Northern Ireland Assembly

6.15 pm

He never dealt with the motion, and it is a crying shame that we have a Unionist leader who, when asked to speak on a motion calling for the exclusion from the Government of armed, unrepentant terrorist representatives, decides to restrict himself to dealing with entirely different issues, not touching on that matter. He says that dreadful things have happened in this Province over the last few nights and that it would have been better if the House had addressed those important issues. Of course, Members did not have knowledge of those events at the time when they would have had to put down a motion, but that fact would carry no weight in Mr Trimble's mind.

As First Minister, he has the ability in Executive time to call the Assembly to address issues relevant to the Government of Northern Ireland. He could have made a statement on the resources being lost today because of the violence on our streets. If the matter was of such importance and moment for him, he could have came to the Assembly and made a statement. There was time, for the Assembly was suspended for a period before lunch because there was not sufficient business. However, the First Minister could not care less about the violence in Portadown or anywhere else. It was more important to get material to snipe at the DUP, not to attack Sinn Féin/IRA, but to attack Unionists in the Assembly.

Other Members dealt with what they described as a stunt, a cynical ploy. Indeed, both outside the Assembly and in it, if there was any argument around which the opposition coalesced, it was that this was somehow a stunt. I intend to deal with that matter comprehensively.

First, we moved this motion on the basis of a clearly laid-down procedure, which was not invented by the Democratic Unionist Party or devised by anti-agreement Unionists. It was not even the brainchild of the Assembly. Nor did Parliament, when making the law, conceive this procedure. It is a child of the Belfast Agreement. That which they describe as a stunt, they devised the means for themselves, and there is much evidence to suggest that they knew exactly how those means would be used.

The Belfast Agreement states simply that those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means, and that those who do not should be excluded or removed from office. That is a clear statement.

They went to the country in the referendum, embellishing that statement with statements from the Prime Minister and Mr Trimble. When the law itself was being drafted, it was framed in the same explicit terms. The procedure that they devised was clearly set for the one purpose of removing from the Government those not committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.

What did the parties of the Unionist tradition say during the course of the election to the Assembly? What was their stand on the issue? My party colleagues gave 'Your Best Guarantee' as our pledge to the people. In it we expressly said that our role in the Assembly would be to exclude those who have not pledged themselves to peace and democracy, who still hold on to an arsenal of terror and keep their terror machine in place. That was our pledge.

The Ulster Unionist Party, during the course of the election, did not want to have a lesser pledge than the Democratic Unionist Party. Its leaflet 'Together, within the Union' said

"Before any terrorist organisation and/or its political wing can benefit from the proposals contained in the Agreement on the release of terrorist prisoners and the holding of ministerial office in the Assembly, the commitment to exclusively peaceful and non-violent means must be established. The Ulster Unionist Party will, therefore, be using various criteria that are objective, meaningful and verifiable in order to judge:

that there is a clear, unequivocal commitment that ceasefires are complete and permanent; that the 'war' is over and violence.cease forthwith;

that there is progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures; that use of proxy organisations for paramilitary purposes cannot be tolerated;

that disarmament must be completed in two years; and

that the fate of the 'disappeared' would be made know immediately.

Ulster Unionists reiterate that we will not sit in government with 'unreconstructed terrorists'. "

That is the position of the Ulster Unionist Party. I read a statement in the 'Irish Times' yesterday, arising from an interview with Mr Trimble on the 'Inside Politics' programme. With such an election manifesto, I should have thought that the last thing that the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party would want to talk about is the propriety of keeping election commitments. Instead of being embarrassed, he turns on Colleagues-no doubt the two or three who have already spoken in the debate. He said

"It is unfortunate that people elected to the Assembly on a pro-agreement mandate at the first flicker from the DUP abandoned their manifesto commitments. I think that is a situation where people are not reflecting the obligation they entered into with the electorate."

I have read Mr Trimble's obligation to the electorate. It is on the record, but more than that, it is in the mind of every Unionist in the streets, villages, towns and cities of Northern Ireland-and well he knows it. That is the reason why he is trying to put off having local Government elections. That is the reason why he is trying to put off having a by-election in South Antrim. That is the reason why the UUP is talking about how it might extend the life of this Assembly, thereby avoiding going back to the people. The UUP is afraid of its electorate and the views that are held about the party leadership. I have shown the nature of the procedure, from where it was derived, and what it was understood to mean.

Did the main pro-agreement parties, inside and outside the House, understand the use of the procedure and the circumstance in which it would be used? There was no excuse for the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, because in the House on 15 December 1998 the First Minister, then Designate, got to his feet and said

"If the issue of forming an Executive should arise without there being a credible beginning to decommissioning as required by the agreement, we would have to table a motion for the exclusion from office of those who had not begun the process of decommissioning"

He knows what the procedure is for. Not only does he know, but he said that he would use it. In what circumstances? In the very circumstances that exist today. He comes to this Assembly, not even speaking in favour of the motion that he said he would table. He comes to this Assembly, not to chastise Sinn Féin/IRA, but to turn on those who still hold to the policy that he said he would pursue. He is not the only one among the pro-agreement parties who held such a view.

