Northern Ireland Assembly
Tuesday 4 July 2000 (continued)
4.00 pm
The May 2000 deadline was of no relevance, as we know, because there is no deadline that is binding on Sinn Féin - it only has to use its influence - and none at all on the IRA as it was not party to the Belfast deal.
Why will there be no decommissioning by the IRA? Simply because the leadership knows only too well that there is no consensus in its movement and that the mere discussion of this issue would be divisive and potentially disastrous. Therefore this entire process has been laid on a foundation of murder, bombings and terror. Selected bunkers have been opened for inspection, but those arsenals are all still intact and pointed at the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland.
At no time has the IRA ever shown any remorse for its deeds. In no other democratic country in the world would there be terrorists in the Government. But, of course, what do we find here? We find one in the post of Minister of Education - and I am reminded that the Provisional IRA has, down through the years, murdered school teachers, school children, principals, students, others who work in schools and school-bus drivers. Many innocent victims have been murdered in the presence of young people and students. Millions of pounds have been wasted through damage to schools and universities by IRA bombs. There remains a crisis in education funding today, which could be attributed, in part, to the 30-year terrorist onslaught directed against us.
We look at what the Health Minister presides over and find that people are receiving attention after being hit around the head with baseball bats or having their hands nailed to planks of wood in crucifixion-style attacks, which can only be described as devilish and wicked in the extreme. This Minister provides funding for the treatment - rather ironic. As I have already said, in no other democratic country in the world would we find terrorists in the Government, but here we find that democracy has been turned on its head so that we avoid another Canary Wharf bomb.
The motion is a simple one: we can either choose to exclude the political representatives of the most brutal killing machine in western Europe and take a stand for democracy, decency and justice, or allow them to remain in this Chamber with their stockpile of weaponry, which they have refused point-blank to decommission, outside the door, so that they can go back to doing what they do best. Therefore I say to all right-thinking Unionists in the Chamber that they should support the motion and oppose terrorists in Government until they hand over their arsenals.
I support the motion.
Mr Ervine:
This debate on the exclusion of Sinn Féin seems, to a degree, to be about huffing and puffing. We all know that it will not be successful, and yet, as one Colleague has already said, there is perfect reason for airing such issues on the Floor of the House. We are airing this issue in the first week of July, against a backdrop of difficulty.
I can remember as a kid how I looked forward to the July holidays. I can remember a sense of innocence that existed, and I can remember a sense of joy. Now there are many people in my community who are dismayed as we approach July. But not all of them are dismayed; there are those vying for positions,who watch our society as it almost pulls itself apart, vying for positions, whether they be muscle-strapped paramilitarists strutting about Drumcree, or whether they be those who raise contentious issues such as the expulsion of Sinn Féin.
People like me are accused of being traitors. It would seem that we are wedded to, have a great affinity with and get on terribly well with Sinn Féin. That is what our opponents tell everyone.
Our political opponents know very well the background from which I come. For me, the price of being a traitor is not to get hit over the head with an umbrella at Scarva - the stuff I have to worry about moves at a higher velocity than that. But still they make the calls; still they loudly make the calls, and if those calls were to be believed then perhaps we would have someone here in my place, or in my Colleague's place. That is the reality. It may sound dramatic but it is an absolute reality.
Dr Paisley said the electorate would punish us. I am standing here ready, unashamed, and waiting for my punishment, because my quest is a quest for peace. I do not see anything wrong with that. I know that our society has come through great difficulty - I have seen the blood and the brains on the pavements. I have buried members of my family, so the theory that somebody holds a monopoly on pain and suffering is nonsense. We have all gone through that pain.
The truth is that every peace process in the world will have its difficulties. There will be moderates who will have the vision, and there will be Neanderthals who will bite at the ankles of the visionary. That is the reality, and it is going on in peace processes across the world. People have to make a choice between the pain of dealing with those who they formerly fought with, or detested so much that they would have blown their heads off, what their children might have to go through, and whether there is an opportunity for a future where we can say "it is worth a try." That is the issue. And if I am someone from the shadows - and while I am not taking too much flak today because we are not just yet ready to take positions in Government -the truth is, of course, that what you say of Sinn Féin and the IRA you mean of me.
Cedric Wilson made it very clear and the DUP has made it very clear that nothing has changed. But that is nothing new. Nothing in paramilitary life has ever changed. You stand up; you do what you believe you are being exalted to do, and then once you have done it you are condemned by those who exalted you. Nothing has changed. It never changed and it will not change for the new brand of UFF that we are seeing on Drumcree hill. It will not change for the new brand of LVF, Red Hand Defenders or Orange Volunteers - and, by the way, if they did not exist someone would have to create them. Oh, sorry, somebody did. The reality is that nothing new is coming from the grand democrats.
But let us measure what we are facing, and what we have to gain, against what we have to lose. Any war must end. Any piece of violence or conflagration must end. In any conflagration there is the first attack and the last - and how tragic it must be to lose someone at the last. Nevertheless, it has to end, and who is it that has to end it? Usually, around the world, it is politicians - not so Northern Ireland. The soldiers had to go to the other soldiers and say "get out of the trenches, we have had enough." That is what happened. You will excuse me calling them soldiers. It is just a badge of identification for those who have fought and died for what they believe in. They may not be the constituted soldiers that some of you would like, but, nevertheless, that is how they are defined in their own community. The soldiers said, "Hey, the politicians will never end this, come on." That is what happened.
Had we waited for constitutional politicians to move together, to have proper and reasonable dialogue with each other in order that the violence of our society might end and our children would get a chance, we would have waited for a very, very, very, very long time. That is the truth of the matter.
