule of law.

The sitting was suspended at 1.55 pm.

On resuming —