06/10/2016 The View

Ignored by some, valued by others, but is it time

for the Orange Order to scrap its rule on Catholic

Plus, head to head, a Tory peer and a Sinn Fein MLA debate Brexit,

Tonight - the Orange Order should consider lifting its ban on members

attending services in Catholic churches, according to two senior

I'll be talking to three people who've played significant roles

in the Loyal Orders and asking them if the time

Also tonight, dominated by Brexit, but after the Tory conference

are we any the wiser about the future

I'll be asking the Conservative peer, David Trimble,

and Sinn Fein's John O'Dowd for their visions.

Plus - the artwork owned by all of us, but hidden

Now an Executive Minister plans to change all that.

What I want to do with that treasure is liberated and let people see and

enjoy the art collection which of course they paid for over many

years. And we've a couple of works of art

in Commentators' Corner tonight in Deirdre Heenan and Newton

Emerson. The Orange Order's ban on members

entering Catholic churches has had an impact on a string of politicians

here through the years. Back in 1998, David Trimble,

who we're talking to on other matters later, faced disciplinary

action for attending the funeral of three young victims

of the Omagh bombing. And he's not the only public figure

to have faced censure on the issue. But comments on Talkback yesterday

by the Order's Assistant Grand Master, Mervyn Gibson, have reopened

the debate about change. With me now are the Ulster Unionist

MLA and Orange Order Also here is Billy Logan, who's

a former Sovereign Grand Master of the Royal Black Institution,

and the Reverend Brian Kennaway, who's a former

Orange Order chaplain. You are all very welcome to the

programme. Thank you for joining us tonight. Danny Kennedy, you fell

foul of this rule five years ago when you attended the funeral of

Constable Ronan Kerr. Is it do you think a throwback to a previous age?

I think there are some in the Orange institution who take tradition

review and they are retitled as entitled to. -- traditional view.

This is a matter for the Orange institution to debate and take a

decision on. I am not sure that a fully fledged public debate will

speed that up. I think rightly the Orange institution will take its

time and arrive at what I hope will be a sensible decision. So you'd

think the public debate is a good thing? -- so you don't think?

Ultimately it is a matter for the Grand Lodge of the institution.

David McNarry said clearly on the news that Mervyn Gibson's comments

actually opens up a very helpful public debate. We are having that

but ultimately the decision rests with the institutions. Should the

Orange Order actively consider dropping this ruling? I.e., in the

past, have attended funeral services in Roman Catholic churches, both of

Roman -- Ronan Kerr and Stephen care, who were police officers. Also

work colleagues and people who were neighbours and friends and it was

done out of respect to hopefully give some comfort to families in

grief. I think largely in rural areas there is more tendency for

people to overlook the role, not blatantly overlook it, but simply on

eight pragmatic basis, expressed sympathy to friends and neighbours.

And you have no regrets whatsoever about doing what you did? I think

entirely the right circumstances, particularly the murdered police

officers, murdered by republican terrorists and I think it was the

right thing to do. I also attended, out of interest, the funeral of a

political colleague John fee from the SDLP who was a very fine

representative who opposed to violence, particularly republican

violence, and who had suffered at the hands and received a very bad

beating and ultimately sadly passed away and I thought it was the right

thing to do two shop sympathy. Billy Logan, do you think the time has

come to change the real? I think there is a conflict there. We

repeatedly say, civil and religious liberty for all, yet we keep this

rule that prevents member of the Orange Order from attending any form

of Catholic worship. It is a bit of confusion. As far as I am personally

concerned, I went to a service in Londonderry and the context of that

was I was in the insurance business for 32 years. On several occasions I

was in Derry City and I was in Rosemount just off the Strand road.

