Drumcree
Monday, 12 October 2026
Contributions
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)Labour
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Drumcree. I should first alert Members to the fact that the decision that I will lay out in this statement is subject to legal challenge. I respect the court’s role and will not anticipate its conclusions. I wanted to update the House as soon as possible, but I hope that hon. Members will understand that this may limit some of what I can say. I also note that this afternoon the Court of Appeal, sitting in Belfast, refused leave to appeal to the Garvaghy Road residents coalition. The court therefore confirmed the Parades Commission’s determination as it was made at the time on 25 September, as did I. My exercise of powers under section 11 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, however, considered the situation as it stood on Friday 9 October. The repeated stand-offs at Drumcree in the 1990s saw disorder, violence and horrific deaths, and they represent a particularly painful chapter in Northern Ireland’s history. At the heart of the matter is the return route of the Orange Order Portadown district’s parade from Drumcree church. Members of the Orange Order attach great importance to completing their route down the mainly nationalist Garvaghy Road, while residents of the road have long opposed its passage through their community. For 28 years the independent Parades Commission had determined that the route should not pass down the Garvaghy Road, but on 25 September a Parades Commission determination allowed for 35 members of Portadown lodge to walk along the Garvaghy Road without the accompaniment of music on Sunday 27 September. To some, this was a legal victory that recognised the religious, cultural and personal significance of this procession. To others, it was a profound shock and a reopening of wounds they long thought closed. On Saturday 26 September, following a challenge brought on behalf of the residents, a temporary injunction was granted, then appealed and overturned, before permission to seek judicial review was refused in the early hours of Sunday 27 September. The parade, lawfully determined, was due to take place at 8 am that same morning. However, the Orange Order was unable to complete that route due to an unlawful, unnotified protest by residents of the Garvaghy Road and their supporters, who blocked the road. For much of the two weeks since, Drumcree has once again been the scene of a stand-off. This is a deeply emotive and hurtful issue for many of those who have been involved in this dispute, either now or in the past. I have spent the past fortnight in extensive conversations with all affected parties, trying to get a mutually acceptable agreement between the two sides. I hosted several rounds of negotiations at Hillsborough castle over five days and maintained frequent contact with those involved, including Members of this House. During those discussions, we explored multiple options for ending the impasse. These included options such as the Portadown Lodge completing one final march along the Garvaghy Road on the condition that it would not apply to march that route again, and an option that would have seen Portadown Lodge accept that it had won the right to march but agree not to exercise that right. Other options included the residents accepting that the lodge had had established the legal right and would not challenge other parts of the route. Unfortunately, we could not secure agreement. I want to thank the members of the Portadown Lodge for their time and constructive engagement. Their commitment to upholding the law and their co-operation with the police has been absolutely vital in maintaining calm and order. Having received a determination permitting them to march after 28 years, I recognise that they will feel bitter disappointment at its prohibition. I also want to thank members of the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition for their engagement. They made clear to me the profound anxiety this dispute has brought, relighting painful memories. I deeply regret that we were not able to reach a compromise on a way forward. Although I was still keen to establish a local agreement, I did not want to see the stand-off continue into another weekend, with the consequent risk of protests spreading to other parts of Northern Ireland and the further deterioration of community relations. I therefore intensively considered all options for bringing this dispute to an end. On Friday 9 October, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland made an application to me under section 9 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. As required by law, I reviewed the initial determination made by the Parades Commission relating to the application made by the Portadown district for 27 September 2026. I consulted the Chief Constable and the Parades Commission. The Chief Constable advised me that it would not be possible to enable the procession to happen without a major intervention, which would carry “an unacceptable risk of serious injury, disorder and a wider contagion affect across Northern Ireland.” The Parades Commission also advised me that while ultimately a matter for the courts to determine, the Commission was of the view that in the light of this current assessment by the Chief Constable, the original determination does not now have enduring legal effect. As a result, given that the circumstances under which that decision was made have now changed considerably and in the interests of wider public interest and safety, I came to the conclusion that the procession should not go ahead as it was originally determined. I did not take that decision lightly. I had tried to get a locally agreed solution and, as the Court of Appeal has held today, the Portadown district had a lawful determination from the Parades Commission allowing the procession. I have also not criticised the original determination made by the Parades Commission in good faith and based on the information it had at the time. Indeed, as part of my decision on Friday, I confirmed that original determination, which has also been upheld as lawful by the court, as anybody who criticises the Parades Commission should bear in mind. However, I must acknowledge that the situation has changed considerably, which is why I used my powers under section 11 of the Act to prohibit the procession. Respect for the rule of law is fundamental to our society. I am grateful to those who have behaved peacefully and legally, and sought to ease tensions in their respective communities. It is right to say that the Orange Order obtained a legal right to parade, but I agree with the Chief Constable, who has said “upholding of the Parades Commission determination does