Whether or not I like Sinn Féin is not the issue. The issue is whether I would like my grandchildren to grow up in a society that has a chance of normality. And I believe the risk is worth taking. I am asked all the time what is it like to sit beside Martin McGuinness - I was asked it when I was on television the other night. Well, you get used to it. But it was not specifically something that I could have said a few years ago, because all of us have our sense of difficulty with all of these things, and I imagine that there are some of them who have their difficulties with my Colleague and me.
In Northern Ireland today we face more hype than danger. The situation is not perfect, but then there is no such thing as a perfect peace - that is an inscription you put on a headstone. That is a reality. There is greater hype than danger. The IRA has abandoned its anti-partitionist stance. The IRA, so far as we can tell, has abandoned the armed struggle. [Interruption]
A Member:
Do you believe that?
Mr Ervine:
At least I am trying to find out. [Interruption] Whether it has or has not, I see it cowering, absolutely cowering, under the ranks of rolled-up DUP manifestos that have it shattered and frightened.
Mr Boyd rose.
Mr Speaker:
You have a point of order, Mr Boyd?
Mr Boyd:
Mr Speaker, will you direct the Member to speak through the Chair.
Mr Speaker:
If I were strict as to whether Members spoke through the Chair, I would be off my own chair on a rather regular basis. [Interruption] At least, however, the Member has not used the word "You" to accuse the Chair of any other things. That does happen from time to time. The point is, nevertheless, well taken for all Members.
Mr Ervine:
That interruption by the Krankies - oh well.
We do not have perfection, or anywhere near it. It also seems clear to me that it is extremely popular in my community to tell people what you think they want to hear. Of course there is a detestation of Sinn Féin and the IRA. There is a serious detestation. But what do we do - feed on that? Do we try to change the circumstances of this society? I advocate that we change the circumstances of this society, and in trying to do so, there are risks. I and members of my party take those risks every day. Two members of my party have died this year alone, specifically in relation to the arguments over "yes"or "no" and the propensity of those in the "no" camp on the paramilitary side to facilitate their lifestyles by the sale of drugs.
Whatever our feelings about the paramilitary groups of today, or the new paramilitary groups of today, those groups exist Loyalist and Republican. Those groups consist of grandfather, father and son and they will not easily be got rid of, but we must try, as best we can, to get rid of them incrementally, slowly but surely. We must give them a stake in society, a sense that there is a different way than the way that they previously did things. One might argue that the Republican movement could have given some consideration and stopped fuelling the extremes within Loyalism and Unionism. It cannot be right that, in their attempts in the past to cover up the fact that there is no united Ireland, to cover up the fact that partition has been accepted, to make things easy for themselves, the Republicans have been comfortable - [Interruption] I am finishing now if I may. Let me finish.
Mr Speaker:
The time is up. [Interruption] I am keeping very tight to the time for everybody.
Ms McWilliams:
I have a sense of déjà vu about today's motion. Not very long ago, in this Chamber, we were having a discussion about the fact that after that day's debate had finished, we were due to go to a Business Committee meeting upstairs, and a comment was made about the facilities provided upstairs. I remember very well that Mr Sammy Wilson of the DUP interjected, saying that he would never sit down with a woman upstairs and that he would never sit down with Sinn Féin upstairs. Not only has the DUP been sitting down with Sinn Féin upstairs in the Business Committee, but it has since progressed to all of the other Committees and then into the Government, and there it stayed. I call that progress. One could be reminded of Mahatma Ghandi's famous words "First they ignore you," - and I should remember this, particularly from my time in the Forum - "then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win."
Winning sometimes has a different connotation to the winning which I should like - the realisation that we are all in this together. Continuing to protect one's own patch and see failure as a loss of one's power, influence, and domination - as something one does not want to be part of - is long gone in Northern Ireland. The consensus style of politics eventually created, not a demand for surrender, but a demand for us to work together.
4.15 pm
Naomi Chazan, who, as the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, should know more about this than anyone, recently visited Stormont. She said there are four things that can destroy any process: fear, fatigue, friction, and failure. I said before that we have interrupted the culture of failure. Friction is not necessarily an unhealthy thing, but when it creates fatigue and, more importantly, the politics of fear rather than hope, it begins to destroy people. That is what we shall not let happen.
Let me say a little about the hypocrisy I have witnessed at first hand during this process. Perhaps it was useful that Dr Paisley interjected to remind us that it is too bad if one says something in a parliamentary process. I feel one ought to take more responsibility when naming individuals, particularly when their lives are at risk and that it is more than simply "too bad" when that happens. Nevertheless, I do not wish to be in the politics of naming and shaming, but the politics of shaping and framing. However, I shall name. Before the Good Friday Agreement and the IRA's statement about opening up its arms dumps to inspection, those who said that they were always against dialogue with Sinn Féin - the Jeffrey Donaldsons of this world - were sitting down with its members in peace seminars in Salzburg. None of us ever stated this, for we thought it helpful and useful for that to happen. Speaking about it would lead backwards rather than forwards. There have been many silences in order to protect this process.
However, the day has come for us to stand up and be counted and expose the level of hypocrisy. Not only are people sitting together in Committees, but they are also speaking together. Members of the DUP and those who have added their names as petitioners and made up the 30 are doing what we would always have wanted them to do. They have been sharing jokes and having a merry old time with other members of those Committees. It must be placed on the record that we are talking not only of these Members sitting alongside Sinn Féin members, but of their sharing in decisions and in the creation of policies. Long may it continue.
