Erection of Unauthorised Terrorist Memorials

– in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 3:45 pm on 11 June 2002.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Sam Foster Mr Sam Foster UUP 3:45, 11 June 2002

I beg to move

That this Assembly rejects the offensive trend of erecting memorials throughout Northern Ireland by Republican elements in memory of terrorists who tortured citizens of this state for decades by their campaign of murder, maiming and destruction and calls upon the Executive to take immediate action to remove those memorials which have been erected without permission.

The motion is important to the many relatives of those who were foully murdered by the terrorists who held this land to ransom for many years.

The erection of forms of memorial to those who for decades wrought havoc and destruction on the people of this state is, at least, highly offensive, in-your-face and profoundly insulting. It is uncaring, uncompassionate and grossly irresponsible. It is an offensive taunt to a community which has suffered broken hearts, broken limbs and broken homes and been left with heartbroken widows, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters and many orphans.

Sinn Féin still lauds, and associates with, the gunman and the murderer, despite the fact that its members now act in Government here in Stormont, as Ministers acting on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen in this part of her realm.

The preponderance of different types of memorials in Fermanagh intends to rile and hurt. The memorials are not intended for the purposes of respect — only for abuse. The most terrible lie is not that which is uttered but that which is lived.

There will be a plea on behalf of heroes today, but can anyone in the Chamber who professes adherence to a faith and belief in the Living Lord call terrorists "heroes" or "sons of the brave"? Could those who blew two of my colleagues to pieces outside Enniskillen one night many years ago be called heroes? I remember Alfie Johnston and Jimmy Eames well.

What about the terrorists who murdered Mrs Bullock at her doorway, and then went into her home and murdered her husband Tommy? What about those who went into the Earl of Erne County Primary School at Teemore and murdered the school principal, George Saunderson, as he had a cup of tea? What about those who murdered Alexander Abercrombie as he sat on his tractor, or those who murdered Willie Burleigh when he attended an auction? What about those who bravely murdered Tommy John Fletcher at Garrison, or those who murdered John McVitty at Magheraveely as he did his farming chores? What about those who brutally murdered my cousin, Charlie Johnston, in cold blood near St Anne’s Cathedral as he, a director of a travel agency in Waring Street, walked to his work? What about those who set off the Enniskillen bomb on Remembrance Day in 1987? I was present at the cenotaph on that day of carnage. Two people died in my hands. I tried to console them as they bled to death. Twelve people died in that atrocity.

What about the terrorists who caused the La Mon House Hotel hell-on-earth inferno? What about the Shankill Road bomb, Teebane Cross, the Ballygawley bus bomb, the murder of the soldiers at Narrow Water Castle, or the Kingsmills murders? What about all the individual murders that have taken place over the years? What about the Omagh bomb activists, who may eventually seek to be called heroes at some time in the future?

We had ethnic cleansing in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I have only referred to some of the many dastardly acts of murder and aggression perpetrated on citizens of that community by terrorists over the years — terrorists who are now being hailed as heroes by Sinn Féin.

Terrorists — either so-called Loyalists or Republicans — can never be accorded hero status by any decent individual. It is grossly offensive and insulting to many people in Northern Ireland.

The Hassard and Love families in the Belleek area of Fermanagh are grievously mortified by the erection of the memorial to terrorists beside where their loved ones were assassinated coming home from doing an honest day’s work. Is that action not in-your-face offensive? I must emphasise that point — it certainly is in-your-face offensive.

Since then, another memorial has been erected in Enniskillen to the memory of Bobby Sands. It is on the site where a memorial to those who died during the famine had been solemnly dedicated a couple of years ago. The words "respect", "honesty" and "decency" are not in the thinking of Republicanism — they never were, and they never will be. This is just about Sinn Féin becoming the largest anti-British party in Northern Ireland at the expense of anyone who gets in its way. It has no scruples; it rides roughshod over the feelings of everyone, regardless of the hurt caused.

I appreciate that the blood relatives of those who have lost their lives mourn the deaths of their loved ones. However, it seems that that mourning should only happen when Sinn Féin dictates and in a way that it determines. That is shameful. Does anyone believe that the erection of a memorial to a terrorist on unhallowed ground will ease the pain for the relatives? Is that sacrilege?

Republicanism does that to seek political gain at the expense of the relatives who mourn the death of their flesh and blood. What sacrilege is being played out by those who profess innocence while making lying accusations of harassment in Northern Ireland?

I have been prepared to give those who have sinned in the eyes of the Almighty the opportunity to show repentance and remorse for their association with evil deeds over the past decades — for the well-being of this state and within the family of Britons. They have failed miserably to do so. They have been given a chance to redeem themselves and to show good, honest citizenship. But no — they want their pound of flesh, and they disregard the feelings of those around them.

They have been given the opportunity to serve in Executive positions in the Assembly, despite the fact that over the years they have associated with those who endeavoured to destroy this country, burned its towns and villages, and murdered and maimed our people. I say to them: look at the hands of those you call heroes. They are stained with the blood of our loved ones and their loved ones. Can they have a conscience at all? Can they barefacedly go on with their deceit and unadulterated, undiluted hypocrisy?

Those people have ignored at least three Departments — and, indeed, law and order — in their erection of offensive memorials. However, they expound here regularly, superficially filled with pretence about other issues. The Department of the Environment — my former Department — the Department for Regional Development, and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development must ensure that their responsibilities are not eroded and overrun by Republican stridency. The Department for Social Development is also involved. Departments cannot be seen to fail their remit or their responsibilities.

Monuments, by their very nature, are political statements. Those wildcat memorials are inimical to the healing process that Sinn Féin purports to espouse. They stir up hatreds, bitter memories, and fears and feelings that we all hoped that we could leave behind.

Evidence of Sinn Féin’s being involved in stirring up community strife in places such as north Belfast, its involvement with the terrorists and drug dealers of FARC in Colombia, and its active links with other international terrorist groups, all of which is attested to by independent outside bodies and not only Unionist political comment, points to a real Sinn Féin agenda at total variance with its professed aim of healing our society. It is, unfortunately, an agenda of perpetuating strife. It is war by other means, at the expense of the heartbreak of citizens mourning their loved ones. How shameful can they get? How base can they become? There is an old Spanish proverb that says:

"Tell me who you associate with and I will tell you what you are."

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC 4:00, 11 June 2002

I have received one amendment to the motion, which is published on the Marshalled List.

Photo of Mr Eamonn ONeill Mr Eamonn ONeill Social Democratic and Labour Party

I beg to move the following amendment: In line 1, delete all after "Assembly" and insert:

"recognises the sensitivities involved on all sides in respect of the commemoration of those who have lost their lives in the conflict here, and calls upon the Executive in consultation with the relevant bodies, including the Victims Unit, the Community Relations Council, the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission to provide guidelines so that memorials of whatever kind conform to agreed criteria, and do not give offence."

I wish to explain to the House what my party finds inadequate in the motion. To begin with, the motion mentions

"the offensive trend of erecting memorials… by Republican elements", when, clearly, it is not only Republicans who erect offensive monuments.

The motion goes on, in emotional terms, to describe in a one-sided way what we all know to be the suffering of all our people. My party finds that unacceptable. The motion calls on the Executive to take "immediate action". Our amendment acknowledges that there is more to the matter than asking the Executive to storm in and remove those monuments. That approach is not satisfactory, and, therefore, we cannot support the motion.

Our amendment advocates a more proactive, equal, fair and genuine way of attempting to deal with the problem. If we wish to solve the problem, we must come up with a sensible way to deal with it. That is why we have included the bodies and responsible people listed in the amendment. Our conflict has been unique. It is vital that we consider the sensitivities of all those who wish to remember their dead.

The SDLP has no general ingrained objection to memorials. The problem arises when those monuments cause offence to other people within or without a community. We have a sad tradition in our society of being offended by the actions of others. That is not the way in which the SDLP wants to see our community continue. A serious human rights issue is at stake.