not come at any cost.” Upholding the law also entails judiciously preventing serious disorder, and that is why I am glad that, despite the manifest tension, events have passed peacefully in Portadown. That is in itself a significant achievement. I thank the PSNI officers who have carried the burden of policing this difficult situation. However, nobody is able to grant themselves immunity from the law, and those who have acted unlawfully must face the consequences of their actions. It is not for me to determine how the police exercise their duties, but I am glad that the PSNI operation in relation to unlawful protesting on the Garvaghy Road is under way. I am grateful to all those who have engaged with me in good faith and to those within this House who have worked diligently to reduce tensions. I particularly thank those who have sought to moderate their language. It is easy to stir up a grievance, but it is much harder to calm it down. I appeal now to everyone to help reduce tensions, and for all political and community leaders to consider carefully the effect of their words. I urge people to let the courts do their work, and to co-operate fully with the police and the Parades Commission. The community in Portadown has been on the sharp end of intense attention for a number of weeks. It will take time to rebuild relations. Sometimes leadership is extremely difficult, but it is vital that at this time the political parties in Northern Ireland offer stability. That can be a challenge when loud voices dominate. However, in my conversations with both sides and with political leaders from different parties and traditions, I have met many extraordinary people of good faith who want to rebuild trust and co-operation based on mutual respect. I hope all Members will want to share in that ambition. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)Conservative
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)Conservative
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for his call over the weekend. I do not envy him the position in which he has been placed in these past few weeks. The scenes that we have witnessed on the streets of Drumcree are all too reminiscent of previous times—times that we had all hoped were past, and times that we must still hope are past. The willingness of communities nearly 30 years ago to submit to independent adjudication processes was one of the pillars of the peace. It is consequently at best irresponsible and at worst dangerous for people to ignore those processes when they do not go their way. Further, it is inexcusable for anyone, but particularly politicians, to decide that they will only obey the law when it suits them. That is the road to a very dark place. As the Secretary of State has set out, the planned march was legal, subject to the detailed restrictions placed upon it by the Parades Commission. It follows that under section 14 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, those who prevented this lawful march would seem to have broken the law. The stand-off that they caused ultimately led to Chief Constable Boutcher asking the Secretary of State to review the Parades Commission’s determination and stop the march. The Chief Constable said that facilitating it would have “required a substantial public order intervention that was not assessed to be proportionate, and which would have carried an unacceptable risk of serious injury, disorder and a wider contagion effect across Northern Ireland.” I hope that the Secretary of State can be clear with the House about what is behind this statement and what the nature of that risk was. Was the Secretary of State at any stage made aware of a possibility of terrorism? Was he at any stage made aware that firearms or explosives were likely to be deployed? I very much hope he was not, but the House should know. I know that the Secretary of State was placed in a desperately invidious position, but the consequence of the march not going ahead is that those who have broken the law have won. The consequence is that those who threaten the “serious injury, disorder and wider contagion”, of which the Chief Constable warned, have won. Unless remedy is made, the message being sent to Northern Ireland is that people can pick and choose which laws they obey, and that those who threaten violence and disorder will get their way. I know that that is not what the Secretary of State wants, but he needs to tell the House what he intends to do to prevent that terrible message being the legacy of these past few weeks. I know that it is not for him to determine how the police exercise their duties following this incident, but I hope he can tell the House how the Government now intend to prevent the law from being openly flouted again and again and again.
I am grateful for the tone in which the shadow Secretary of State has entered the conversation and for him taking my call over the weekend. We have not faced each other across the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State and shadow Secretary of State until today, and I hope that we can work co-operatively together. To those who flouted the law and to those who are considering doing so again, I say nobody is above the law: you will face the consequences of your actions. To those who have co-operated with the police, I say an enormous, “Thank you.” To those who are considering ending co-operation with the police, I say please, please, please think again. The hon. Gentleman asks me specifically about the advice that I have received and quotes in precise terms the words that I was given by the Chief Constable. I have publicly set out the advice that I received, which said that facilitating the procession would require a major police intervention carrying unacceptable risks, as the hon. Gentleman said. He will understand that I will not comment on specific intelligence that I did or did not receive, for obvious reasons, but in the end I am accountable for the decision that I made. It was my responsibility to weigh the police advice and the consequences of proceeding, which is precisely what I did. The hon. Gentleman asks how we will ensure that we build respect for the rule of law. That is a matter for all communities into the future. He also made a point about politicians. I will point out that we politicians have a particular responsibility to abide by not just the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law. Schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires Ministers to pledge “to uphold the rule of law based as it is on the fundamental principles of fairness, impartiality and democratic accountability, including support for policing and the courts”. Those should not just be words that are spoken for one moment; they should be things that we embody in everything we do.