A gentleman decided he was going to take my car and he put a gun in my

back. The gentleman I was working with who lived in the Reagan, said

we're going to get car. All I want is the bus to Belfast. He says, no,

you have to get your car. He and his brother and father, and I finished

up on Provo headquarters for three hours. Discussing with these fellows

whether I should get my car back or not. I eventually got my car back

through the good offices of this gentleman, his brother and his

father. Subsequently he died in number of years later and my wife

and I went up to the funeral. Who is going to criticise me for doing

that? Were you criticised for doing that? Not really because it was a

private matter. I did this in a private capacity. But you were of

course and store are an Orangeman and you were a very senior figure

since 1938. Also a... You know you worse technically breaking the

rules. I never gave it a second thought. So, it be changed? Would it

be helpful? That is a matter for the Grand Lodge. Would you support it

being changed? Yes, but I have never had the privilege of sitting at

Grand Lodge. I have never aspire to that. The other organisation to

which I belong, yes, I have a great love for that as well. My membership

of the Orange Order is there and will be there till they carry me

out. Brian Kennaway, do you think the time has come for change,

because it is of course the case that all members of the Order know

that the rule is there and they still go ahead and sign on the

dotted line. The rule is confusing, can I say? The question is whether

or not you are actually condoning Catholic worship by your presence.

Tell us what you think is confusing. What is confusing is, are you

actually condoning it by your presence? Because you are asked not

to give any countenance by your presence. Are you giving

countenance? According to a QC's ruling in the 60s, you are not. More

recently in Grand Lodge, the present grand Secretary in relation to

another matter, he made it quite clear and is quoted in the report

book, when he said, he clarified that new attendance at a meeting

would not necessarily be judged as participation. When we asked for a

representative of the Orange Order to join us tonight we were told

nobody is available. We were told it was an internal matter for the

institution. It is from a different era. The point is the vast majority

of people interpret as he shouldn't enter a Catholic Church or attend a

Catholic service. That is where the confusion comes in. Changing it

arguably would clarify a concert for all. Is that your review? It is but

it is a product of its time. The product of course, we saw in the

past when the president of Ireland died, government ministers couldn't

attend his funeral because the Catholic Church said you can't

attend product and service of worship. They had to sit outside the

church. -- Protestant service of worship. If the Catholic church and

the GAA have changed their rules, logically the time has passed for

the Orange Order. I don't think a public debate will help it. Do you

think it would make it more difficult? Is there a groundswell of

opinion for change or not? Rank and file, yes, but Grand Lodge is a

different body. Is that how you see it, Danny Kennedy? Do you think

public discussion may in fact knock on the head in the short-term chance

of change? For those who want to see change? I think it will not be

changed at the behest of the BBC. I don't think the BBC is asking for

it. I am not suggesting that. It was started by Mervyn Gibson, not the

media. The Orange Order will take its own time and it will come

through the grassroots and eventually land at a Grand Lodge and

those are the processes by which any change will come. But if a public

debate indicates to members of Grand Lodge that there is a view amongst

members and the public that a change would be helpful, then perhaps that

might contribute to an earlier change of the rule. I think the

important debate is within the Orange Order itself. Brian, you say

the opposite. Absolutely. So by appearing on the programme tonight

asking for change, you are diminishing the chance of change.

Yes. It is that contrary an organisation? Yes. Read the book.

Let's be honest, a survey was taken, Orange mention the Parades

Commission. Overwhelmingly the result was yes but that was ignored

because Grand Lodge officers didn't like it. What about the individuals

who feel very strongly that the rule should remain in place and should be

properly implemented? That was raised at a time when Stephen

Dickenson and others were involved in an organisation and the Orange

Reformation and that was the thrust of it. That is a view, I don't know

how widely held you think that view is, Danny. I think there is still a

strong body of opinion in the Orange community who hold that view, but I

think in practical terms, in rural areas, the rule is very often

ignored or overlooked. Billy Logan, you have been in the Orange Order

for a long time. He said that yourself it is not that you haven't

seen in the decade they have been involved. What would you say to

individuals watching the programme type who think the rules should

remain in place and ought to be sacrosanct? What is your message to

them? Could be more open-minded about these matters. It is a matter

entirely for Grand Lodge. I as an individual will not change it.