To erect monuments in a manner that is not conducive to the pledges made in the Good Friday Agreement is to fail the commitment to peace; to insist on erecting monuments where they do not have the full support of local people is to be destructive of the Good Friday Agreement’s values; to erect those monuments illegally on public grounds and to ignore the implications is a clear disregard of the principles of the Good Friday Agreement.

Some time ago, a Republican monument was erected in Downpatrick without any reference to the council on whose land it was built. In an attempt to deal with the issue, the council asked someone to take responsibility for it. No one would. It is unfair to put a public body in such a position, and whoever was responsible had no regard for how it would affect others. The council, mindful of the sensitive nature of the situation, decided to deal with it step by step. It consulted the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. The commission’s interesting response stated:

"Under Article 28 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 it would be unlawful for the council to discriminate in a manner in which it provides services. This would include access to council-owned parks. It is the Commission’s view that the presence in a public park of an emblem or display such as this monument, which is directly linked to the community conflict over the past 30 years, could be regarded as offensive by some members of the community. As such, the council could be challenged under the above Order."

The commission’s response also stated:

"Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act also requires the council, in carrying out its functions, to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between certain individuals and groups. Without prejudice to this obligation, councils are also required to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious beliefs, political opinion or racial group. The council would need to consider whether the presence of such a monument could be perceived as marking out territory and thus inhibit the use of this park by all of the community. In our view there would be particular problems from a good relations perspective if the council were to allow such displays in its facilities."

That is a clear statement of the problems that unauthorised, illegal structures create.

A similar monument to the one in Downpatrick was then erected in the town where I live, Castlewellan. Planning permission was applied for. I asked whether it had been proofed against the human rights and equality legislation vis-a-vis the Equality Commission’s opinion that I have just quoted. It had not. The irony was that Sinn Féin members of the council — in a clear contradiction of their responsibility as publicly elected officials — supported that. It was a clear indication that, for them, party politics came before the welfare of the community. They have treated human rights and equality with total contempt despite their supposed allegiance to equality — they are interested in "themselves alone".

I said that I would support remembrances as part of the healing process, and that is the SDLP’s policy. I also said that I would have no objection to a monument that had the full support of the community, the Human Rights Commission and the equality agenda.

On a radio programme, I publicly asked the Sinn Féin representative for South Down, Mick Murphy, if he would join me in supporting a monument in Castlewellan to all those who had suffered and died in our area, instead of the one he proposed, and he publicly refused. What else can one say? He was only interested in a monument for "themselves alone".

If we want to deal with equality as an issue and an agenda to be followed, we must practise what we preach, and we must be seen to do it. There is no point in talking in lofty terms about equality while doing the exact opposite on the ground and, as I have said, treating equality with the contempt of which I have local experience. Therefore, in an attempt to deal with this growing problem it is necessary to bring all those agencies on board in order to get a coherent, sensible, fair and equal way of dealing with that.

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC 4:15, 11 June 2002

Now that I have a fuller picture of the number of Members who wish to speak — and it may yet change again — I advise Members to limit their contributions to eight minutes.

Photo of Paul Berry Paul Berry DUP

I support the motion. Individuals, communities and societies like to mark and remember milestones in their history, and that is accepted across the world. However, the misuse of that which is being undertaken by those who any civilised society would look upon as fascist thugs is unacceptable. It is akin to erecting a memorial to Adolf Hitler, whom Sinn Féin/IRA backed, or putting up a memorial to Myra Hindley after her death.

A civil war is not being commemorated — it is not a war in any legitimate sense of the word. Memorials are being erected to common criminals who have killed innocent people across the Province. They are being erected to people who are nothing more than vagabonds who have raped and pillaged their way across the entire community and country and murdered workers, schoolteachers, children, women, fathers and husbands in a dirty, grubby, filthy and rotten campaign.

Memorials have been erected for people who have killed the likes of 17-month-old Colin Nicholl and two- year-old Tracey Munn in 1971 — that was a brave act. It is repugnant to decent people that a group of brutal terrorists are commemorated, the sort of thugs who murdered George Saunderson, the school principal, in Erne County Primary School in 1974. My constituency of Newry and Armagh has suffered much of the brunt of Republican Sinn Féin/IRA terrorism — Kingsmills, Glenanne and other incidents have been mentioned today.

Anthony Nolan, an IRA activist who was nothing more than a common thief, accidentally shot himself while planning a bank robbery; he is some hero. Is he the type of person who deserves to be remembered? Bateson, Sheridan and Lee killed themselves while transporting a bomb to kill innocent people. On that occasion, the evil that they planned for others was turned on them.

Memorials erected to cowards who shot people in the dark and crawled up laneways to murder in the dark is not only repugnant and obscene, but a daily affront to everyone who went about their ordinary business decade after decade while those gangsters and hoods did everything possible to murder them in their beds or at work. That is what is being glorified across this country. If we were to erect a memorial to every citizen, soldier and policeman murdered by those thugs, there would not be enough land for them all.

What makes those shrines offensive is the glorification of violence and bloodshed. They are tasteless, tactless and obscene. However, what do we expect from IRA/Sinn Féin? In contrast, the memorial to the nine civilians who were murdered on the Shankill Road consists of a street lamp.

My constituency of Newry and Armagh has borne much of the brunt of IRA terrorism. Outside Belfast, Armagh has had the highest number of deaths. Republicans were responsible for 2,140 of the 3,636 deaths in Northern Ireland up to 1999 — around 60% of those murders. They are responsible for all the deaths, because there would have been no deaths but for them. The Assembly must not forget that for every two Protestants that the IRA killed they also murdered one Roman Catholic.

Whom did those heroes murder? People like Frank Murphy, who was murdered while driving a school bus for Drumsallen Primary School outside Armagh; William Elliott, a post office inspector; Henry Dickson, a train driver; and Tracy Doak. I am sure that none of us can forget the 1995 documentary about Tracy entitled ‘No Time to Say Goodbye’. There is not enough paper to record the pain and anguish caused by Republican terrorists. It is, therefore, morally repugnant to remember any of those murderers. The Executive and the Minister of the Environment must take action.

The Assembly must do something to represent the innocent victims: people from both sides of the community who have suffered so much at the hands of terrorists; people who across the Province went about their daily duties and worked to the best of their abilities to look after their families and friends. They were stopped with such cowardice by terrorists across Northern Ireland. I speak to many victims who find it soul-destroying to see those memorials and to see terrorists being glorified for the bloodshed and violence that they caused across the community. Action must be taken to deal with those memorials; the relevant Department must remove them immediately.

I listened to Mr ONeill with interest. He stated that he would not support the motion. That is a matter of grave concern. It was of greater concern that he suggested that all victims’ names could be on the same monument when he spoke about Downpatrick. I assure the House that the victims that I have spoken to do not, in any way, want their loved ones’ names beside those of the murderers who carried out such cowardly attacks. I state that clearly.

Action must be taken on behalf of all innocent people who suffered at the hands of terrorists. The motion is about Republican terrorists who have caused so much distress and anguish and who committed many murders across the Province. The last thing that the DUP wants to see is them being glorified for the terrorist, cowardly, bloodthirsty acts that they have carried out throughout the Province during the past 30 years.

Photo of Gerry McHugh Gerry McHugh Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The motion is lopsided: it covers only one side of the story, which is no more than one would expect. Mr Foster is one of the movers of the motion. It seems that he has gone back into councillor mode. He was in that mode the last time that I remember being in such a debate with him. He is obviously spoiling for such a debate.

The amendment says that memorials should "conform" to agreed criteria. What are those criteria? However, there is not as much to argue against in the amendment as there is in the motion. No one to whom equality is important could support the motion. It does not reflect how the Assembly should approach the issue of memorials. The arguments presented so far are not the way to deal with the memorials issue. They can only make matters much worse.