Hilary Benn (Leeds South) (Lab)Labour
My right hon. Friend was clearly faced with a very difficult decision, but I think he took the right decision in the light of the advice he was given by the Chief Constable, which he has reported to the House, and I thank him for it. Given the enormous progress that Northern Ireland has made since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, who would want to go back? What does he think is now required to restore confidence in an independent process for determining parades?
I am very grateful to my predecessor, to whom I pay tribute, for his kind words. We need to do several things. This moment has shown that the veneer of peace is sometimes remarkably thin, and we need to strengthen the relationship between different communities. One of the things I found most moving was when people said to me how cross-community organisations in Portadown had been completely discombobulated and thrown up into confusion over these last two weeks. That is one of the reasons why I wanted us to be able to get to a successful conclusion that works for everybody. My right hon. Friend is right about the parades. I note that some people who, a few weeks ago, were passionately opposed to the Parades Commission are now passionately in support of it, and vice versa. The truth is that we had problems earlier on this year, and that is why I have set up an inquiry, led by Justice O’Hara, who has been warmly supported by everybody in that process. We need to ensure that the Parades Commission works for the future, and I hope that everybody in this House at least would want to urge people to work closely with the police, rather than undermine them.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)Liberal Democrat
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. This is a complicated and sensitive issue, and my party supports all those, from every community, who are focused on de-escalation and working together on a shared future. The Secretary of State’s decision was based on unambiguous police advice, and I do not think that any real alternative was available to him. I know how hard he and others sought to achieve compromise, and I share his deep regret that that was not possible. As he recognised in his statement, respect for the rule of law is fundamental to any democratic society. It is consequently imperative that the legitimate concerns of many with regard to what message this decision conveys must be recognised and taken into account as we seek to move forward. The impact that events such as this have on local people in Portadown must be our first concern. People living side by side and getting on with their lives suffer by this replaying of the worst chapters of the past. Our task on all sides of the House is to support those who want to move forward, protect the institutions, respect the rule of law and ensure that this dispute does not undermine the hard-won progress of the last 30 years. I have three questions for the Secretary of State. What discussions has he had with the Executive and political leaders in Northern Ireland about ensuring that the institutions remain stable throughout this period? What more does he think can be done to ensure that the rule of law is upheld and respected by all political leaders across Northern Ireland? Finally, what support is being provided to the communities in Portadown, particularly young people, who have lived through three weeks of escalating tension?
I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has approached this issue. My attempts to have discussions with the Executive have focused partly on trying to get a budget. Six months in, we still do not have a settled budget. That is going to provide very significant problems in the very near future for the whole of the operation of the Executive if we are not very careful and very keen to work with the Executive to get to a good outcome. We have made an offer of £1.5 billion and more over three years, which is a good settlement considering the difficult situation that we have. Everybody has been predicting the collapse of the Executive for some time, but it seems to be much more resilient than people suggest. That is a good thing. In terms of the rule of law, it is not for me to tell the police whom they should speak to about unlawful actions or how to determine what the punishment should be. I will merely point out that an offence under the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act carries an imprisonment of up to six months and a level 5 fine. That is for the prosecuting authorities to consider. Let me turn to the young people in Portadown. One of the phrases frequently used on both sides was that people wanted a breathing space, and we have that breathing space now. Once the dust has settled a little bit, it will be important for us to consider and work out how we can strengthen the cross-community relationships that have undoubtedly been tested over the last couple of weeks, as the hon. Gentleman says, and I want to do that with local representatives.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)Social Democratic & Labour Party
Sometimes you would be forgiven for forgetting that in the late ’90s, 21 Catholics were murdered as a result of this dispute. Three of them were children—the Quinn boys—who were burned to death in their home. Why anybody thought it was a good idea to try to force this parade down that street is frankly beyond me and beyond any right-thinking person. This wound should never, ever have been opened up again. The Garvaghy Road residents have had this done to them and on them. This chaos has been visited to their door. Will the Secretary of State work with the Irish Government to ensure that proper investment is now put into Portadown to rebuild relationships that took a long, long time to build back up?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We were here only a few weeks ago having had the report on Robert Hamill, whose murder occurred against the background of the problems in Portadown back in the day. This issue is still very live and very raw for a large number of people in the community. I have to push back, though, and say that the Parades Commission decision has been upheld by the courts on repeated occasions. I did not revoke the decision, but, given the situation when the section 9 letter came to me from the police the other day, it was absolutely apparent that I had to deal with this matter. My hon. Friend asks me to get the Irish Government to be engaged. I always want to work as co-operatively as I possibly can with the Irish Government, and I have spoken to them several times, but in the end, security in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the UK Government. We need to ensure that community relations in Northern Ireland are enhanced.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)Democratic Unionist Party