Senior officers of the institution of take the decision whatever it

might be. But the members will do their own thing anyway. They always

have. It is a very interesting solution to what is quite a testy

problem. Thank you all very much for coming to join us. We will watch

developments with interest. After months of speculation,

Brexit does indeed appear to mean Any thoughts that Theresa May

wouldn't trigger Article 50 were swiftly dispelled,

raising the prospect of the UK leaving both the single market

and the customs union. If we leave and as a land border

within the European Union, that brings the change to the

relationship across the border, but what I am very clear about, what is

clear... You said it would be inconceivable, but wouldn't it be

some kind of change, obviously. Of course there will be a land border

with a country that is in the European Union, but what I think all

parties are very clear about is the intent and will to ensure that we

have an arrangement that isn't a return to the borders of the past.

Of course the issue around how we're going to make the border work in a

way that is good both sides in terms of trade, services and she is very

engaged in that issue I am glad to say. What the Tories are doing is

all about themselves. They don't give tuppence for the island of

Ireland, north or south, they don't give problems with the people of

Scotland. No one wants to see a return to the borders of the past. I

just think we have gotten beverage and in where we are going. We don't

know what we are arguing over or how we fighting for, how you will keep

industry and business and everything working, because it's the economy

that is keeping Ireland going. That was Stephen Walker asking questions

at the Tory party conference. Lord Trimble, did you welcome the message

from Theresa May that Brexit is happening and article 50 will be

triggered by the end of next March? It should be done even sooner. When

you look at this, in terms of the issues, there is one big issue.

Another of small issues but one big issue and the big issue is tariffs.

Will there be tariffs? And that is an issue which should be resolved as

quickly as possible. I hope very much that the government is going to

move on this quickly and what I hope they do is they tell Brussels that

we are not in favour of tariffs, we prefer free trade. In other words no

talent at all as it is our view that we will not have tariffs but if

Brussels wants to impose tariffs on as after we leave then they opened

the door to retaliation where they are more vulnerable than others and

so I hope that we do this and we do it quickly and we do it before the

German, French and Dutch elections next year so that the elected there

and see the damage that buses would be doing to them if they oppose

tariffs -- imposed tariffs. So you call the bluff is what you're

seeing? I think it is bluff and we should do that. There are only two

bodies that matter in this, the United Kingdom government and the

Brussels commission. At the moment, it is simple as that, but at the

moment the commission is sitting in its corner refusing to speak to

people and that is causing the problem and that is where those who

are concerned should take the to get Brussels to get himself sorted out

and face up to the issues and we can deal with them. Brussels do not want

to negotiate until article 50 is triggered. Jonathan do you accept it

is as simple as Lord Trimble suggests? It is not Brussels taking

the people of the north out of the EU against their will, it is the

British government. Throughout the Tory party conference the theme ran

that those arguing for hard Brexit have won the argument and we are

hailing to a position where we will have not only leaving the EU but we

will also leave the EU customs zone which means that there will be

tariffs. We are not clear for sure, some people interpreted that way. We

do not know. I think it was very clear from the comment any, the

direction of travel the taking. There were other police amid

speeches which seems to suggest a different situation. That is part of

the confusion. If we follow the theory that Britain moves forward

with no tariffs and we have a free-trade zone they are actually

leaving a free-trade zone, the leaving the EU which was a trade

zone they were involved in and did not want to be involved in and now

they are leaving it so it isn't arguing against leaving the EU

rather than having an argument to present it is to Brussels saying we

have come up with a marvellous idea, let's have a free-trade zone.

Brussels will look back and say we actually have one of those and

you've ordered to leave. I will not correct all of the mistakes you

made. We have a preference for free trade generally, and that is quite

historic within the British state and for centuries we have favoured,

ever since the repeal of the common was, and in fact the European

Union's agricultural policy was a reproduction of the corn laws and it

was a bad idea so we want about the traditions of free trade. Your

opponents are suggest you try to have your cake and eat it, you want

the best bits of leaving the EU and what is associated and keep the

other bits that would be to your advantage even though you have left.