The number of attacks on Republican memorials in Fermanagh and other areas is proof that all we can do is make the situation much worse. Paint has been poured on monuments and cars have been set on fire. One Unionist councillor asked that all monuments be blown to bits — so much for his signature to using non-violent methods. His words were followed by an attack on a monument the following night. There has been one attack only on British war memorials in Moy. If I am wrong, perhaps someone can put me right on that.

It has not been a two-way process. The motion is about one side; it is only about seeing victims as being on one side. That has been the argument on everything relating to victims. We often hear about the conflict of the past 30 years. Anybody who knows his history knows that the reasons behind the conflict go back to the inception of this particular statelet and the way that it was run from the start. Nationalists were entirely left out of the picture and had no part in ruling this part of Ireland. That is the backdrop for all this. It has nothing to do with the past 30 years in particular.

One need only go to any town or village, however small, in the North to see British war memorials in every one. Most of them cost a sizeable amount of money. Recently, £19,000 was spent in Enniskillen to just update the names on a memorial. We in Fermanagh District Council did not oppose that. Who was consulted about the original cenotaphs? Whose permission was asked? Did the original Stormont Government give permission for the erection of those cenotaphs?

Republicans have a right to pay tribute to, and commemorate, their dead like anyone else. There has been conflict over the past 30 years, but, as I said, the conflict has gone on much longer than that. That conflict, as with all wars, was bitter. There is no such thing as clean fighting in a war, despite what the Member opposite almost implied. We need only remember the rape and plunder committed by Cromwell in his early years in Ireland. [Interruption].

It is a reality. The Members opposite seem to have a difficulty in hearing the truth. However, it is the truth, and that is why it hurts. War is war. War was the same wherever it occurred.

Photo of Mr Sam Foster Mr Sam Foster UUP

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Does Mr McHugh equate murder with war? Is he condoning the murders that have been committed over the years?

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC

I consider that to be an intervention, not a point of order. The Member may wish to respond.

Photo of Gerry McHugh Gerry McHugh Sinn Féin

The British security forces, in collusion with Loyalists, murdered Nationalists on many occasions. Louis Leonard was murdered in his butcher’s shop in Derrylin in 1972. That involved collusion with the security forces. Michael Naan and Andrew Murray were killed in south Fermanagh as part of the pitchfork murders. They were killed by security forces — by soldiers in British regiments, who later admitted it.

There were many other murders in that area. Patsy Kelly from Trillick is one example. There have been many accusations as to which element of the British security forces was responsible for that murder. No one has ever admitted to it. Those are only a few of the murders. Nationalists were murdered, but there seems to be no agreement —

Photo of Gerry McHugh Gerry McHugh Sinn Féin

I need to use whatever time I have left, given that we have only eight minutes to speak.

We have always been prepared to acknowledge that there has been hurt on both sides and that there is no monopoly on suffering and pain. Gerry Adams has consistently told Unionists that Sinn Féin, through the peace process, wants to move to a different position. This type of debate does not encourage that.

Observers can only be encouraged by Unionists’ asking in the Assembly for something completely different for Nationalists and Republicans who want to honour their dead. This is not for their glorification; this is done simply because they believe they have that right. I agree. Most Nationalists and Republicans quietly put up memorials as a mark of respect, a tribute to their dead, to volunteers who gave their lives for a struggle they believed to be right. They were right. They gave their lives for the right reasons, as did anyone who fought in the British wars. Those people believed that they fought for an honourable cause, and that should be recognised by all sides. Unionists especially should not beat the drum that they are the only ones who are right.

Mayhem and slaughter are seen as the backdrop to history in any country in the world where Britain ruled. I am sure that most Unionists here know their history very well, but perhaps they pick and choose the parts to remember. Most Nationalists, however, know their history exactly. We have had 800 years of history here, and we do not need to be told it. The future position of Nationalists must be based on equality. Éamonn ONeill referred to picking and choosing someone to make a particular statement on a monument in his town. We cannot do that. For the conflict to cease, we must go forward on the basis that everyone has a right to honour his dead.

Photo of Mr Norman Boyd Mr Norman Boyd NIUP 4:30, 11 June 2002

I want to place on record my opposition to the erection of illegal memorials by Republicans. Those so-called memorials are deliberately provocative. They are designed to mark out territory and further insult the innocent victims of IRA terrorism. In respect of the SDLP amendment, the distinction between innocent victims, both Protestant and Catholic, and those who set out to destroy lives and property must be clear. It is insulting and disgraceful that some in the Assembly and in the community refer to terrorists and their families as victims when they set out deliberately to plan and execute heinous acts of terrorism that resulted in innocent victims. It is disgraceful that Republicans in the Chamber treat with contempt those gallant Protestants and Catholics who fought side by side and died in wars, including the world wars.

It is a scandal that terrorist families have received Government support and funding, while many innocent victims, including those who laid down their lives in defence of freedom and democracy, have received no compensation and are not even permitted to honour their loved ones. Mrs Thelma Johnston’s son David was in the RUC. He was brutally murdered by the Provisional IRA on 16 June 1997 in Lurgan, shot in the back by cowardly scum while serving the whole community. A committee of Belfast City Council recently refused Mrs Johnston permission to lay a wreath on behalf of those brave members of the security forces who had laid down their lives. I hope that those gullible and disgraceful Presbyterians who yesterday embraced Alex Maskey of Sinn Féin/IRA meet the innocent victims of Republican terrorism.

Throughout Northern Ireland, however, many illegal memorials are erected by Republican terrorists. It is a disgrace that many councils turn a blind eye to that and refuse to demolish or remove them. Many of those memorials are strategically placed to cause maximum hurt and pain. They are placed on main roads, close to where many members of the security forces and others were murdered and maimed. It is disgusting that some councils, such as Newry and Mourne District Council, maintain memorials to Republican terrorists.

It is disgraceful that Londonderry city council claimed ignorance of the statue of an INLA terrorist armed with a rifle that was erected in a Londonderry cemetery. The INLA is responsible for some of the worst terrorist atrocities, including the Darkley massacre in south Armagh; the murder of 17 people in the Ballykelly bomb in County Londonderry; the murder of the Conservative Party’s Northern Ireland spokesman, Airey Neave MP; and the murders of many other innocent people. Many other Republican memorials have been erected illegally in Northern Ireland, causing heartache for many innocent victims.

My problem with the motion is that it calls for the Executive to take action. The Executive includes Sinn Féin’s Martin McGuinness, a self-confessed leader of the Provisional IRA. At a Republican memorial rally in Bodenstown on 23 June 1986, ‘The Irish News’ quotes the same Martin McGuinness — the so-called Minister of Education — as saying

"Freedom can only be gained at the point of an IRA rifle. I apologise to no one for saying that we support and admire the freedom fighters of the IRA."

It would, therefore, add to the hurt of the innocent victims to call on Martin McGuinness when he clearly endorses the Provisional IRA’s erection of illegal memorials to Republican terrorists.

The illegal memorials must be removed immediately, and ultimate responsibility for their removal should be placed firmly with the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the Northern Ireland Office. The Prime Minister is too quick to remove essential security installations, yet he refuses to remove the illegal memorials to Republican terrorists who were guilty of the most heinous crimes.

One of the worst reminders for the innocent victims of terrorism is IRA/Sinn Féin in the heart of the Government of Northern Ireland. I have spoken to many innocent victims, including some from the constituencies of the Members who proposed the motion. I call on the hon Members Foster and Kennedy to ease the pain of the innocents by removing the Ulster Unionist Party from the power-sharing Assembly with IRA/Sinn Féin. The placing of IRA/Sinn Féin in the heart of Government over the people whom they continue to terrorise compounds the hurt of the innocent victims of terrorism. The innocent victims continue to suffer.

