To see the full record of a committee, click on the corresponding committee on the map below
Preparing Visualisation - please wait
NORTHERN IRELAND FORUM
FOR
POLITICAL DIALOGUE
_____________________
REVIEW OF BOYCOTTING
OF BUSINESSES
by
STANDING COMMITTEE A
(PUBLIC ORDER ISSUES)
December 1996
CR5REVIEW OF BOYCOTTING
OF
BUSINESSES
CONTENTS
PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. BACKGROUND 5
3. EFFECTS OF BOYCOTTING 7
4. POINTS ARISING FROM EVIDENCE 8
5. CONCLUSIONS 11
6. RECOMMENDATIONS 13
Appendix A - Membership of Committee
Appendix B - Written and Oral Evidence
Appendix C - Reports on the Current SituationREVIEW OF BOYCOTTING
OF BUSINESSES
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Following reports in the press about a serious boycott situation which
was prevailing across the Province, a motion proposed by the UUP was
debated in the Forum on Friday 6 September 1996. The debate, which
lasted 4 hours, gave all the Forum members an opportunity to address
this issue which not only has had damaging effects on the economy but
also on community relations, particularly in smaller towns and villages.
The following resolution was passed unanimously:-
This Forum deplores the continuing boycotting of businesses
across Northern Ireland and all unlawful activities associated
therewith, which are further increasing tensions among the citizens
of Northern Ireland.
The practice of boycotting will cause serious damage to the
economic future of Northern Ireland by frustrating growth and
preventing inward investment.
This Forum declares that there is an obligation upon all
constitutional political parties to help resolve this and many other
issues by the process of mutual co-operation.
1The time has come for all elected representatives to act responsibly
in the interests of reconciliation, and to use this Forum for its
principal purpose - to discuss issues relevant to the promotion of
dialogue and mutual understanding among the people of Northern
Ireland.
This Forum resolves to set up a Committee to examine the issue
further, with the object of helping those at the receiving end of
this vicious campaign, and calls on the Secretary of State and the
Chief Constable of the RUC to take immediate action on the many
breaches of the law involved.
1.2 This resolution was forwarded to the Secretary of State by the
Chairman of the Forum on 9 September 1996. The Secretary of State
responded on 23 September indicating that he and his ministerial
colleagues viewed this issue very seriously, that Michael Ancram had
met with representatives of the Unionist parties to discuss this issue
and had also agreed to meet with a group of traders in the near future.
1.3 On 26 July 1996, at the last plenary meeting of the Forum before the
Summer Recess, the Forum agreed, inter alia, to establish a Committee
with the following terms of reference:
"to examine the problems which arise in relation to parades in
Northern Ireland, make recommendations which would contribute
to better understanding and amelioration of these problems and
report to the Forum by 31 December 1996."
21.4 At the plenary meeting on Friday 4 October 1996 the Forum agreed the
following terms of reference for the matter of boycotting which the
Forum had agreed to place with the Parades Committee.
"to examine the problems of boycotting in Northern Ireland and
make recommendations which would help resolve them and report
to the Forum".
1.5 It was also agreed that the existing Committees established by the
Forum on 26 July should become Standing Committees whose remit,
terms of reference and membership could be determined as new topics
are agreed by the Forum.
1.6 The Forum agreed that the Parades Committee should be designated
Standing Committee A, with a current remit of Public Order Issues and
with terms of reference as follows:
"Parades - To examine the problems which arise in relation to
parades in Northern Ireland, make
recommendations which would contribute to better
understanding and amelioration of those problems
and report to the Forum.
Boycotting - To examine the problems of boycotting in Northern
Ireland and make recommendations which would
help resolve them and report to the Forum."
31.7 Standing Committee A (Public Order Issues) decided to take evidence
from various businesses and community organisations and affected
traders to enable them to prepare a report for presentation to the
Forum.
1.8 The Committee is very grateful to those persons who readily agreed to
give evidence to the Committee given the sensitive nature of the issue
and the fear of further increasing tensions by speaking out. The
Committee is also very grateful to the organisations who willingly gave
time and effort to provide the Committee with informative and useful
information.
1.9 Minutes of Evidence taken by the Committee are contained Appendix C
of this report, although in view of the timescale for the completion of
the report it has not been possible to include the corrected form of the
Minutes of Evidence. As a result of the sensitivity of this issue the
Committee agreed that certain evidence would be taken in private and
for these sessions a summary of the evidence is provided.
1.10 The findings in this report are therefore expressed in general terms to
maintain the anonymity of those who provided the information.