Mr Wells:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon Member for South Belfast is making very serious allegations against those who put their name to this motion. She should do the honourable thing and be specific about what she is talking about and name those she believes to be doing this, for I can give an absolute, categorical assurance that none of our party has been involved.
Mr Speaker:
The dilemma in my responding to your point of order is that I have of course only recently pointed out the inappropriateness of naming Members regarding specific accusations, since it frequently falls outside what is parliamentary and acceptable. The Member would be in a dilemma were she to follow my ruling on the previous arrangement only to find me making a different and unparliamentary ruling as you request.
Mr Maskey:
Since we are talking about naming people, I wonder if the Member would be at all surprised to hear that Roger Hutchinson, for example, tortured Francie Molloy and myself halfway through last year with his pleading to try to save this Assembly, while at the same time telling us not to let anyone from his party see him, since his constituency would roast him. That is some of the hypocrisy of Mr Hutchinson.
Ms McWilliams:
Some Members have already said that this is a timely debate, but I think, for two reasons, that it is very untimely. I was very disappointed to hear one Member who is in favour of this motion, condemning the violence of last night and then going on to say that it is understandable. I can understand the reasons for people embarking on a course of civil disobedience, but I can never, ever understand, nor could I ever justify, what has been going on during the past few nights. I am extremely concerned when I hear people who are prepared to support this motion seeming to have no problem whatsoever in allying themselves with that kind of behaviour. Such actions cost us dearly in lives and in money.
Enormous demands have been made, and rightly so, during this process for us to begin to work across our differences and with our differences. Why is it always that those who tabled this motion, moved this motion, and will vote for this motion have made the highest demands of the agreement that they are so very opposed to?
I take some heart from comments made after Senator Mitchell's review. Both the Ulster Unionists and Sinn Féin produced statements on 16 November. Sinn Féin stated
"We are totally opposed to any use of force, or threat of force by others for any political purpose. We are also totally opposed to punishment attacks".
It may never be enough, as our agreement was never enough, simply to write down the words. But all of us together must take action to ensure that it stops.
That is the second reason for my considering this debate untimely: it is eating into the recess when we could be in Committees producing policies and making decisions about the protection of our young people. The Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee attempted to do so today at 1.00 pm, but it had to finish by 2.00 pm to enable us to engage in this debate. That is the kind of action that I entered the Assembly to take, not to wallow in the nostalgia of some perfect past.
David Ervine and I visited the war graves in Palestine last week and saw on a headstone "Peace, perfect peace". It is sad that it is written on a gravestone. I constantly make the point to those who feel that perfect peace is going to come out of the air and appear in front of us that they ought to start committing themselves to some course of action to ensure that, imperfect as it is, the process will continue. Anyone who remembers what we have come through in the last 30 years knows that we have come a long way. We may only be managing this conflict, but we have begun to transform it. One day we may resolve it, and then maybe we will begin to talk about the kind of perfect peace that some people, who simply fire a motion into the system, seem to feel that they will gain as a result.
Finally, if this motion is about exclusion, I will certainly vote against it. The main principle brought to the negotiations, one which we have stayed with ever since, was the principle of the politics of inclusion. Let us disagree about the past. We may even be suspicious about the future, but with all the parties, pro- and anti-Agreement, we can build a framework for that future.
Mr McCartney:
I support this motion, not because I am a Unionist, not because I am a member of the reformed faith - or, as some would say, a Protestant - I support it because I am a democrat. I know of no institution of government anywhere in the world that claims to have the slightest semblance of democracy, that includes in its Executive arm representatives of a political party inextricably linked with an armed terrorist group determined to remain armed. When Monica McWilliams talks on about the importance of sitting in her Committee, she entirely ignores the fact that she can do so only because the most fundamental principle of democratic government is being trampled underfoot by the threat of violence. That is the position.
It is sad that there are only two Members of the SDLP and virtually no Members of the pro-agreement Ulster Unionist Party present in the Chamber at this stage. In reality, this Assembly has become, in democratic terms, a slum. It is a slum, because the fundamental principles of democracy that would have made it an honourable institution are missing. Terror and the threat of terror have created it; it is being maintained by terror and the threat of terror; and if it falls, it will have been because terror has not been satisfied.
Let me turn to some of the remarks that have been made today, principally by Mr Pat Doherty. He talked about hypocrisy and alleged hypocrisy. There was one person he did not mention as being involved, in any circumstances, in any of this hypocrisy, and it was myself. I have never ever been accused by Sinn Féin, the SDLP or by any branch of Nationalism of being either sectarian or bigoted, but I am a democrat, and, as a democrat, I have no objection to Republicans or Nationalists putting forward their view for the future, provided they do so on a democratic basis. I have a total and absolute aversion to participating in any shape or form, either in Committees or in any other way, with the representatives of thugs and gangsters.
Three Sinn Féin Members of the Assembly have been publicly identified, in the national press and by members of the security forces, as being members of the seven-man IRA Army Council, with whom that party is inextricably linked. It is common knowledge that all the highest offices in both organisations, Sinn Féin and the IRA, are held by the same people.
Let me now turn to this piece of rhetorical gobbledegook and nonsense known as the IRA peace statement, including the alleged confidence-building measure. Monica McWilliams talks about peace, but the very first paragraph of this statement sets out the terms under which Sinn Féin/IRA will permit us to have lasting peace in Northern Ireland. You can have lasting peace provided the causes of the conflict are removed, provided Northern Ireland is wiped off the map, provided the British withdraw from Northern Ireland - whatever that may mean, whether that means the pro-Union population, or merely the British Army - and when partition is ended. Everything else in that statement is conditional on that opening paragraph.