The Secretary of State is right to indicate that the Parades Commission considered and approved the parade, but how sad is it that on Friday evening, and in his statement this evening, he did not conclude by saying that he is determined to uphold the rule of law, which would include the completion of a parade? He also did not say that he would welcome a fresh application to be considered on its own merits or, whether now or in the future, that he will ensure that no lawful application will succumb to threats of violence. In the past 28 years, the police—the Royal Ulster Constabulary and then the Police Service of Northern Ireland—have always maintained the position that they will police whatever the determination is. They cannot say that any more. For the past 28 years, no Secretary of State has ever used section 11 powers, even when there was actual violence, actual disorder and guns on the street. People in Northern Ireland know that this is about more than obstruction on a road. They know that it is a threat of violence from terrorists, and they know that this British Government have bent the knee to them. We need to see the rule of law upheld, but we also need to see political accountability. The Secretary of State mentioned schedule 4 of the Northern Ireland Act. He knows that there is no consequence for breach of the pledge of office. Will he meet my colleagues and me to ensure that there is?
The right hon. Gentleman and I have had many discussions about this issue over the past fortnight, and I am grateful to him for the way in which he has conducted those conversations. I do, however, utterly reject the charge that I have in any way succumbed to mob rule. The truth is that things have actually passed remarkably peacefully—there has been no major disorder. Lots of people lobbied me or provided advice over the airwaves on how to deal with the situation, but I do not think anybody seriously proposed that the police should drag people off the street, and I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that the rule of law is not just a single headline; it is equality before the law, transparent laws, the separation of powers, an independent judiciary and access to justice. All of those things are in remarkably fine fettle in Northern Ireland. As I have said previously, there are some abnormalities about the way in which the Executive and power sharing work in Northern Ireland. I am very happy to sit down with the right hon. Gentleman and work through ways in which we can make them function better. As I have said to him before, that may require some reform of the institutions at Stormont.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)Labour
In 2010, Tom Bingham, who had been Lord Chief Justice, published his book “The Rule of Law”, which we often cite in this House. He said about Ministers’ decisions that “ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers and not unreasonably.” I believe that in making this decision, which I know was a difficult one, the Secretary of State has excellently upheld the principles set out by Tom Bingham all those years ago. As he knows, this summer at the Belfast Fleadh, all traditions of music came together—including many Unionist bands and singers—and were welcomed and enjoyed together. Is that not the spirit in which we want to go forward in building unity?
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comments. This was certainly a difficult decision, but a decision that I was in law required to make, having been written to by the Chief Constable under section 9 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act. I chose to make the eventual decision based on the advice he had given. More generally, though, mutual respect between different communities is often hard-won, and moments like this can rapidly descend into greater disorder and problems. That is why I was very keen not to let this situation run on at great length, which is why I responded in the way I did, but we still have a job of work to do in Northern Ireland to enhance mutual respect between people. Some of the language that has been used from one community to the other and back again has been utterly vile, and it is incumbent on all of us in particular, as Members of Parliament, to moderate our language.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)Alliance
I never thought that in my lifetime, I would see again Land Rovers lined up outside Drumcree church. The people of Northern Ireland did not clamour for this, and that includes people who are Unionist, nationalist or other. They did not want to revisit this incredibly dark chapter in our history. While the cost of living bites, this operation cost around £5 million at the time of conclusion. What we have now is picking up the pieces. The Secretary of State has referred to the language that we use. In the past week, Members of this House have referred to people of the Garvaghy Road as rabble and have referred to the Garvaghy Road as needing “sanitisation”. Does the Secretary of State agree that in the mouth of this crisis, it is incumbent on all Members of this House and everybody across Northern Ireland to engage respectfully across all communities, all of which have suffered in the past few weeks?