42. BACKGROUND
2.1 Boycotting, to some extent, has previously taken place in Northern
Ireland as a result of a divided society which leads people to be
influenced by religious persuasion in deciding who they will shop or do
business with.
2.2 In the aftermath of events surrounding the stand-off at Drumcree/
Garvaghy Road the media/press reported on a Republican boycott of
some Protestant-owned businesses in the border areas of Northern
Ireland.
2.3 The boycott campaign was reported to have been launched by
Republicans in Castlederg, Co Tyrone. A few days after Drumcree/
Garvaghy Road, 8 business people in Castlederg received a letter
accusing them of being involved in Loyalist roadblocks and telling them
that their businesses would be boycotted.
2.4 In late July a letter appeared in a local Nationalist newspaper urging
people not to give their money to Orange businessmen.
2.5 By the beginning of August, evidence of Roman Catholic boycotts of
Protestant-owned businesses were also reported in the border towns of
Newtownbutler, Rosslea, Lisbellaw, Aughnacloy, Newtownhamilton
and further inland in Armagh, Pomeroy, Omagh. Some incidents of
boycotting were also reported in Londonderry. There were also
reports that some Protestant families had begun boycotting Roman
Catholic -owned businesses in Lisnaskea.
52.6 These boycotts created an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust and
some Protestant traders affected by the boycott refused to speak on the
record for fear of reprisals and increasing the tension. Newspaper
reports indicated that some Protestant-owned businesses were
suffering a reduction in turnover of between 30% and 50%.
2.7 Many believed that the boycotts were orchestrated by Sinn Fein but
Sinn Fein insisted that they were not involved. They defended the
boycott, however, claiming that it was a legitimate form of protest
which many felt was justified following the alleged involvement of
Protestant businessmen in the blocking of roads in solidarity with
Orangemen at Drumcree. Some traders also believed that the situation
was not helped by the tacit support for the campaign by certain SDLP
representatives.
63. EFFECTS OF BOYCOTTING
3.1 The Committee considers that boycotting is a social evil, which is
detrimental to good community relations and which exacerbates
divisions within local communities. The Committee further considers
that boycotting is socially, economically and politically unacceptable
and is impeding political development in Northern Ireland.
3.2 The Committee considers that boycotting is an obstacle to improving
the Northern Ireland economy and creates a negative commercial
culture which discourages enterprise and inward investment.
3.3 The Committee recognises the need for traders to be permitted to trade
in an environment which is free from interference by and influence of
sectarian forces. The Committee also recognises that citizens must be
permitted freedom of choice in exercising their right to carry out their
lawful business uninhibited by coercion, threat, blackmail or
intimidation.
74. POINTS ARISING FROM EVIDENCE
4.1 During the course of its examination of the topic, the Committee
learned that:
4.1.1 With regard to Roman Catholic boycotting of Protestant-owned
businesses
- a boycott of some Protestant-owned businesses in some areas was
indeed evident;
- while there was an element of people exercising their personal
preference of where they wished to shop before the boycott
situation there was evidence to suggest that in many cases the
boycotts of Protestant-owned businesses were orchestrated;
- some groups felt that the boycott was pre-meditated and ready to
be implemented when the appropriate circumstances arose;
- there appeared to be several aspects to the targeting within the
orchestrated campaigns, namely:
- the distribution in some areas of anonymously produced
leaflets, posters and lists of shops to avoid;
- individuals purposefully identified and a campaign pointed
directly at them due to the fact that they were allegedly
8involved at some stage in disturbances which occurred during
the summer;
- implied threats by way of people standing outside targeted
premises and on street corners monitoring shoppers going into
those premises;
- targeting seemed to be on a religious basis as all targeted
businesses were Protestant-owned - however not all the
businessmen affected had links with either the Orange Order or
any Unionist party;
- the boycott appeared to be most successful in areas where Sinn
Fein/IRA were strongly represented, eg West Tyrone, parts of
Fermanagh and to a certain extent South Down. However there
were other significant areas where Sinn Fein/IRA had strong
representation and where there was little evidence of boycotting;
- some people believed that the boycotting campaign was part of an
ongoing campaign by Sinn Fein/IRA to bring pressure on
Protestant communities around the border areas.
4.1.2 With regard to Protestant boycotting of Roman Catholic-owned
businesses
- targeting included the distribution in some areas of anonymously
produced leaflets, posters and lists of shops to avoid;
9- little indication of support within the Protestant community for a
concerted campaign to boycott Roman Catholic-owned
businesses, although there have been sporadic instances of this
throughout the Province.