The second paragraph dealing with the glorious Belfast Agreement, an agreement obtained by forgery, fraud and deceit, by an overwhelming public-money subscription to the processes of propaganda, by a supine press and media, which instead of preserving the integrity of the fourth estate and being objective reporters and impartial examiners of public policy, became cheerleaders for a Government-inspired policy. That is how the Belfast Agreement was arrived at.
4.30 pm
What do we find in the second paragraph of the IRA statement? We find that the IRA considers that the Belfast Agreement provides the political context in an ongoing process that provides the potential for the removal of the causes of conflict. In other words, it views it, as it has very fairly and publicly stated, as a transitional process to a United Ireland. As long as the British Government guarantee that they will continue in that transitional mode, the IRA will continue moving to its objective of Irish unity. It will keep its guns silent, but it will not dispense with them, and it will not destroy them. Only when that agreement has been implemented in full, according to Sinn Féin/IRA specifications, will it consider putting the weapons beyond use. It does not propose, for example, in putting the weapons beyond use, to adopt either of the schemes in Gen de Chastelain's operations - destruction or dumping. It will then talk about putting the weapons verifiably beyond use. At that point, if the political objective has been achieved and Ireland is united, if Sinn Féin has seats in the Dáil in a coalition with Fianna Fáil, if it has places in government - North and South - what need will there be for the weapons? Of course they can be dispensed with then.
To describe the confidence-building measure as a macabre political joke is to give it the benefit of language it does not deserve. A limited number of dumps are to be chosen by Sinn Féin/IRA, the contents are to be designated by Sinn Féin/IRA, and they are to be inspected in secret by two members of other Governments approved by the IRA. Those dumps will remain fully in the control of the IRA and will represent only a tiny fraction of its total arsenal, which will remain immediately available should it be needed. This peace process is driven by the principle of appeasement.
Immediately after the joint declaration of December 1993 the then Prime Minister, John Major, made a speech to the nation. He said that the only people who could give peace were the men of violence and that they could give that peace in two ways - they could either be suppressed or appeased. It was decided to appease them, and the British Government have appeased them ever since, for one reason - to keep the bombs out of the City of London. That is the driving political imperative for this whole rotten process, including this Assembly, which is an empty sop to the pro-Union people. It has neutralised them politically in terms of their majority. It fractures and violates every principle of democratic government. It is a transitional process. Like the mule, it has no pride of ancestry and no hope of posterity. That is what this Assembly is.
As Mr Doherty said, the Nationalist community has given his party a mandate, but no people, no party can have a mandate to do wrong. That was established by the Nuremberg trials in 1946, which said that even though the Nationalist Socialist Party had been elected on a overwhelming popular mandate, its representatives were not entitled to murder six million Jews and commit other acts of violence. The same principle applies to Sinn Féin. It has no business being here and it ought to be removed.
Mr Dodds:
The motion has been tabled by those who believe that apologists for gunmen should have no place in government. The vote this evening will be a test for every Member of the House. Do they want a Government involving IRA/Sinn Féin or a Government who are exclusively and totally committed to peaceful and democratic means?
We have been castigated about stunts. What greater political stunt is there than the empty Benches of our political opponents? Having run away from their electoral manifesto commitments, they are now running away from the argument. Beaten in the argument, they cannot stay to hear the debate and face the music. The debate clearly shows, as the vote will show, that the majority of Unionists in the House do not agree with Sinn Féin/IRA being in government. One of David Trimble's main policies in allowing Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, the representatives of gunmen, to be in government is not supported by the majority of Unionists in the elected Northern Ireland Assembly. Indeed, it is not supported by the vast majority of the Unionists outside the House.
Secondly, the vote will demonstrate that there is no cross-community support for David Trimble or for Seamus Mallon to be First and Deputy First Ministers. They require 50% plus one of the votes of the House. I challenge them, if they are so confident, to resign their posts and put themselves forward for re-election. When the Assembly was reconvened Mr Mallon went through the charade of pretending that he had not resigned, rather than putting the matter to the vote. Such honour. We are lectured about morality, honour, honesty and truth, yet, the proponents of the agreement are not prepared to go through the democratic process because they know that they do not have support in the House.
Mr Trimble spent 80% of his time attacking the DUP and other anti-agreement Unionists. Mr Seamus Close - Mr two per cent of the vote in the Alliance Party - spent his time attacking the Unionists in the House. The smaller parties once again allowed themselves to be used as fodder for the main pro-agreement parties. [Interruption].
As the Member said, they are nodding dogs. The reality is that, rather than attacking Sinn Féin/IRA for what it is doing in the streets in murdering and maiming, some Members prefer to attack democrats. They prefer to attack the Unionists who are simply using the procedures of the House in a perfectly democratic and legitimate way. Indeed, the procedure - the means by which we are debating this motion - was inserted in the agreement and in the legislation by the pro-agreement parties, who now have the audacity to talk about it as some sort of political stunt. Talk about hypocrisy.
Mr Trimble and the Ulster Unionists censure and attack DUP Ministers. Of course, they will censure and attack all of us for taking the stand that we do. However, not a word was said to Sinn Féin/IRA about its refusal to fly the national flag or to support the RUC, nothing was said about the murder of Ed McCoy, the gun-running in Florida or the bombing in Ballymurphy at Glenalena Crescent when clearly the IRA was involved.