Photo of Mr Boyd Douglas Mr Boyd Douglas UUAP

I support the motion for two reasons: the memorials are offensive to the majority of decent people; and they are illegal because they were erected without planning permission. An illegal memorial has been erected in the village of Dungiven, three miles from where I live. It is supposedly in memory of the hunger strikers who took their own lives in the early 1980s, but it has caused much hurt to the family of an RUC officer who was shot dead within 50 yards of it and much distress to the parishioners of the local parish church, which is just yards from it. The church’s property has been damaged many times, and its hall has been burnt to the ground.

To add insult to injury, the eyesore has been erected on the only open space in Dungiven’s Main Street. It is across the road from Dungiven Castle, which was regenerated as a tourism centre using thousands of pounds of public money. There are those in the Unionist community who do not feel that they can visit that historic site because of the intimidating structure opposite.

People who have been deeply involved in terrorist activity in recent years but who now claim to be democrats have been elected to local councils throughout Northern Ireland. It should naturally follow that democrats should not only support and uphold the law of the land but should be seen to do so. However, it is clear that many who claim to be democrats are not. When I raised the issue of the illegal memorial at the council’s monthly planning meeting, the majority of the SDLP councillors did not support its removal and none of the Sinn Féin councillors was supportive, which was no great surprise.

The fact that the Planning Service has not taken any steps to remove the memorial is disturbing. Hundreds of people who pay due regard to the process and follow the correct procedures are refused planning permission. Understandably, they find it difficult to understand why others can build whatever they like, wherever they feel. I urge the Planning Service to review its policy on illegal developments and remove these offensive so-called memorials forthwith.

We can all recognise the sensitivities of people who have lost family members. However, with proper planning approval, there is enough space in cemeteries to erect appropriate memorials. It is incumbent on all elected representatives to ensure that these illegal structures are removed. I support the motion.

Photo of Prof Monica McWilliams Prof Monica McWilliams NIWC

I shall address some technical points before I consider the more emotive issue of how to deal with this difficult subject.

It would be a good idea if the Executive were to consider the issue, because it will not go away. The Executive should consult the agencies that are cited in the amendment, and also local councils.

Depending on where memorials are erected, they are likely to cause offence. The Women’s Coalition is a cross-community party that is made up of Nationalists, Unionists and others. Since Jane Morrice and I were elected to the Assembly, we have tried to understand the perspectives of the opposing sides. We always question ourselves on whether our actions give due consideration to human rights. Are we being inclusive in what we say or do? We may get it wrong at times; if people are brought up in one community, they do not always understand what it is like for the other community. Do we provide equality of opportunity, or are we acting in a discriminatory way?

The test has been difficult, but the same test could be applied to how we remember the dead. The agreement states that there is a right to free political thought and a right to freedom and expression of religion. In this country political identity and religion are often mixed up. The agreement also refers to the right to freedom from sectarian harassment. Although we are debating memorials to the dead, and given the Minister for Employment and Learning’s earlier statement, I am concerned about the creation of murals that are dedicated to the living before they are dead.

I shall give you an example of how difficult it is for Departments to reconcile their responsibilities. If a memorial is built on public land, the Department that owns that land is responsible. Councils have had to deal with that problem. If a mural is painted on a wall, the owner of the property is responsible. Lamp-posts and street lights are the responsibility of the engineering and lighting division of the Department of the Environment, and pavements are the responsibility of the Roads Service of the Department of the Environment. I made many phone calls this afternoon, and it takes several hours —

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

The Member referred to the Department of the Environment. Will she acknowledge that those responsibilities were transferred from the former Department of the Environment to the Department for Regional Development?

Photo of Prof Monica McWilliams Prof Monica McWilliams NIWC

I acknowledge that it is completely confusing, and I am glad of the intervention.

One area is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, and another area is the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development. It is good that the Executive may have an opportunity to address the matter. The situation is absolutely ridiculous, the height of nonsense. The Planning Service says that if a memorial is erected without planning permission and is considered unacceptable, it must determine whether formal enforcement action is appropriate.

I may not vote for the amendment. I would like to know who would be responsible for the enforcement of any guidelines that may be adopted. The Planning Service does not apply much enforcement with regard to what is being erected, or where it is being erected. The same Planning Service then says that there are no permitted development rights for memorials or monuments in Northern Ireland, irrespective of size or classification — there is no legislation in place. That may be something for the Executive to address.

Planning permission is required for the erection of any monument or memorial outside a cemetery. Inside cemetery walls is where they ought to be; if they are being erected anywhere else, they are offensive. It may be that local residents, depending on which community has the majority at a particular time, do not see them as offensive, but if we take the principle that we are dealing with a double minority, then the memorials will offend someone. The Executive should address the fact that legislation is not in place for memorials or monuments outside cemeteries.

I have listened to the debate, and I am disheartened by what I have heard. Ours is a damaged society — the conflict has been a terrible one — but until people get out of denial that there has been terrible hurt and desperate murder committed and take responsibility for that and commit themselves to doing something different in the future, we will go round and round in a vicious circle.

I have much sympathy for the Ulster Unionist motion — the issue needs to be addressed. Memorials are being erected all over the place, and those from the other side need to seriously consider what those memorials mean to people as they are passing by, particularly the relatives of those who have been murdered.

People who are writing sectarian scribbles on the walls of east Belfast should seriously consider how offensive and dangerous they are to people walking past them.

It is time to remember and to change. We are not ready to put up memorials around the country willy-nilly. The Executive should take the issue seriously — although no Minister is present to respond to the debate. When the Business Committee met last week it asked the Executive to decide which Minister would take responsibility. I see that they could not come to any agreement on that matter. Where does the issue go after we have debated it today?

Photo of Mrs Joan Carson Mrs Joan Carson UUP 4:45, 11 June 2002

I support the motion. As I listened to Members’ comments I thought about canvassing in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where we do not need memorials along the road. We can see the crossroads where someone was shot in the back; the tarmac patch where the bomb exploded and where several people were murdered. We cannot forget that.

I agree with Ms McWilliams that we have to look forward. Here we have an instance of coat-trailing by one side of the community trying to perpetuate the problem.

We have so many insensitive IRA monuments erected in public places, causing great distress to the families of people murdered by those named on the monuments. It is claimed that those named on the monuments were on active service. The term "active service" implies a recognised army or battle situation — not the actions of a sordid terrorist organisation that ambushed and murdered unarmed civilians going about their day-to-day business. The weasel words of "active service" are used to try to cover the fact that IRA members were actively seeking innocent members of the public to murder. Thankfully, many people were saved from further outrages by the security forces.

Remembrance is an important part of our healing process. It ensures that those who went before us, and their contributions to society, are not forgotten. We have monuments to the dead of both world wars, and I emphasise that they commemorate people from both communities. I am a proud Enniskillen person, born and raised in the town. I recognise people from all parts of the community. During the world wars, it did not matter whether someone was a Roman Catholic or a Protestant. People were proud to serve in the two regiments, and their names are on war memorials. Please let it be recorded in Hansard that it was not a sordid campaign.

There are memorials to the dead from both communities in both world wars. There are also monuments to tragedies, but our most common memorial is the headstone of the family grave. Those memorials are dignified and respectful, but to equate a traditional monument with that of an illegal terrorist organisation is repugnant and insulting to all ordinary people. The victims’ families have to pass such monuments on the roadside, and it brings back terrible memories each time. The pain endured by the families does not lessen with the passage of time. In Fermanagh and South Tyrone there are too many roadside IRA monuments.

I am concerned by Sinn Féin’s inflammatory actions and words. Its members involve themselves in public displays of contempt and hatred, which only further divide society. This is the same party that talks so much about equality and peace. A Sinn Féin Member from Fermanagh and South Tyrone stated in a BBC report that the positioning of a monument at a Belleek crossroads was justified. The same person admitted that those mentioned were on active duty. She also stated that the RUC and Royal Irish Regiment monuments were in public places.