One difficulty I sometimes found when trying to reach consensus between the two sides when we gathered everybody in Hillsborough—when, I have to say, both sides were immensely respectful—was that the moment they spoke to somebody outside the room, louder voices prevailed and dragged them away from compromise. That is a problem that we have regularly, and social media amplifies some of that as well, which makes it more difficult. I should also say that there are Members of this House who have been vilified just for standing up for their constituents, and that is not appropriate either.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)Labour
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for the tone he has taken. He is in an invidious position, as we can see from this debate. Does he agree that ultimately, if we take one step back from these events, what we are really talking about is the lack of societal reconciliation in Northern Ireland over the 30 years since the Good Friday agreement? Does he agree that we in this House and politicians in Northern Ireland have a role to try to foster that reconciliation wherever we can—whether it is through the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill or in another way—by resourcing it, funding it, and taking a lead on it?
The most important thing we have to realise is that the job of work of the Good Friday agreement is not complete. Many elements of it were parked at the time, and we need to complete that work. That is one reason why it is important that we get the troubles Bill right. I have met so many people who still bear not just bruises, but deep scars, from the troubles, and they want answers. That is precisely what we are trying to legislate for at the moment.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)Ulster Unionist Party
The parade was lawful; the protest was unlawful. What we are hearing in Northern Ireland in response to that protest is in stark contrast to what we heard from the Home Secretary in the statement prior to this one. The Secretary of State said in his statement, “Let the courts do their work.” When he knew that the court was to rule today, why did he move from section 9 to making a section 11 decision on Friday night, rather than waiting on the court’s ruling today?
When I received the section 9 letter on Friday morning, I had no idea when the court was going to come to its conclusions, and obviously I had been asked—and am required by law—to consult with the Parades Commission and the Chief Constable, as I did. That is the process I followed. I do not want to stray further into that process, simply because all of this is subject to legal challenge.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)Democratic Unionist Party
The Secretary of State has outlined the issues relating to the Drumcree parade, and has said in his statement that those who have acted unlawfully must face the consequences of their actions. If that process is allowed to proceed—and I hope it will—the police must do their job, and the prosecution service must do its job. Beyond that, though, people in Northern Ireland need to know that if political leaders and others break the law, there are consequences beyond the court proceedings, consequences that will preclude their holding office. Is the Secretary of State prepared to discuss what sanctions can be taken to prevent somebody who breaks the criminal law from holding public office, and to issue and declare such sanctions?
I think the hon. Member is asking me to introduce primary legislation to change the Northern Ireland Act, which is not my intention at the moment. I am not sure what other process he is considering, but I am very happy to consider it with him. I noted one thing the hon. Member said earlier, or maybe yesterday on the television: the last thing we want is Chris Bryant running Northern Ireland.
indicated assent .
The hon. Member is nodding, so I got that right. Maybe we can agree with each other, because I want the Northern Ireland Executive to continue in operation. I certainly do not want to be in a position where I am running all of Northern Ireland.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)Traditional Unionist Voice
I begin by paying tribute to Portadown district, which abided by the law to the letter and yet had the response of being kicked in the teeth while those who broke the law were rewarded. I also commend the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who represents the district of Portadown, on her stand, her leadership and her courage. I utterly condemn the shocking demonisation and abuse to which she has been subjected. As for the Secretary of State, it is sad to say it, but his shameful surrender to mob rule and the threat of violence has trampled the rule of law into the gutter in Northern Ireland. Tonight, we still have not only a First Minister of lawlessness—because of the inaction of the DUP—but a Secretary of State who chose to back the lawbreakers. What a travesty. My question is this: how can the rule of law recover when the Secretary of State undermines it so spectacularly?