Dr Paisley mentioned the maimings. Between 1 January and 11 June this year there were 111 paramilitary attacks, 21 Republican shootings and 24 Republican assaults. During this time there was a fully stocked IRA arsenal at the behest of IRA/Sinn Féin. However, not a word was said to Sinn Féin. There was no censure from Mr Trimble. There were no attacks from the Ulster Unionist Party or its colleagues in government. There were plenty of attacks on those of us who are standing by our electoral manifesto commitments and doing what we pledged to do in the Assembly.
Let us look at the issue of decommissioning. We were told that there would be no cherry-picking in the Belfast Agreement, but what happened to 22 May deadline? Mr McGimpsey lectured us when the Assembly was suspended, saying that unless something happened by 22 May and all weapons were disposed of, everything would come crashing down. What happened to that deadline? It was arbitrarily and totally dismissed. Talk about cherry-picking. That fundamental aspect of the agreement was simply set aside, but the people were not consulted. It was never put to a vote. We now have in its place a deal that allows Sinn Féin/IRA to be in government. There are no guns up front, nor is there a requirement to hand in guns at any time.
In 'The Times' of 9 May Michael Gove put it accurately when he said
"There is no commitment to the destruction of any weaponry, no commitment to tell anyone just what was in [the IRA] arsenal, no commitment [by the IRA] to open anything other than a few of what could be very many arms dumps, and no commitment not to use any of its weapons again. Anyone who thinks this is decommissioning, as defined by this Government for so long, deserves to be committed themselves."
That is the situation. At the time of the Hillsborough deal Mr Trimble said
"This statement raises more questions than it answers."
He never got any answers to his questions. He said that we need to know what "beyond use" actually means. Of course, he did get the answer, but he got it from Tony Blair, and that satisfied him. Mr Blair said in the House of Commons that he believed there still had to be decommissioning and permanently putting beyond use, but what use are the words of Tony Blair? Have we not learnt by now that his promises and pledges are totally and absolutely worthless? There was no word from P O'Neill or from the IRA, but Mr Trimble was so eager to get back into Government with Sinn Féin/IRA that he grasped those words, meaningless as they are and without any certainty, timetable or clarity.
We are told that progress is being made. Mr Trimble asks what the DUP has achieved. Of course, we have been honest. We have said throughout that there will never be any handing over or decommissioning by the IRA. What has Mr Trimble done? What is this confidence-building measure? We have two gentlemen, one of whom spoke recently at a Sinn Féin/IRA rally in west Belfast. The other, who claims to have been down in the dumps inspecting IRA arms, can hardly get up Downing Street. This is certainly a confidence-building measure for IRA gunmen. They will be very confident, knowing that all their guns are nicely, safely and securely stored in dumps down south and given legitimacy by the Irish Republic. They are now protected; nobody is to go near them, to touch them or do anything with them without the say-so of the IRA.
The two gentlemen concerned did not tell us, or perhaps they do not know, how many arms dumps there are. They did not tell us, or perhaps they do not know, what percentage of the arms is actually contained in these dumps. Perhaps they were not told - and we certainly were not told - where these dumps are. Gen de Chastelain, who we were told is the guarantor of this process, was not even involved. He was simply told. Crucially, these dumps and the IRA weaponry within are still under the total control of the IRA. They can go back to using their weaponry whenever they choose. On 10 May Dennis Kennedy wrote in 'The Irish Times'
"The so-called confidence-building measure proposed by the IRA for the independent inspection of a number . of arms dumps is meaningless in terms of the decommissioning of illegally-held weapons, and indeed is of much greater significance in terms of recognition of the IRA's right to hold those arms."
That is the reality of the situation. Mr Trimble tells us that this is a first step, but Bertie Ahern let the cat out of the bag. He said that this is the successful end of the process. This is as good as it gets. There is going to be no more handover of weapons. In the meantime people can be murdered, maimed, threatened and intimidated.
Martin McGuinness and Bairbre de Brún are in government, doing as they please, as we said they would. They refuse to fly the national flag or co-operate with the police, and nothing is done about it. This process does not mean decommissioning in any shape or form. I recall the words of a gentleman who said, back in January when this proposal to put arms beyond use was first floated,
"There is a lot of silly talk. The only thing that matters is the scheme. The scheme refers to destruction."
That is quite right. Who said it? It was Mr David Trimble on 14 January this year. What did this silly talk refer to? The idea that weapons could be permanently inaccessible, rather than destroyed, and put in secure underground bunkers - the very thing that he has now settled for.
Many Ulster Unionist Members will try to run away from the vote by abstaining. They lack the courage to come here and vote for what they agreed at Hillsborough. What does it say to their colleagues and partners in Government when they are not prepared to vote publicly and openly for what they agreed in the Hillsborough deal? At the same time they deliberately refuse to vote to exclude IRA/Sinn Féin although while they are content to attack the DUP and other Unionists. There is a clear choice in this debate - a vote for the IRA or against the IRA. There is no neutral or abstentionist ground.
4.45 pm
Mr Hussey:
I support the motion. I realise that there may be a quixotic-type element to the motion. Mr Alban Maginness argued that the motion is doomed to failure. Unfortunately, it is doomed to failure by the inaction of the SDLP to uphold democratic principles and to work with the constitutional parties in this Chamber.
My rationale in this debate will differ from that of other Members taking part, and I hope that Members will respect that. Members will know that I am not an anti-agreement Unionist. My understanding of the Belfast Agreement was that there would be pain and gain for all involved in the process. It was on that basis that I reluctantly gave my support to the agreement. However, at the same time, I hope that all will recognise that I have been consistent on where my bottom line lay - the major gain that I understood would be forthcoming from the Republican movement. The progressive removal of its arsenal of terror from our society was to have been completed by 22 May last.