Monuments to the Army, the RUC and the Royal Irish Regiment are kept in churches, graveyards, security buildings or on Government property. The only truly public memorials are war memorials to commemorate — and I say it again — both Protestants and Roman Catholics who died in two world wars. They are poignant reminders to the public of the terrible price paid for fighting fascism for the common good. The IRA is simply an extension of the evil that plagued the world more than 60 years ago. Churches and graveyards are a testament to the price that we paid to ensure that madness did not destroy our freedom.

If terrorist groups wish to have memorials, they should consider asking whether they could place them in the graveyards and churches of their own denomination or allegiance, where they will not cause offence. They should consider that; there are already some in graveyards and burial grounds.

All plaques, memorials and monuments on public sites require planning permission. I call on all the Departments to co-ordinate their efforts to ensure that these illegal memorials, with their pseudo, copycat trappings of conventional war memorials, are removed from our roadsides, forestry plantations and historical graveyards.

Photo of Mr Oliver Gibson Mr Oliver Gibson DUP

I support the motion. At times we have been guilty of missing the main point of this debate. I do not call these objects "memorials". They are wayside platforms for the promotion of the political activists who have supported terror in this country. This is another part of the IRA/Sinn Féin terror campaign. It is a form of political and institutional terror and a way of dominating the landscape.

Every one of these memorials, as they call them — I call them the political platforms for the activists turned political terrorists — are for the draft dodgers, the quartermasters, the suppliers, the finger pointers and all those who have been part of a unique campaign of genocide, particularly in the west of the Province. Let us not forget that the IRA strategists who control Sinn Féin have not changed their great ambition. They view this as part of their campaign to deliver a Republican, united Ireland. This is simply a stepping stone. We have seen how they have changed their tactics over the years.

I was delighted that Gerry McHugh admitted in his speech that it was murder; that is the first time I have heard a member of his party admitting that what was carried out was murder. However, he went back to the old Republican phrasebook when stuck for a little ammunition and talked about 800 years of British misrule. I will pose him some questions. Who murdered at the rate of 27 to one in the Irish civil war of 1921-22 — was it not the so-called Irish who killed the Irish? Will he tell the Assembly whether the 10 who were exhumed by the Southern Government and re-interred recently in Glasnevin Cemetery were pro-treaty or anti- treaty? Had they survived their jail term, would they have been murdered by their own?

It is interesting that Mr McHugh made one slip in all this, supporting the erection of terrorist platforms by the waysides so that almost weekly they could have another campaign to make sure that the Young Turks and the older troops would be ready, accessible and amenable. That is what they are about. Therefore I would never dignify the activities of the IRA and its campaigns of murder with memorials. My constituency has too many bitter remembrances of those occasions. I could mention Teebane and Ballygawley Road, one, two, and three — they are all multiple murders. Most people have forgotten Teebane. I could mention the Royal Arms Hotel murders, the Knocknamoe murders and, of course, the Omagh bomb murders.

This was not just a terror campaign of genocide — it has moved on to domination. Believe it or not, I was surprised at the SDLP, which has again shown tremendous weakness. That party is always urging us to take leadership and move forward. However, Éamonn ONeill said that Sinn Féin treated equality with contempt; that theirs was a "themselves alone" programme. Having admitted that Sinn Féin is all about "themselves alone" and that Sinn Féin treated equality with contempt, that Mr ONeill lacks the courage or wisdom to support the motion displays a terrible weakness in SDLP thinking

We must be wise to the real issue. Terror comes in many forms, such as the physical form of murder; there have been 97 murders in my constituency. It can also come in institutional forms. It can come in the form of the stoning of school buses or of quiet, insolent contempt for everything that is Unionist.

What threat is a small Orange lodge of 22 members to a massive Republican community? The church is in Carrickmore. Twenty-two local farmers and labourers going to a Sunday service — what threat could that pose to the massive Republican stronghold of Carrickmore? It cannot be tolerated; that is what Sinn Féin means by equality. Similarly, Mountfield is a Republican stronghold; out of seven councillors, it produces four Sinn Féin members. What threat would a wee Orange lodge of 27 members be to that community? It cannot be tolerated.

My time has run out. I support the motion.

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin 5:00, 11 June 2002

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to make a few comments. I agree with Mr Gibson that the places he mentioned present no threat to anyone. It is an absolute disgrace that anyone would consider them as such. The difference is that I can say that an attack on an isolated Orange hall is absolutely and fundamentally wrong and goes against any Republican principle. I disagree with that entirely.

However, the same people will never speak out about Catholic churches in east Belfast or other isolated Catholic communities that have been under attack. They will somehow always fall back on the notion that such attacks are reactive, that they are a reaction from the community to some greater misdeed that was done to their community. That is the difference. Isolated communities on whatever side should be allowed to live in peace. Mr Gibson, who has since left, should consider some of the actions carried out by people from his community and treat them with the same seriousness.

The motion’s tone has set the standard for the debate, which has been largely predictable. It shows how far we must go if we are to engage in any reconciliation process. Sam Foster spoke about people not having any honesty, integrity or dignity. He reverted to that type of language when talking about us. That struck me because the same people who share Committees with us here and who support the d’Hondt principle — that we will take the rightful places that we are entitled to by the number of votes that we receive — will walk out of a council meeting because a Sinn Féin member is elected chairperson.

There is a lack of integrity in Unionist representatives when they can do business with Sinn Féin and support the elections of its members in Chambers such as this, yet huff and puff in other chambers and walk out when Sinn Féin is elected. When we talk about honesty and integrity, we must look at ourselves first and foremost.

I agree with the sentiments of the amendment. Monica McWilliams

Photo of Mr Sam Foster Mr Sam Foster UUP

When the Member speaks about integrity and otherwise at councils, is he referring to me?

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin

I heard Mr Foster’s opening remarks on the monitor. If I heard correctly, he questioned the honesty and integrity of Republicans and Republican elected representatives. In this institution, his party and Unionists support the right of Republicans to the positions to which they are entitled, and they have voted in support of that and d’Hondt. However, recently in Belfast City Council, members of his party, including Ministers who benefit from the d’Hondt mechanism, walked out of a council meeting when Sinn Féin got its just entitlements as the largest party on that council. When talking about honesty and integrity, one should look to oneself first and foremost.

I agree with the sentiments of the amendment. It talks about "agreed criteria", and that term is not defined. Monica McWilliams raised questions about the amendment. An agreed set of procedures for erecting monuments is something that we could go along with.

There was some irony when Éamonn ONeill said that the behaviour of Sinn Féin in Downpatrick was hypocritical because it flew in the face of supporting the equality provisions. The irony is that the monument was erected to an unarmed person who had been shot dead by the RUC. He was left to bleed to death in the street, and that was a breach of his human rights. However, the MP for the area at the time said that he felt that the RUC had acted appropriately in the action it took, in allowing an unarmed man to bleed to death in the street. That is a challenge to its support of human rights, which it has lauded over the years.

The Unionists who proposed the motion object to the erection of illegal monuments, and that is what the motion is focused on. On the one hand, I can see that that might be the case. A monument was erected in my village in 1991. Planning permission was sought, a lay-by was built and agreed by the Department of the Environment, and there were no objections from local Unionists.

However, when Republicans in Newry sought the agreement of the council some months ago to find a site for the erection of a monument to commemorate the hunger strikers, Danny Kennedy lodged very vocal objections, even though the people involved had worked with the council to try to identify a site and had located the monument on a site that the council had suggested, not one that they themselves had chosen. That begs the question: are people really worried about whether monuments are legal or illegal or about the fact that there are monuments at all?

Members have said that the location of monuments is insensitive. Gerry McHugh made the point that there are monuments to those who fought in the British Army in every town centre. From the roof of Woolworths in Newry, less than 50 yards from the cenotaph, the British Army shot dead three young men in the early 1970s. No one, as far as I am aware, has objected to the location of the cenotaph in the middle of Newry or has tried to have it removed. It stays there and people are entitled to have their remembrance. However, it is a monument to those who served in an army that murdered people on the streets of that town. Newry is a largely Nationalist town, and no one has objected to the cenotaph.