I am fond of the hon. and learned Gentleman, although he does remind me of the John Lewis line, “Never knowingly undersold”, because his arguments are never knowingly undersold. He called me pathetic on the television yesterday and he keeps on referring to mob rule. Every time people use this term “mob” about people on the other side of the argument, it makes it more difficult. I would also say that the use of the word “sanitising” was particularly inappropriate. It behoves us all to moderate our language, because people look to us to provide leadership. In a situation where compromise is normally the best outcome for everybody—for all communities—it is best if we double down on compromise ourselves.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)Democratic Unionist Party
I thank all hon. Members who have reached out with regards to the level of abuse that has been received. I find it absolutely incredible that I am standing in this House where we make the law, confronting a Secretary of State who has wilted before those who have defied the law. For 28 years, Portadown district obeyed the determinations that it opposed. When it secured a legal determination to return, this Government and the PSNI bowed to those IRA commanders, dissidents and a First Minister who broke the law on the Garvaghy Road. Mob rule won, whether the Secretary of State likes to admit it or not. At Hillsborough castle, the Secretary of State treated law-abiding citizens as equals to Brendan McKenna, whose record is very clear: he held a family hostage and was involved in the blowing up of Portadown royal British legion, he has impeded the police doing their duty over the past two weeks, and he thinks we are all F-ers. Lawbreaking has been rewarded by this sovereign Parliament, and that shameful surrender has serious consequences for the rule of law in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has joined Michelle O’Neill and the Chief Constable in thumbing their noses at law-abiding citizens and laughed and smirked while doing it. Their positions are becoming more untenable with every passing moment. Does the rule of law apply only to law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland, while the self-titled “First Minister for all” seems to be immune?
When I referred earlier to those who have been vilified, I was going to refer to the hon. Lady, because I have seen some of the foul comments that have been made about her, online and elsewhere, and I completely abhor that. As she knows, I have spoken to her regularly throughout this whole process. We have tried to maintain a very civil conversation between us. I want to clear up one other thing that the hon. Lady asked. She did not ask it in the House, but said I would have to answer it this evening. Earlier in the day, she said that I had to clear up whether I became aware of today’s judgment before or after I made my ruling. I think she was suggesting that in some way or other I knew before anybody else what the court was going to decide today. I want to make it absolutely clear that I did not. At the time I started my determination, I did not even know when the court was going to come up with its ruling, so I very much hope that she will withdraw that semi-allegation. More importantly, I had to respond to the section 9 request from the Chief Constable. I am afraid that sometimes the hon. Lady resorts to extravagant and erring language, and I am not sure that helps secure an outcome for the Orange lodge. The final point I would make to the hon. Lady is that she is absolutely right that everybody needs to uphold the law. I very much hope that she would urge everybody she knows who is now saying that they should not co-operate with the police to co-operate with the police. Otherwise, I am afraid it is a question of what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)Democratic Unionist Party
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for her determination, her courage and her leadership and for standing strong against the threats that have been made—physical threats, verbal threats and all sorts of threats—to her and her family. We in this House should stand strong with her. In the previous statement, the Home Secretary referred to security for individuals. My hon. Friend is one Member of this House who deserves that, and everyone in this House should back her as she makes her stand. My constituents are asking me this question: why did the Secretary of State take the extraordinary step of intervening before the Court of Appeal had delivered its scheduled legal ruling today? In pre-empting the highest courts in the land, what message does this catastrophic surrender send to extremist factions active across the entire United Kingdom? If they descend upon a community in great numbers, refuse to obey the law and threaten violence, the Government will grant them their aims. If I had blocked Frances Street in Newtownards along with my constituents, we would have been in Bangor custody within 30 minutes. Will the Secretary of State admit that this decision sets a devastating national precedent? This is a policy of short-sighted appeasement that buys peace for today at the expense of our future. Why should law-abiding citizens continue to trust the democratic process when the Government signal to extremists of every stripe that street-level intimidation trumps the rule of law and that the British ideology of upholding law and justice as a foundation has now crumbled?
First, to be clear, the Court of Appeal was looking in its decision today at a completely different matter from the one that was before me. The court was looking at the decision made by the Parades Commission on 25 September; I was looking at the situation on 9 October. Those are two different matters, and that is why it was not material to me whether the court was going to be ruling today. As a matter of fact, when the letter came in from the Chief Constable, I did not know when the court would be ruling. More importantly, under section 9 of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, I am required by law to respond to the Chief Constable’s request, and that is what I did. I decided, as the courts did, to uphold the original determination of the Parades Commission, but to consider the situation as it pertains now and the advice given to me by the Parades Commission and the Chief Constable. On the final point, I know there are people arguing that this is the end of the rule of law in Northern Ireland in some way. I just want to say that in the past few weeks, yes, people have said very cross things to one another and have shouted at one another—they have mostly done so in the Assembly, here in Parliament today or on the airwaves—but they have not been throwing things at each other. It has been peaceful in Portadown, and that is an achievement, not the opposite of an achievement. In the end, policing is about not just ensuring that a determination can be upheld, but judiciously preserving the peace.
Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5413437.