It was the IRA murder of a very close friend that persuaded me to enter local politics. Over the years so many people in my locality have been placed in an early grave by Republicans. I believe that the cycle of terror, murder, violence and community upheaval for political ideology has to end, and the means of its continuance have to be removed from society. I found one of Mr Close's sentences very interesting. In it he said "if permanent peace were established". That lets us know that Mr Close does not believe that there is a permanent peace.
The first item on my personal manifesto for election to this House was, and remains, the demand that to be acceptable in Executive positions requires a beginning to actual decommissioning. Members will know that it was on this issue that I asked to be relieved of my Deputy Whip duties in my party group last November and further, that I opposed a return to this Assembly after suspension.
To broaden the issue slightly, I personally have no problem with the establishment of cross-border bodies for the mutual benefit of our people. Indeed, I represent my district council on a cross-border body, and I believe that it is wrong not to have Unionist voices in such bodies. Indeed, as I look round a rather depleted House, I recognise Members present whom I have seen at various cross-border events, initiatives and conferences. Further, I have no problem with inclusive power-sharing institutions of Government for Northern Ireland, but those in Executive positions in such an Administration must be clearly adhering to normal democratic credentials.
IRA/Sinn Féin constantly refers to its electoral mandate. This electoral mandate has been recognised. Its Members sit in Assembly seats and take positions on the various Assembly Committees, together with representatives of other parties. This enables them to represent their constituents and to fulfil their electoral mandate. However, without a verified beginning to actual decommissioning, how can we accept that there is a proper fulfilment of the normal democratic credentials that are a necessary prerequisite to Executive responsibility?
I contend that the Ulster Unionist Party has fully, sincerely and painfully adhered to the requirements of the Belfast Agreement, while IRA/Sinn Féin has failed, so far, to live up to its side of the agreement. Mention was made of the IRA statement. That statement regarding the placing of some arms in some dumps with regular inspection is I believe, only a blocking measure to decommissioning as established by the requirements of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
I further believe that the present situation offers nothing more than the immorally titillating offer of the prospect, perhaps, of Republicans turning their backs on terrorism with the eventual possible decommissioning of their armoury and maybe the dismantling of their military wing. Republicans continue to prevaricate on whether or not they are prepared to become democrats in any normally accepted interpretation of the term. The Republican movement has had ample time to decide in which way it is prepared to go.
Ulster Unionists have not cherry-picked the agreement. Why should Republicans be allowed to do so continually? Let us see a beginning to actual decommissioning. Let us see an end to ongoing murderous and criminal activities. Let us see proper reciprocation from IRA/Sinn Féin on its side of the agreement.
I am reminded, as I close, of some words from the Secretary of State when he said that Northern Ireland would become a byword for political failure unless we make the agreement work. Maybe Mr Mandelson should consider the failure of our Westminster Government to ensure that democrats could move on without unrepentant terrorists, as promised by our Prime Minister. Whose failure was Mr Mandelson addressing? Sinn Féin does not enjoy my confidence.
I support the motion.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
My Colleague from North Belfast has correctly said that the hour of decision has now arrived in the Assembly. The Assembly will be taking a crucial vote tonight. It will decide whether this House wishes to continue with the armed representatives of mass thuggery in the Government of Northern Ireland, or whether it wants to take a step in the direction of democracy and expel those people from the Government. It is likely that the former decision will be taken.
Let it be made clear that this House will be taking a decision that does not have the confidence of the majority of the Unionist people's representatives. It will not have the blessing of Members of my party, or of Members of the so-called negative anti-agreement parties, but following, as I do, the speech from the Member for West Tyrone, it will not have the blessing of the majority of Unionists in this House tonight. That message must be heard across Northern Ireland and be in every Member's heart as he leaves the Chamber this evening.
We could stand here and bandy about section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act which says that no one should be involved in the Government of Northern Ireland who is not committed to non-violence. We could bandy around the Code of Conduct and the Pledge of Office contained in the Belfast Agreement. The issue is, as the proverbial dogs in the street know, that Sinn Féin/IRA is not fit to be in the Government of Northern Ireland. Indeed, its pathetic rebuttal of our motion today is the clearest possible indication, and its absence from the House is not about contempt for the DUP. Yes, it would like the media to think that. Neither is its absence about contempt for "No" parties or about any contempt it may have for me. Sinn Féin/IRA's absence reflects the fact that it has run out of arguments to defend its now indefensible position. It does not have the courage or the neck or the ability to come here and argue its position.
Abraham Lincoln said that what is morally wrong can never be politically right. The reality is that it is morally wrong to put gunmen into any institution of Government. We could never, even with the best advocate in the world, produce one argument in favour of its being politically right to put those people in the Government of Northern Ireland.
It is little wonder we see violence on our streets today and saw violence on our streets last night. The Assembly, like it or not, has sent out the message to thugs across Northern Ireland that violence pays. It is little wonder that people are marching up and down streets burning cars and buses when the message to them is that their vote is worthless but their violence might be noticed. After all, it was the violence of others that propelled them into the Government of Northern Ireland.
The Ulster Unionist party leader came to the House today and attempted to sell dodgy merchandise. He came to the House as an advocate for Sinn Féin/IRA. Sinn Féin put up a pathetic rebuttal, but after that pathetic rebuttal it got Mr Trimble to be its lawyer and advocate its case. Indeed, he attempted to do that. Mr Trimble's rebuttal was not only pathetic, but it represented the pathetic state that he, the leader of a majority party in Northern Ireland, has found himself in. Did people elect him to be the mouthpiece of Provisional IRA/Sinn Féin? Did people elect his party to stand behind Sinn Féin and protect it? I do not think so. But that is exactly what he did in the Chamber today.