4.1.3 With regard to Media Coverage
- some people believed that extensive reporting by media/press to be
a factor in exacerbating the problem while others felt that the
media/press ignored their plight and gave insufficient coverage to
the issue of boycotts;
- some impetus was given by media coverage as it could lead people
who would not originally have thought of boycotting to think that
they should be doing it.
4.1.4 With regard to Community Relations
- community relations are in a worse state than they were several
months ago;
- business and community organisations have little influence over
the people who are organising the boycotting.
4.1.5 Many affected traders felt a sense of isolation and that insufficient
support had been provided for them from, for example, Government
Agencies and Chamber of Commerce. Some traders also felt that their
plight had been ignored by the RUC.
105. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 The Committee concludes that there has been orchestrated Nationalist
boycotts of businesses in some parts of Northern Ireland.
5.2 As stated previously in this report, the Committee recognises that
boycotting has historically taken place in Northern Ireland as a result of
the divided society in which we live but the Committee concludes from
the evidence given that, on this occasion, Sinn Fein/IRA were
instrumental in initiating the boycotting campaign as a further attack
against the Protestant community in certain areas and that such actions
by any Party are inconsistent with a wish to be regarded as being
committed to exclusively democratic means.
5.3 The Committee recognises that there is some variance in the evidence
given by the business and community organisations regarding the
extent of the boycotting campaign. This variance is still evident in the
updated reports received from these organisations which are contained
in Appendix C of this report.
5.4 The Committee concludes that while there have been sporadic
incidences of boycotting throughout the Province, these now appear to
be on the decline.
5.5 The Committee however recognises that there are particular areas in
the Province where boycotting is continuing and notes that 12% of the
120 businesses surveyed by the Federation of Small Businesses
indicated that
11if the boycotting campaign develops further many businesses will not
survive and could, at the very least, be forced to relocate.
5.6 The Committee further notes from the ongoing contact which the
British and Professional People (BPPU) for the Union have had with
affected traders, that the boycott campaign appears to enjoy
widespread support in strong Nationalist areas and that the continuing
campaign is causing extreme concern and anxiety for affected traders,
some of whom have had to close down their businesses. The BPPU
have also indicated that they have received reports of physical attacks
on Roman Catholics who dared to break the boycott.
5.7 The Committee supports the request by those business people affected
by the boycotts for some form of compensation and urges the
appropriate Government authorities to give urgent consideration to this
matter.
126. RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 The Committee condemns the use of boycott by any group and calls on
those orchestrating and those supporting the boycotts to cease the
campaign immediately.
6.2 The Committee recommends that it should continue to monitor the
boycotting situation and to this end should discuss with the Federation
of Small Businesses the possibility of undertaking a full survey of their
members.
6.3 The Committee further recommends that it should invite the Minister,
Michael Ancram, to meet with them to discuss the present boycotting
activities taking place in the Province and the possibility of arranging
compensatory awards for the affected traders.
6.4 The Committee recognises that the RUC is addressing the illegal
aspects of this issue but recommends that the RUC actively continues
to ensure that the law is upheld.
6.5 The Committee recognises the need for clear leadership by all those in a
position of authority and responsibility in the community and
recommends that they should stand out against these damaging and
divisive campaigns and against the sectarian feelings and prejudices on
which they are based.
6.6 The Committee notes the sense of isolation felt by business people who
are suffering from boycotts and recommends that the Business and
13Community organisations should be more proactive in assisting those
affected.
6.7 The Committee notes from the evidence given the varying effects of
the media reports on the boycotting campaign and recommends that the
media should report on such issues in a sensitive, responsible and
objective manner.
14GMcK32.WM
APPENDIX A
MEMBERSHIP OF
STANDING COMMITTEE A
(PUBLIC ORDER ISSUES)
FOR EXAMINATION OF PARADES ISSUE
Ulster Unionist Party - Mr J Donaldson - Vice-Chairman
Mr R J White
Mr J Rodgers
Mr I Davis
Democratic Unionist Party - Mr N Dodds
Mr J McKee
Mrs I Robinson
Mr M Carrick
Alliance Party - #Mr S McBride
#Sir O Napier
Ulster Democratic Party - *Mr J English
UK Unionist Party - Mr C Wilson - Chairman
Labour - ø
Mr H Casey
NI Women's Coalition - ø
*Mrs B McCabe
*attend the Committee on behalf of the party under Rule 14(4)(a) of the
Forum Rules of Procedure.
. #resigned from the Committee on 24 February 1997.
ø
resigned from the Comittee on 28 Februry 1997.
15