The holier-than-thou Deputy First Minister held this view as well and annunciated it at the SDLP party conference. He said

"Many Unionists feared Sinn Féin would pocket maximum advantages, among them prisoner releases, changes to policing and criminal law reform, and then fail to honour their decommissioning obligations."

He was dead right in that.

"I believe that won't occur but if it did happen the SDLP would rigorously enforce the terms of the Agreement and remove from office those who had so blatantly dishonoured their obligations."

So, not only the First Minister but also the Deputy First Minister and their parties knew the purpose of this piece of legislation. They knew what the procedure was for and the circumstances in which it would be used. They both committed themselves and their parties to use it in the circumstances that exist today. But they were not the only ones. Outside the Assembly there are what are described as the two Governments. Though he may have other things to consider today, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, Mr Ahern, said

"Sinn Féin should be barred from the new Northern Ireland Government unless the IRA starts to decommission its weapons. Decommissioning in one form or another has to happen. It is not compatible with being part of a government, and part of an executive, if there is not at least a commencement of decommissioning."

They had to be barred from government.

The Ulster Unionist Party said "Yes, here are the circumstances in which they should be excluded." The SDLP said "Here are the circumstances in which they can be excluded." The Prime Minister of the Irish Republic said that they "should be barred from government", and he was not alone. The father of Leo Blair had something to say on the matter as well. In a letter to Mr Trimble he made it clear that not only was he aware of the conditions upon which this provision of the Act should be used but that if it was not effective enough he was prepared to move and make sure that Sinn Féin could be put out of Government if it did not meet its obligations, as he saw it, under the agreement. In that letter dated 10 April 1998 he gave a commitment to support changes to the legislation if it was not sufficiently effective in removing those who were still wedded to terror and had not decommissioned their weapons.

But did the wider community have the same understanding of the use of the procedure and the circumstances in which it would be used - they should have. I have, from my constituency, the election literature that was sent around by the Minister responsible for economic and trade issues in the Assembly. This is what that manifesto literature said:

"The Ulster Unionist Party... will not sit in the Government of Northern Ireland with unreconstructed terrorists. This issue must be comprehensively addressed to our satisfaction. Paramilitary organisations must decide that the 'war' is over, dismantle, disarm and stop the beatings."

It was not enough simply to disarm; they had to dismantle their terror machine as well. The electorate in East Belfast read this communication. They may not have voted for him in the numbers that they voted for some other candidates, but read his election communication they did, and they understood it well.

If anybody was in any doubt about what the position of the Ulster Unionist Party was to be, his ministerial Colleague, Mr Sam Foster, made it abundantly clear. Not only did he want to make it clear but he wanted it placed on the record of the House so that none of us would be in any doubt in the future where he stood on this issue. He said on 15 December 1998

"We are talking about setting up bodies and Departments - that is ridiculous before decommissioning. We are being asked to set up a Government in spite of the fact that we know that, outside in the undergrowth, there are weapons and equipment ready to be used - a gun-to-the- head attitude. Is that what we are being asked to do? Are we being asked to govern in spite of the fact that there are illegal armies and equipment out there?

Mr Presiding Officer, do you really feel that you could preside over a Government? Would it be credible or incredible? Would it be a credible or an incredible Assembly? Would it be dishonest or honest? Would it be deceit or falsehood or a lack of integrity? Are there no morals whatsoever?

Surely we cannot begin to govern until there is decommissioning, when peace I hope will be absolute. The onus is on Sinn Feín/IRA to do so. It is not on the UUP."

6.30 pm

He added

"Decommissioning is a must, and nothing - nothing - will move until that comes about."

However, you are right: these are just individuals; it is not the party speaking, but this is. The Ulster Unionist Party on 17 May 1999 said

"There must be a credible and verifiable start to the process of decommissioning before Sinn Feín can participate in government . The Ulster Unionist Party will not change its position on this matter now, during or after the European election."

That is comforting, Mr Speaker. "This issue", they say, "goes right to the heart of the agreement and to the commitments to peace and democracy that Government Ministers must abide by."

Then, coming up to Christmas, a letter came through the letterbox personally signed by the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and apart from wishing them all a happy Christmas - and I can see the warmth that it brought to my Colleague, if indeed he got it - he referred to the setting up of Government Departments in Northern Ireland. He said

"As your leader I wish to assure you that Sinn Féin will not be included in the agreement that I have referred to above if Sinn Féin/IRA do not honour their commitments to decommissioning made under the Belfast Agreement. If they do not the Ulster Unionist Party will not form an Executive that includes Sinn Feín. Claims that Sinn Feín are entitled to places without decommissioning are completely dishonest. The opening pages of the agreement repeat the need for a commitment to peaceful means and an absence of the use of the threat of violence four times. The agreement provides for the exclusion of those who do not abide by this requirement and this exclusion is cross-referenced to decommissioning. I cannot speak any plainer.I expect the total support of my party and the country at large for my position."