Trimble, for all his self-proclaimed legal skills, his self-adulation, his knowledge and so-called depth, either did not check the small print before signing up to the agreement and to the Hillsborough Agreement, or he got so distracted in checking the commas and the semicolons that he missed the point of what he was doing - propelling terrorists into Government. Mr Trimble forgot that possession is nine tenths of the law. Now he has given members of IRA/Sinn Féin possession of Government offices. Look at the difficulty that we, the majority representatives, are facing in trying to get those people out - a difficulty of Mr Trimble's making.
I am not surprised by Mr Trimble's position here today. After all he has argued at least six different positions already on decommissioning. First of all in 1994 the Ulster Unionist Party declared that it would require total decommissioning from the Provisional IRA/Sinn Féin before it could even enter talks. Less than a year later the party took a second position, reducing its requirement under the Washington Three principle and requiring IRA decommissioning only to start before Sinn Féin could enter the political process.
Then position three in 1996 was that the party had to accept the Mitchell compromise, which required decommissioning to take place alongside the political talks. Position four came in 1998. The party had signed up to the Belfast Agreement, in which all participants reaffirmed their commitment to total disarmament, and decommissioning would take place by May of this year. Position five came in November 1999 when the party was asked to change its policy again to allow the Executive to be established on the understanding that decommissioning would follow shortly after. When it did not follow we reached the latest position - position six - the one that says that the IRA's arms are now beyond use and Mr Trimble's greasy stranglehold on Sinn Féin will eventually squeeze from it more concessions on this issue.
The Ulster Unionist position on the issue of putting armed, unrepentant terrorists into the Government of Northern Ireland has not slipped once or changed twice - it has altered, six times, in total, , while Sinn Féin's position has remained rock solid. Shame on those Unionists who have allowed this to happen.
There are normally 18 perfectly good reasons sitting under that Gallery for Sinn Féin's not being in the Government of Northern Ireland. But tonight they have run away.
5.00 pm
Sinn Fein is not fit to be in the Government in Northern Ireland, not because of its terrorism in the past, but because of its continuing terrorism.
What is the curriculum vitae of the Minister of Education? Between 1971 and 1973 he was the officer who commanded the IRA's Derry brigade and was responsible for destroying more than 150 of the city's shops, leaving only 20 trading. His CV goes on: in 1973 he was arrested in Donegal, close to a car filled with a 250lb bomb and 500 rounds of ammunition, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The following year he was arrested and charged with membership of the Provisional IRA for which he was imprisoned in Belfast's Crumlin Road jail in 1976. His ignoble past continues.
In 1998 he said that he would never apologise to anyone for supporting the Provisional IRA. As was mentioned earlier, as a Minister in the Government of Northern Ireland, he advocated that people should not help the police to catch the Omagh bombers. Is that the example that we want to give to the people of this country? Is he the sort of person who should be running a Department? If so, shame on this House; shame on the so-called democratic process; shame on democracy.
Mr Roche:
The motion to expel Sinn Féin/IRA from the Executive has the support of every law-abiding citizen in Northern Ireland who is genuinely committed to democracy. Sinn Fein/IRA is committed to terrorism, not merely as a means of securing its political objective of Irish unity, but as an end in itself.
Patrick Pearse is the fountain head of the so-called Irish Republican movement. Pearse's political outlook was based on the morally disgusting philosophy that bloodshed is cleansing and sanctifying. The Members of Sinn Féin/IRA are the political offspring of Pearse. The so-called Republican movement is responsible for the murders of 2,140 people and the injury of about 30,000 people in the past 30 years of Sinn Féin/IRA terrorism. Such terrorism was driven not by a legitimate political objective, but by nothing more commendable than deep-rooted sectarian hatred.
By the early 1990s, Sinn Féin/IRA was on the edge of defeat by the RUC. That should be put firmly on the record. It was decisively documented in Jack Holland's recently published 'Hope Against History'. The position has been turned around by the implementation of the Belfast Agreement, and the Patten report will systematically destroy the RUC, contrary to the assurances that Mr Trimble and Mr Taylor gave to the previous Ulster Unionist council meeting.
Two members of Sinn Féin/IRA, assisted by a convicted murderer, now form part of the Executive that governs the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland without the surrender of a single bullet to lawful authority. The recent so-called inspection of three arms dumps is not a step towards decommissioning; it is the de facto legitimisation by the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic, of the retention by Sinn Féin/IRA of a terrorist arsenal, while two of its members hold seats on the Executive. The so-called inspection is the very opposite of a step towards decommissioning. That is what Mr Trimble and those who support him have signed, sealed and delivered to the Unionist citizens of Northern Ireland.
One of Mr Trimble's advisers recently described the UUP leader to me as a strategic genius who had wrong-footed both the SDLP and Sinn Féin/IRA. The UUP leader has retreated from every strategic position that he has adopted since negotiations began in 1996 and, in the process, he has conceded to Nationalists virtually everything of significance that is necessary for the maintenance of the Union.
Mr Trimble, I need hardly tell this Assembly, is no strategic genius. The UUP leadership has conceded a form of government for Northern Ireland that is an affront to common decency. Why is that the case? The answer is very simple. There is no book written about the Provisional IRA that does not mention Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness as the leaders of that terrorist organisation. But what precisely is attributed to them in that capacity?