There is a tradition that people are sensitive to how remembrance is conducted. The media are all obliged to wear poppies in November in remembrance of the British Army, regardless of their political, religious or personal affiliations. I ask the movers of the motion how they think Jean McBride, the mother of Peter McBride, feels when the people providing a service to her are obliged to wear poppies to commemorate the British Army that murdered her son and re-employed those who were found guilty of that murder.

There are sensitivities on the other side to people they consider to be legitimate war heroes, as there are to people engaged in legitimate war on our side of the fence. All the sentiments expressed by Paul Berry could be expressed by someone from a Republican community about the RUC, the UDR or the British Army. They could all reflect the same sentiments of people murdering those who were trying to go about their business, who were innocent or who were not even involved in conflict. Murders have been covered up.

There is talk of sensitivity and monuments being located in sensitive areas. There is hardly a town centre in the North that does not have a monument to those who have fought and served in the British Army.

Photo of Conor Murphy Conor Murphy Sinn Féin

I have very little time, and I cannot give way. However, I will address a point made by Joan Carson. There are monuments at roadsides as well as cenotaphs in towns. There is one on the way to Kingsmills, not far from where Danny Kennedy comes from, and there is one in Castlewellan to UDR members who were killed there.

That does not stop the Unionists who talk about sensitivity from travelling round the South. There is hardly a road or town in the South where there is not a monument to someone from the IRA who was killed during the war of independence. Nationalists and Republicans erect monuments in a different way to Unionists, who erect cenotaphs in town centres.

I have run out of time. We need to address a process of national reconciliation. Unionists seem to be fixated with the idea that they are right and that there is a necessity to prove that they are right. That means running down anything that Republicans try to do. That will not lead us to national reconciliation. I accept that we should be sensitive as to how we commemorate our dead. Unionists must learn that the commemoration of British Army war dead is a very sensitive topic for people on my side of the fence.

Photo of Michael McGimpsey Michael McGimpsey UUP

I support the motion. I also want to look at the amendment proposed by Mr Tommy Gallagher. In it he talks about the need for criteria and referring the matter back to various bodies, including the Executive. It is important for Members to reflect that a criterion already exists; it is called the planning law. Any memorial requires planning permission, and the erection of a memorial without planning permission is illegal. Every one of the memorials that have gone up without planning permission is illegal. That is the law.

I have served on the planning committee at Belfast city hall for many years. Many Members are similarly aware of planning law, because they deal with it on a daily basis in local councils. Development, as defined in article 11 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, is:

"the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land."

"Other operations" is a catch-all term for any physical operation.

The memorials that we are debating are illegal because they do not have planning permission. The question then is what to do about them legally. Action can be taken by way of an enforcement notice against the person or organisation that erected the memorial and the landowner. That action is available to the Department of the Environment. Planning applications were not submitted for many of those memorials, and no one claimed ownership of them, which makes the enforcement process difficult. However, other action can be taken; the landowner has the right to clear his land of anything that people put on it.

The land on which many of those memorials have been erected belongs to Departments. The point has been well made in the debate that Departments have a duty to ensure that the law of the land and planning regulations are enforced. The issue is an emotive and a difficult one, but that does not excuse the breaking of the law by Mr Conor Murphy’s organisation in each and every one of those cases.

I have spelt out the criteria. There is no need for the amendment. The matter may be difficult, emotive and sensitive, but those are the criteria, and the process of obtaining planning permission and permission from the landowner must be adhered to. That is the way forward.

I support the substance of the motion for reasons that have already been mentioned in the debate. Sam Foster and Mrs Carson referred to the memorial erected in Belleek to IRA volunteers who carried out acts of murder. It is not located where the IRA volunteers died, but it has been erected at the spot where they carried out that act of murder. Two men travelling in their car were singled out and murdered by the IRA. The IRA/ Republicans put up a memorial on that spot.

Not only were the IRA saying that those men had no right to exist, which is bad enough; they are now attempting to say that they never existed, which is monstrous. That is the reason I support the motion. That act is not simply insensitive, intolerant or inequitable; it is absolutely monstrous. They are looking to eradicate the existence of those men by erecting an IRA memorial on the spot where they died. That is disgraceful and outrageous.

The place for memorials is often in graveyards. That is recognised by the authorities, because planning permission to erect a memorial in a graveyard is not required. Permission is required from the owner, which, in many cases, is the local council. The Republican plot in Belfast is a case in point. Republicans have the opportunity to erect memorials to their dead in that plot, and it is an appropriate way for them to grieve for and to remember those friends and family members that they have lost.

Mr Conor Murphy referred to war memorials in many towns in Northern Ireland. Those are memorials to the dead of two world wars — the two greatest wars in history, in which millions of people died, including many from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland and people from right across these islands.

Those memorials are different from monuments to people who set out to achieve a political aim that they could not fulfil by democratic means. An overwhelming majority of the population rejected those political aims, so the terrorists resorted to terror in an effort to achieve them. They failed, and that is why Members are here today. The Assembly is trying to rebuild society and to deal with its pain and scars. That will not be done by erecting memorials on roadsides and at inappropriate spots that cause great hurt to the community. A graveyard is the proper place for a memorial.

If planning permission and the landlord’s permission to erect the memorial were obtained, nobody would object; however, that did not happen in the cases outlined. The erection of a memorial in Belleek was monstrous. The only course of action is to ensure that the landowner and the authorities take the necessary steps. The attitude of Republicans, including those in the Chamber, is a formula for conflict.

Republicans are denying Unionists the right to exist. That is evident in the blocking of roads; for example, Ormeau Road was blocked during an Orange march that consisted of only two or three dozen Orangemen. Those Orangemen’s culture, identity and right to exist are being denied. They are being told that they have no right to be there. Republicans have still not learnt that Unionists have a right not only to exist, but to be part of a democratic and free society.

There is no case for the amendment, which should be voted against. There is an overwhelming case for the motion.

Photo of William Hay William Hay DUP 5:15, 11 June 2002

There have been extremely lively debates on the issue in council chambers across the Province. In the city of Londonderry in the early 1970s, the IRA decided to kill company directors, including the head of DuPont, who was shot dead as he returned from work by gangsters who waited for him outside his house. I know of other company directors in Londonderry who were shot dead by the IRA. The IRA, during those years, felt that it was necessary to "take out" the directors of major companies throughout the Province. The IRA has also murdered young children, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters.

For decades, the Republican movement has carried out a terrorist campaign without shame. In the Foyle constituency the IRA shot dead a young policeman and returned a year later and shot dead his only daughter. This afternoon, Members have heard about people’s rights. The Republican movement in the House has tried to equate terrorists’ monuments to cenotaphs throughout Northern Ireland.

In my city of Londonderry wreaths that were laid on Remembrance Sunday by many organisations have been torn apart and taken off the cenotaph two hours later on many occasions. We in Londonderry know all about Sinn Féin/IRA’s rights, as they call them.

We need to be clear about what the debate is about, and I know some Members equate those monuments to memorials in graveyards. A Republican movement took over a graveyard in Londonderry to erect a terrorist monument, and that movement stayed in the city cemetery for several days. Even today, many Protestants whose relations are buried there cannot go near it. The monument was so high that it was a total insult not only to the many Protestant people there but to many in the Nationalist community. I invite anyone in the House to look at that monument and ask himself whether this is about rights when he sees that monument towering above the other gravestones. A Republican organisation practically takes over a graveyard, threatens the people there and erects a monument, and Sinn Féin/IRA talks to us about rights.

In another instance in Londonderry it has taken over Roads Service land to erect other monuments, and, once again, it has used force. We can have all the planning laws we want, and the Executive can do whatever they want, but those people just take over areas in my city by force and erect monuments. Anyone who enquires about what is happening is threatened.