That should have been followed by "(as long as I hold it)".

This debate has given us all an opportunity - not simply the one about which Members on this side of the House have spoken - to fulfil our manifesto requirements, an opportunity to do what was necessary, to give the people out there the expression of opinion that we are opposed to having those who represent unrepentant and armed terrorists in Government. It gave these people an opportunity as well, because if there had been the least intention on the part of any one of them to ever fulfil the obligations of which Mr Trimble claims they are aware, they could have come forward. They could have spent some time, during the course of this debate, trying to convince Unionists that they had an intention to decommission - that the war was over. You did not hear any words like those from their lips today. What is their strategy? It has not changed. The strategy was set out by Danny Morrison at the ardfheis in November 1981 when he said "Who here really believes we can win the war through the ballot box?" There was silence in the room. "But will anyone here object if,with ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in this hand, we take power in Ireland?" And there was sustained applause in the conference. That is the strategy (the strategy referred to by my Friend,the Member for East Londonderry),the ballot-box and the Armalite - the threat of violence and the reality of actual violence.

The leader of Sinn Féin/IRA stated their position in 'An Phoblacht' on 17 November 1983. Under the heading "Armed struggle is a necessary form of resistance", Mr Adams said

"I would like to elaborate on Sinn Féin's attitude to armed struggle. Armed struggle is a necessary and morally correct form of resistance in the Six Counties against a government whose presence is rejected by the vast majority of Irish people. In defending and supporting the right of the Irish people to engage in armed struggle it is important for those so engaged to be aware of the constant need and obligation they have to continuously examine their tactics and strategies. There are those who tell us that the British Government will not be moved by armed struggle. As has been said before, the history of Ireland and of British colonial involvement throughout the world tells us that they will not be moved by anything else. I am glad therefore of the opportunity to pay tribute to the freedom-fighters - the men and women volunteers of the IRA."

This has been the traditional position of Sinn Féin/IRA - inextricably linked, all part of the one process, moving forward together, Armalite and ballot box. One can hold back while the other is being used, both available for use as they would direct it - and both are still being used.

We have heard statistics about the number of people who have been shot. There was the murder of Edmund McCoy - and many others before that - during this so-called peace process. They were making bombs a matter of days ago - for what purpose, I wonder? They are bringing guns into the country, while the First Minister tells us that they are intent on decommissioning. There is no remorse, no apology, no intention to decommission. Not one word during this debate suggests that there is the least change in the spots of this leopard - not one. The IRA still holds on to its weapons, for the fear that the guns inspire, principally in the mind of Her Majesty's Government. They will never give them up because of the threat that they pose. They know that there are people who ultimately will buckle, just as the First Minister buckled at the threat that the guns might be brought out again - a sad reality.

During the debate I believe we have established that the exclusion procedure we are using was designed and argued for by pro-agreement parties. We have established that the key participants envisaged using it themselves. We have established that the supporters of our motion are using the exclusion procedure in exactly the circumstances in which the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP said that they would be justified in using it. Other Unionists pledged themselves to exclude Sinn Féin/IRA under precisely the circumstances that those who signed this motion,and have spoken in favour of it would ask this House to do today.

In the light of the twin-track strategy of the IRA, in the light of the continued violence and what that violence does to the democratic process, I believe that I have the right and the entitlement to ask of all Ulster Unionists who stood on the manifesto that I read to this Assembly earlier to come out from hiding and not to consider abstaining. How on earth could anybody be neutral on the issue of whether, in the Government of Northern Ireland, there should be present unrepentant and armed terrorist representatives? It is inconceivable that any Unionist could take that position. I ask them to remember that their first loyalty and duty is not to the leader of their party. It is not even to their party. Their first loyalty and duty is to the people who elected them, the people who gave them a mandate and to whom they pledged themselves. That is what they need to remember today.

I will give the last word to Mrs Pauline Armitage, who took a principled position and left a warning to her colleagues hanging in the air when she said

"Search your conscience today . and make sure you can live with it tomorrow."

Question put. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker:

Order. Members do not seem to be aware that such motions require a cross-community vote. If no Members of one or other community vote, the motion will fall.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 32; Noes 14.

AYES

Unionist

Fraser Agnew, Pauline Armitage, Roy Beggs, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

NOES

Nationalist

Mark Durkan, John Fee, Joe Hendron, John Hume, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Conor Murphy, Eamonn ONeill, John Tierney.

Other

Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Sean Neeson.

Total Votes 46 Total Ayes 32 ( 69.6%)
Nationalist Votes 9 Nationalist Ayes 0 ( 0%)
Unionist Votes 32 Unionist Ayes 32 ( 100%)

Question accordingly negatived.

Adjourned at 6.53pm.

<< Prev