You can't have it both ways. That is not the case. What we should do is

say that we are in favour of the trade, we are not intending to

impose any traffic -- tariffs on your goods coming to us. The

question is what they do with our goods coming to them and if you want

to impose tariffs on as then that might have consequences. And that is

not having your cake and eating it, that is doing the sensible thing.

Then everyone arguably leave the EU because it would be no advantage to

being out and the huge advantage to being out. In terms of trade, the

single market was a failure follows. Other people if they want to join

the EU are entitled to do so, other people within the EU wide wish to

follow our example and indeed I would suggest that to our friends in

Dublin as well. John O'Dowd what are the arguments, and many have been

put by yourself in the SDLP and parties on both sides of the border,

focusing on the idea that messing about in any way with this UK's

membership of the EU plays with the peace process here. I will come to

lodge Campbell in a second and he suggested it is nothing short of

scaremongering but why do you believe that this is an issue? The

peace process is build a political agreement, particularly the Good

Friday agreement and in the Good Friday agreement, stated in it is EU

membership. And indeed the membership of Dublin, Belfast and

London in those negotiations facilitated the agreement which our

peace process was built on top of. It is not scaremongering or sabre

rattling, any unilateral redrawing of a peace agreement never ends

well. Who are not suggesting that peace will come to an end and wobble

break-out? Then -- that is not what I'm saying. I do not want to sabre

rattle. I am being careful with my language. The price of freedom is

eternal vigilance. The price of peace is eternal vigilance and you

should not go about unilaterally rewriting peace agreements. John, go

and read the entire agreement. You will find the very few references to

the European Union and they are peripheral. They make a significant

contribution to the development of it and they are there. Other parties

to that who are involved in the process are not in the European

Union. We cannot say that the EU has been peripheral to the peace

process. The invested over ?2 billion of funding into the peace

process on both sides of the border, they helped stabilise and build the

peace process. It was membership of the European Union that removed the

hard border on the island of Ireland. That is the process that

was involved because once we entered the European custom zones that held

removed the hard border. You know more about the Good Friday agreement

than off a lot of people because you're one of the offers of it, and

there is undoubtedly an issue of constructive and the duty and the

people who were not happy with the notion of Northern Ireland in the

United Kingdom but could sign up to the Good Friday agreement because

they could say we have equal status with everybody else because we are

members of the European Union, first and foremost we see our identity in

a European context. If you take that away they are not happy. A number of

the things that you're referring to the nothing to do with the

agreement. The Common travel area is a product of British legislation in

the 1920s, it was there before the European Union took existence. That

is a red herring. The 1998 agreement supersedes that. I do not agree that

the common travel any argument is a red herring, it was done up in both

states when they were outside the EU and would both state entered the EU

on the same day they were able to balance the Common travel area

because there were both members of the EU and any development since

that day and developments of Europe -- European policies have been

managed because they're both members of the EU. One state is now calling

or leaving the EU, that changes the relationship under the Common travel

area. To what extent and degree, we will see going to the future, but it

is the movement of goods and services which is going to result in

a hard border. David EU except that the efforts of those are opposed to

Brexit could steal the process? We have two court cases in the High

Court in Northern Ireland at the moment. We have Theresa May saying

that nationalists will not derail the process, but it is obvious when

you listen to people like Sinn Fein and the SDLP and other prodigal

parties, the Greens and Alliance, they are not going to stop just

because you say this is going ahead. It is not me who said this, it is

not a reason they are the Conservative government, there was a

referendum and a very significant majority voted for leaving. And that

was a referendum in the whole of the United Kingdom where you and I could

take part. We had exactly the same vote in the referendum, it has

produced a result and we are now under a duty to give effect to that

referendum. So no special circumstance for Northern Ireland?