The problem in Northern Ireland — and it has been so for many years — is that terrorists are happy to threaten and murder people and break the law to erect monuments because they know that they have a weak British Government that will do nothing. There is a feeling among Republicans that they can do anything here, and if they want a monument on any piece of land, they will use whatever brutal force is necessary to ensure that it is erected.

I support the motion. However, I do not know what will happen now, given that there is still an armed wing that is prepared to take over land to erect monuments. There is a serious issue of law and order in Northern Ireland.

Photo of Mr Tom Hamilton Mr Tom Hamilton UUP

I say at the outset that, having listened to Mr Conor Murphy, I know of no spectacle more offensive and ridiculous as the Republican movement in one of its periodic fits of pretentious morality. I support the motion so ably proposed by my Colleague Mr Foster. There is a difference between graveyard monuments and memorials in places where the individuals who are commemorated are buried and monuments in open, shared places of public concourse.

Dublin, for example, has many sites associated with the 1916 Easter Rising. However, the Republican memorial is at the Republican plot in Glasnevin Cemetery. The city is not littered from one end to the other with memorials. Memorials in public places should command broad public support. War memorials to the fallen of forces that represented the legally elected Government of the day are one thing. Custom and practice have meant that war memorials have always been sited in prominent public places — usually town centres.

Monuments for the fallen of an insurgent terrorist force that is responsible for killing many ordinary, innocent citizens in a cold-blooded and premeditated way are offensive to most of the population. If such monuments must exist, they should be confined to the cemeteries and graveyards where those whom they commemorate are buried; they should have the appropriate consent of church authorities. Memorials should not be politically provocative and should not be sited in politically provocative places. It seems that Sinn Féin is hell-bent on deliberately seeking out sites that will be provocative and are designed to hurt. Such sites represent in-your-face Republicanism.

Ordinary planning rules are inadequate to deal with what is essentially a political issue. A judgement on whether a monument is aesthetically acceptable or in some way damaging to local amenities is not enough. Those monuments, by their very nature, are political statements. One is almost tempted to suggest that a solution might be to have such memorials subject to a body like the Parades Commission, because they have the same politically charged nature as many of the parades that are deemed contentious by some people.

Those wildcat memorials run deep against the healing process that Sinn Féin purports to espouse. They stir up hatreds, bitter memories, fears and feelings that we all hoped could be left behind. When considered alongside other evidence, such as Sinn Féin’s involvement in stirring up community strife in north and east Belfast, its involvement with the terrorists and drug dealers of FARC in Colombia, its active links with other international terrorist groupings — all of which is attested to by independent external bodies, not only Unionist political comment — all point to a real Sinn Féin agenda that is at complete variance with its professed aim of healing Northern Ireland’s society.

It is an agenda for perpetuating strife. It is war by other means, and I support the motion.

Photo of Mr Maurice Morrow Mr Maurice Morrow DUP

As my Colleagues have intimated, we will be supporting the motion.

I find the amendment quite offensive. It is despicable that the SDLP should use this opportunity to try to cover again for Sinn Féin/IRA. It is also most regrettable that the Minister of the Environment is not here. Whether he has full or partial responsibility, he should be speaking in this debate, but this is not the first time that that Minister has held the House in contempt, and we know that.

I am quite offended at the SDLP’s attempt to amend the motion. Its amendment states that everything after "Assembly" should be left out and the following inserted:

"recognises the sensitivities involved on all sides in respect of the commemoration of those who have lost their lives in the conflict here,".

If ever there were a misnomer, a misuse and abuse of a word, it is the use of the word "conflict". That is highly offensive and insulting. In Northern Ireland, a bunch of hoods, thugs and corner boys became murderers, and that is now described as a "conflict" — it is anything but. It is highly offensive and insulting of the SDLP to say that this was a conflict. It was unmitigated terror, perpetrated by those who made every attempt to overthrow the legitimacy of the state. They have shown in the crudest, rudest and most fascistic manner their disrespect for everyone who does not agree with them.

Is it not time for the SDLP to come clean on these issues? Is it not time that the SDLP stopped giving cover to Sinn Féin/IRA? The time has come for that party to stand up and be counted and demonstrate in clear, unambiguous terms that there is clear water between it and Sinn Féin/IRA.

Photo of Mr Maurice Morrow Mr Maurice Morrow DUP

I have no connection with the LVF. If you want to take me up on that point, I am happy to do so. It gives me no trouble whatsoever to condemn that group. I want no monuments to the LVF, and I hope that you understand that. That is not what your party’s amendment says.

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC

The debate will take place through the Chair, not across the Chamber.

Photo of Mr Maurice Morrow Mr Maurice Morrow DUP

The amendment says that that party feels that there is a place for these monuments. There is no place to elegise terrorists. I do not care from what side they came. Anyone who knows me in public life — you have not known me long, but you can visit my council and see if I have been ambiguous in my condemnation of terrorism, from whatever quarter. I do not put any ifs, ands or buts into that, as some Members try to. I want no monuments to any terrorists at all. I hope that you, Mr Dallat, fully understand that. If you need it written out in big print, I will do that.

Photo of Ms Jane Morrice Ms Jane Morrice NIWC

Order. I repeat that I will tolerate a certain amount of cross-chat, but the debate will take place through the Chair and not across the Chamber.

Photo of Mr Maurice Morrow Mr Maurice Morrow DUP

The brutal campaign of terrorism that has been waged over the past 30 years in Northern Ireland must not be glorified in the monuments that are being erected willy-nilly across the country.

They are intended to offend and insult, and that is what they do. They are intended to carry on the war by another means. As has been said, our graveyards are a poignant testimony to what has gone on here for the past 30 years. We do not have to walk far from the Chamber to find the first monument to terrorism. Step out through the Door of the Chamber and on the right-hand side are two memorial inscriptions dedicated to three innocent people who were done to death by Sinn Féin/IRA. Cross the Great Hall to the Senate, where there was a service recently, and there are memorial inscriptions to Senator Paddy Wilson of the SDLP and Senator Jack Barnhill from Strabane, both brutally done to death. It is right and fitting that their memories should be lasting. I appreciate and applaud the fact that there are memorials by which to remember those two gentlemen. I understand that there will soon be another inscription to remind us of what happened. I am not selective in my condemnation, nor as to who should be commemorated.

Do we need to be reminded of the Shankill Road fish shop, Teebane, Kingsmills, La Mon, Enniskillen, Omagh, Glenanne, the Ballygawley-Omagh road, Ballykelly, Narrow Water or Darkley Pentecostal Church? Those are but a few of the atrocities that we have had to live with and to endure, not to mention the gunning down of many individuals who were going to or coming from work, were at their place of work or were working on their farms.

Sinn Féin/IRA claims to represent working-class people. I am working class. I am neither proud nor ashamed of that. The vast majority of people who were gunned down were working class, trying to earn a living from a hard day’s work. Yet those people were seen as legitimate targets and were done to death. Some of them could not afford to buy a car and, as they cycled to work to earn a living in order to bring up their families, the people on the opposite Benches, who are associated with SinnFéin/IRA, gunned them to death. Yet these are the very people we are told must be remembered.

Another justice was meted out in my town at the weekend. I could go on and on, but my time is up. I support the motion.

Photo of Tommy Gallagher Tommy Gallagher Social Democratic and Labour Party

I want to deal with a comment from the member for West Tyrone, Oliver Gibson, who referred to a weakness in the SDLP in tabling an amendment. An amendment that recognises that there are sensitivities on both sides of the community is not a sign of weakness. On the contrary, it is a sign both of leadership and a readiness to take up the challenge of dealing with difficult issues. In relation —

Photo of Tommy Gallagher Tommy Gallagher Social Democratic and Labour Party

I will not give way. If Maurice Morrow takes offence from an amendment that recognises that there is hurt and grief on all sides, such comments from an elected representative are an indication that some people in this society have a very long way to travel.