David Sharrock and Mark Davenport, on page 108 of their book, 'Man of War, Man of Peace,' state categorically that in July 1972 Gerry Adams was responsible for the discipline and the day-to-day running of the entire Belfast brigade of the Provisional IRA and that he was among those who planned "bloody Friday". To my knowledge, this claim by Sharrock and Davenport has never been legally contested by Gerry Adams despite the fact that the allegation associates him with one of the most morally outrageous acts of the twentieth century.
The same considerations apply to Martin McGuinness. On 24 October 1990 Patrick Gillespie was blown to bits as a human bomb at Coshquin. The bomb was detonated by the IRA while Mr Gillespie was strapped into the driver's seat. According to Jack Holland in his book 'Hope Against History' Martin McGuinness was the "overall commander" of the Derry Provisionals who were responsible for this "act of total barbarity." Dr Edward Daly stated that the use of Patrick Gillespie as a "human bomb" marked "a new threshold of evil for the IRA" - and that was as recent as 1990.
Jack Holland states, on page 132 of his book, that under Martin McGuinness "the Derry active service units had devastated the city, reducing its downtown area to streets of bombed and boarded-up buildings", - a point that has just been made. He also states that the Derry Provisionals, under the leadership of McGuinness, had "also been among the first to carry out a ruthless murder campaign against off-duty UDR men."
One of the victims of that ruthless campaign was a 10-year old child killed on 8 February 1978 when an IRA booby-trap bomb exploded beneath her father's car. The bomb killed the child, her father and badly injured her young brother. The children were being taken to school by their father who was a part-time member of the UDR. It is totally unacceptable that individuals with this type of record should be in a democratic Assembly never mind in an Executive regardless of what mandate they claim to have.
This is a moment of truth for any party in the Assembly that claims to be committed to the practice of democracy. The SDLP has long ago failed the test of commitment to democracy. The virtual absence - now total - of SDLP participation in this debate demonstrates its contempt for democracy. Under the leadership of Mr Hume and Mr Mallon the SDLP is indistinguishable from Sinn Féin/IRA. The SDLP is, at this very moment, giving unqualified support to Sinn Féin/IRA in relation to the holding of a terrorist arsenal while two members of Sinn Féin/IRA are in the Executive.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
For the record of this House, while the SDLP Benches are empty the bar is full.
Mr Roche:
That is well worth putting on the record. It is remarkable that Mr Hume and Mr Mallon are so committed to supporting Sinn Féin/IRA that they are prepared to see the demise of the SDLP due to the political creditability they have given to Sinn Féin/IRA. Mr Trimble has claimed that this debate is irresponsible. The political irresponsibility lies with Mr Trimble. The UUP leadership has broken every election pledge that his party has made to the Unionist electorate, in order to accommodate the demands of Sinn Féin/IRA backed by the SDLP. A debate about the issue of decommissioning cannot be a matter of political irresponsibility. The issue goes right to the heart of democracy and the rule of law. The irresponsibility of Mr Trimble's forming an Executive with Sinn Féin/IRA has now put him in a minority in the Assembly and among the Unionist electorate.
The building of a proper system of devolved government in Northern Ireland based on democracy requires two fundamental conditions to be met. First, a Unionist leadership fixated with the appeasement of terrorism must be replaced. Secondly, there must be no place in the Government of Northern Ireland for the members of political parties committed to terrorism and the threat of terrorism. This is a motion that must be supported by every right-thinking person in the Assembly.
Rev Dr William McCrea:
We must not forget that while we are here to debate this important motion on the exclusion of IRA/Sinn Féin there are many people in society who are still carrying the wounds of 30 years of terrorism. There are still widows carrying broken hearts and children longing for the return of their fathers, which, because of terrorism, will never happen. But this does seem not to count to many people. Many elected representatives of the Unionist community have given a new meaning to the letters IRA "I ran away". They could not face up to the reality of the debate, and how could they? How could any Ulster Unionist defend the putting of IRA murderers into Government over the very people whom they murdered for 30 years?
And how could Sinn Féin have the brass neck to defend the catalogue of murder and destruction for which it was responsible for over 30 years? For example, Martin McGuinness was mentioned. He seemed somewhat edgy today when he happened to see a photograph of himself - he thought that there was blood on his hands. I remind Martin McGuinness of a leading article in the 'Irish News' on 23 June 1986, in which he said
"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. In the whole of Western Europe there is not a revolutionary or a social organisation that enjoys as much popular support as we do, and we must be conscious of that fact and build on that. The British and their native collaborators know that the IRA is out to win. Republicanism will not be satisfied with another glorious failure."
He went on
"Resistance has deepened and our absolute commitment to victory has provoked a similar commitment on the part of the British to destroy us."
People are edgy about Martin's past, and they tell us that we should not bring this up, but those are actually his words - not ours. He said "I apologise to no one"; he said "We support and admire the freedom fighters of the IRA"; he said "Freedom can only be gained at the point of an IRA rifle".
By his own words he stands condemned. The tragedy is that behind every one of those murders is a personal catalogue of pain and heartache.
Nobody wants to know about it. You raise hackles if you happen to remind them about the past, but we are not talking about the past only - we are also talking about the present. We are talking about a situation that exists to this very day, because the McCoy family carry the pain and the hurt of the murder of their loved one. I wonder if the gentlemen who sail around the world at British expense to look at these bunkers can find the gun that murdered Mr McCoy there, or is that one staying outside to be used the next time they want to shoot someone.