John, how do you respond to that? We took part on the basis that we --

that it was an imposed policy. The referendum was imposed on the

people. But you took part. Yes we defended ourselves. We won the

argument among electors here. You lost the argument across the UK. The

idea but the United view in the United Kingdom on the EU referendum

is mistaken. We are dealing with Scotland voted to stay, we voted to

stay, outside the United Kingdom Gibraltar voted to stay and on the

part of what is known as the United Kingdom that forced to leave was

England and Wales, and if they wish to leave the EU then so be it. But

they cannot ignore the democratic will of the people. It was a United

Kingdom decision, a United Kingdom vote and interestingly most of the

people who lost except that and recognise that it is the duty to

implement the views of the majority and it is quite interesting if you

look at recent opinion poll evidence that two thirds of those who voted

to remain now want to say as just sticking to others in preventing the

agreement and not fighting the issue over and over. David Trimble,

briefly that, the difficulty some people say is that the part of the

UK that is likely to be most affected by Brexit because it has a

land border with another EU state is the most peripheral to this debate

and that is Northern Ireland. That first premise about the one most

effective, no, that is not... You do not believe that? The impact on

Northern Ireland will be minimal. Based on what evidence? We are only

2% of the UK population, we are quite small. You may not have

noticed. There will be a much bigger impact elsewhere. Back to your

argument... We will be most affected. We are already lagging

behind the rest of these islands in terms of an economy because we are a

very small economy, we relied heavily on... You lagging behind

because you have an administration not tackling the problems here. You

still have the public sector that is far too big and it is damaging the

private sector here and consequently... Equipped centres in

and then we need to bring this to a close. 80% of the earnings of

agricultural community, from the EU. That is a major impact on its own.

David Campbell I can't let you go you about the story that we began

the programme with the night, Mervyn Gibson's suggestion that the tiny

have come for the Orange order to drop the rule forbidding members to

attend catholic church services. Do you think that I must come? As I

said it is a matter for the order and the grand Lodge and I'm leaving

it to them. You know what my own position has been, that in

circumstances where I considered it my civic duty to do that then I did

it, and I also did it because and in those circumstances it was the

decent thing to do. And you have no regret? Bloody great and no

comeback. Thank you both. The Sinn Fein Minister who wants

to 'liberate' a government art collection begun by a unionist

Prime Minister believes some Mairtin O'Muilleoir says some

of the paintings may have been removed 'by accident', as he put it,

from government offices The Minister wants people to be able

to see the collection, most of which has been

under wraps for decades, in buildings like hospitals and job

centres, and he's given our Political Correspondent,

Gareth Gordon, an exclusive Picture this. A massive art

collection of nearly 1400 pieces owned by you, the public, which

hasn't been seen by anyone for years apart from civil servants and the

odd government minister. That is what lies behind the store.

And this is it, a brother -- or other part of it. Hidden from public

view in stables behind Stormont Castle. Not for much longer. There

is no better time for some straight thinking. The collection was begun

in the early 60s by the Ulster Unionist Prime Minister Terence

O'Neill. The man who intends to rescue it is a Sinn Fein minister.

The art collection is a great treasure which belongs to the

community. What I want to do with that closure is liberated and let

people see and enjoy the art collection which of course they paid

for over many years. But how does he intend on doing that? I would like

to see it outside of a stuffy minister offers, including business.

I'd see it in hospitals and health and building sectors, I'd see it in

places where people gather. Let's see it in the committee hubs in west

Belfast. The least important thing for me is that we should series

wonderful treasures, these beautiful paintings, in the offices of senior

civil servants and government ministers.

To help with the liberation of the Minister has assembled a team of

advisers chaired by one of our best known artists. I have been asked to

assess the collection. Not its value, but where it came from, how

it got here, what was painted, how they were painted, the cultural

background of the work itself. But some of the paintings may be

missing. We will find out exactly what we have and what we don't have.

People were removing paintings. Where are they in the building?