The amendment deals with the problem of memorials and monuments in a logical and sensible way. The motion will not.

The proposer of the motion and the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure referred to the required planning permission for the monuments. Monuments have been erected regardless of planning permission, and, if this motion were passed and the monuments taken down, experience tells us that they would be erected again. Therefore, the amendment, not the motion, will address the problem. If the amendment is passed, it will ensure that the Executive, following consultation, will implement fair and workable guidelines.

It is four years since the Good Friday Agreement, and in that period many people throughout the island, especially in the North of Ireland, have experienced real improvements in their lives. That, however, has not been the case for everyone. There are many bereaved families on both sides, and they must endure daily the pain and loss of a loved one. For them, the relative peace brought by the Good Friday Agreement does not assuage the pain of their loss. Instead, it has brought a heightened awareness and a deep sense of the futility of a conflict that robbed so many of life. For some bereaved families, it is essential to remember the past and to have commemoration rituals.

The amendment recognises each side’s need to remember its dead and to commemorate the past. As Members know, a problem arises if monuments are erected in a manner or at a location that offends or hurts others. That is why the erection of the monument to dead IRA men in Belleek, where I live, has become so controversial. The IRA men whom it commemorates were killed many miles from Belleek, but the monument is on the very spot where that organisation murdered two Protestant workmen. The memorial has caused hurt to the families of those workmen and has met with strong disapproval in the local community. For the benefit of those Members who might support the motion, representatives of one of those Protestant families, the Hassard family, have said publicly that they have no problem with Republicans’ commemorating their dead. However, they are hurt by the insensitive way in which the Republicans erected the monument.

Northern Ireland has many memorials and monuments, some of which were mentioned, and some of which are controversial. Controversy is inevitable when a divided and hurt community bitterly remembers its dead. It will take time for those memories to fade. It has taken time in every other country that has experienced a conflict such as ours. In the Republic of Ireland, it took 70 years before the civil war could be remembered with a national day of commemoration. No healing can take place while memorials are hijacked for political purposes and there is a complete lack of understanding of the pain and hurt experienced in the other community. With the amendment, we can find a way to undo the damage that has been caused by the erection of some memorials and the way in which the issue has been handled.

My Colleague from Fermanagh and South Tyrone and Conor Murphy asked about the criteria. The criteria have not been drawn up.

However, we know from the consultation outlined in the amendment that criteria will be included that are based on fairness and equality. Ms McWilliams raised the genuine point about who will enforce the criteria, and we need answers to that. I have no doubt that when the Executive are given time to complete their consultations, they will give us answers. However, they must first be allowed to begin those consultations, and the only way in which that they can do that is if we pass the amendment. I ask Members to support the amendment.

Photo of Mr Oliver Gibson Mr Oliver Gibson DUP 5:45, 11 June 2002

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is there anywhere in Northern Ireland that supplies yellow marble?

Photo of Danny Kennedy Danny Kennedy UUP

Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise to you for my non-attendance at the beginning of this important debate. I also apologise to Members and to those who participated earlier. I would also like to record an apology to my co-sponsor, Mr Foster, and thank him for his contribution. Unfortunately other business prevented me from attending, but I am grateful that there have been several contributions. I particularly want to thank those who agreed with the motion.

In recent months and years we have witnessed a determined campaign by Republicans to create memorials in the Northern Ireland landscape that offend decent, law-abiding and God-fearing people. The memorials are placed deliberately and provocatively close to commercial centres and places where people are known to gather. They honour individuals who may at best be described as highly dubious, but more accurately as bloodthirsty murderers.

The groups that erect the memorials do not care about the real emotions of the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives to the so-called Irish patriots whom the statues honour. It often seems that determined efforts are made to maximise the victims’ hurt by placing the memorials close to the scenes of the atrocities that those so-called heroes carried out, and we heard evidence of that earlier in the debate.

Those who erect such memorials should be condemned, deplored and exposed as sectarian coat-trailers of the worst kind. I draw a distinction, and right-minded people draw the same distinction, between those whose names are honoured on war memorials and other such tablets in recognition of their service to their country. They carried out their duty as members of the security forces or the emergency services against those who chose to wage war in darkness and to kill without mercy or pity for victims who were given little or no chance.

Memorials are being erected to Republicans in places that bear no relevance to the events that occurred. Recently in Newry, a new memorial dedicated to the IRA hunger strikers was unveiled in a public park. The park is owned and maintained by the local authority. Members of a well-respected local Protestant business family provided the park in good faith to acknowledge their contribution to their community. The imposing nature of the monument is one thing, but it is worth remembering that none of the 10 hunger strikers came from Newry.

Why should the memorial be erected there, close as it is to a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet and adjacent to the major shopping centre in Newry? There can be only one reason — to offend and intimidate.

The other possible reason is that the erection of the memorial is proof that the unjustifiable Republican war is now over and that, to convince the grass roots that the partitionist settlement agreed to in the Belfast Agreement by Sinn Féin is worth having, with Stormont and Sinn Féin Ministers of the Crown administering British rule in this part of the UK, a few token monuments should be erected to keep the hardliners happy. How cynical can you get?

Whatever the truth of the matter, these monuments have no place in any decent society that wishes to move on from the conflict and war that nearly destroyed it over 30 years. Whether the monuments are erected in Newry, Castlewellan, County Down, County Fermanagh or anywhere else, they are unacceptable.

The issue is cross-cutting in terms of ministerial responsibility. In addition to the planning and environmental issues put to the Minister of the Environment, I am aware of memorials on land and property owned by the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Examples are the memorial on land adjacent to the Newry bypass, which is presumably owned by the DRD, and the new and impressive defence wall built by the Rivers Agency of DARD at Kilmorey Street, Newry, which contains a memorial tablet to IRA volunteers. I hope that the Ministers responsible will, on receipt of the Hansard report of this debate, take action to remove offensive objects from their Departments’ property.

I was gratified by Monica McWilliams’s acknowledgement that Unionists had every right to be offended by these memorials. I am grateful for the support of my Colleagues Joan Carson and Tom Hamilton and other Members of the House such as Paul Berry, William Hay and Oliver Gibson.

Conor Murphy seemed to think that Unionists were being inconsistent by objecting to the election of Alec Maskey as Lord Mayor of Belfast. The context in which Belfast City Council operates has to be remembered. The place was almost flattened by the activities of Sinn Féin/IRA during the troubles. Witnessing the activities of Sinn Féin/IRA representatives fostering, and continuing to agitate, civil disturbance in parts of Belfast, it is no wonder that Unionist members of Belfast City Council considered a representative of Sinn Féin to be unfit for the high public office of Lord Mayor.

I remind Sinn Féin that there is no correlation between world war conflicts, commemorated by memorial tablets and monuments which properly indicate service and sacrifice in a worldwide conflict, and the actions of terrorist guerrilla warfare, which can never be considered as war in the true sense.

Several Members mentioned the roadside memorials at Kingsmills and Teebane. Those are memorials to innocent workers and victims who were mercilessly murdered and who therefore have the right to be remembered.

I reject the SDLP’s amendment. Once again, the SDLP is trying to cover for Sinn Féin on this issue, which is regrettable. Mr Gallagher asked that guidelines be provided. The best guidelines would be provided by the Planning Service and the Departments, whose Ministers should not allow the erection of such monuments on Government property.

Question put,

The Assembly divided: Ayes 20; Noes 32.

Ayes

Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alasdair McDonnell, Gerry McHugh, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, John Tierney.

Noes

Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Ken Robinson, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly rejects the offensive trend of erecting memorials throughout Northern Ireland by Republican elements in memory of terrorists who tortured citizens of this state for decades by their campaign of murder, maiming and destruction and calls upon the Executive to take immediate action to remove those memorials which have been erected without permission.

Adjourned at 6.07 pm.