Maybe somebody by accident when retiring relieving kicks a piece

with them. The first thing is we need to check are the 400 pieces

available? Of those, what are the real gems? Where are the Neville

Johnson is, the Dillons, the poll henries, we don't know. We don't

build we have 1400 pieces. We are starting a work of recovery, a work

of reclamation. They are starting to ask the first time this century,

what do we own and can we then release and empower the public by

allowing them to enjoy and see those pieces of art? So is the collection

any good? We as this art expert turned politician. I know some of

the pictures that went into it. Some to the Government collection. They

know that people can't choose what they show in the offices. There is

more in the collection. Some people will not like a tall, some other

people will love. That's a question of taste. But they think it is right

that you get it out in front of people. Museums have great art that

is never seen, discovered buildings have art that is never seen, but we

have to record it and join it up with finance ministers plans so we

get the best out for everybody. But not everybody agrees. This

artist is no stranger to having her work on in public places, in this

case the Europa Hotel. I think a finance centre even looking at

paintings is interesting. It is made job as an artist to push them in the

right direction. I don't think putting a 60-year-old landscape into

a job centre is really where it is at. I think it would be better off

hanging in an office, at least our civil servants would be brushing

shoulders with a bit of creativity. Or even better, but it would be

hanging, if it is good enough, because we get a lot of stuff, but

you have to pick through the chaff, if it is good enough, why couldn't

we have that collection in municipal galleries?

Gareth Gordon reporting - and let's hear now from tonight's

commentators, Newton Emerson and Deirdre Heenan.

Newton, first of all, an interesting debate between Lord Kimball and John

O'Dowd, not a great big of minds. No, that I don't is about to be

resolved by these two judicial review reviews and I think is

becoming quite clear that Brexit isn't going to break the letter of

the Good Friday Agreement. All mentions of the EU in it are pretty

incidental. But if nationalists believe it has broken the spirit of

the agreement that will create a big political problem that Unionism will

have to deal with and it will be even larger problem in Paris at the

border. Deidre? I think David Trimble made it sound very

simplistic that could be sorted out over copy in the afternoon. Clearly

it is not simplistic and to say that Northern Ireland Office least

affected because we represent 2% of the population makes no sense. We

will be adversely affected because our interests are not going to be at

the top of Theresa May's agenda. This week we noticed from the

Conservative Party Conference, the right are fixing the political

muscle and not thinking about the implications for Northern Ireland.

The people who agree with David Trimble in the driving seat

seemingly. Yes, and the DUP as well. They are very gung ho about Brexit

on the whole and believe it will be fine. I believe Brexit is like a

united Ireland, of course it'll be fine in the end but it is having to

look through the dislocation in the interim and we have a special

problem with our industry because while carrots around the world are

actually quite surprisingly low it is not the case for agriculture.

Double that again, 40% or so for dairy, which is the specialist

export sector so we'll be very badly affected and also repercussions with

the South trade with the UK. But also to say that they can go to the

UK and say this is what we want, they go to the EU and say jump, how

high. But at the pic above the power relationship. We saw from the German

industrialists that there is a huge political ill will to Britain and

economic but political is very important. It is the case as Lord

Trimble said that the current approach to Brussels is to do

whatever you want and then let them change the rules we should have the

mat inside the EU. Lots more to discuss in the weeks, months and a

suspect years ahead. That's it from The View

for this week. Join me for Sunday Politics at 11.35

here on BBC1. First we had the brawl in the hall -

and now we've had the tizz over the fizz, as the DUP

hosted its first champagne reception # Only a glass of champagne, but it

led a poor girl into sin. When she is swelling the champagne at the

Conference later this week... Well it only took until 25 to three to

get that then. I can assure them that there will also be nonalcoholic

drinks. In case he wants to come along, just in case. We were having

a drinks reception in here and somehow it got lost in translation

and it begin a champagne reception but you couldn't pay with a mug of

attention we have had in relation to that matter so maybe it is all good

PR. Were