Northern Ireland Assembly

Mr C Wilson:

While I support the motion in the name of Mr Robinson and Mr Dodds, my party would have preferred - and attempted to put down - an amendment including a vote of no confidence in the entire Executive. That would have included the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. No one in Northern Ireland can look at this Assembly and its Executive and have any confidence in anyone who is currently participating in an Executive containing two representatives of Sinn Féin/IRA, which is currently inextricably linked to a terrorist organisation.

It is entirely appropriate that the Assembly should take time to discuss this matter. Members of the Ulster Unionist Party may not like it, but the lack of confidence in Mr Trimble in his position as First Minister is a view held not just by the Democratic Unionist Party, my party and the other anti-agreement parties in this Chamber, but also, I believe, by the majority of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. Indeed, it is a view held by the majority of his own party. I hope that that will shortly be demonstrated when they curtail his activities in relation to his current policy. It is also held, as has been well documented, by at least half of his parliamentary party. The notion that it is only a small grunt and that there are only a small group of people within this Assembly in the anti-agreement camp is absolute nonsense.

To make the case for the motion today, it is very appropriate - and Mr P Robinson dealt with it very competently this morning - to consider how Mr Trimble was put in a position to become First Minister in this administration. Mr McGrady, who unfortunately is not now in the Chamber, took the view that people such as the First Minister can get elected to this Assembly on the basis of a manifesto. Mr Trimble's manifesto was well and truly put under the spotlight this morning over the pledges he made to the Ulster people who actually went on to vote for his party and his party members. While the focus of attention is on Mr Trimble today, there is not one member of the Ulster Unionist Party elected to this Chamber today who did not make the same pledge as every other Unionist in the Chamber: that they would not sit in Government with those who were fully armed and prepared to go back to violence and, indeed, who are currently involved in violence.

Mr Ervine:

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may be that the Member is misleading the House. Not every Unionist in this Chamber said that.

Mr C Wilson:

Those who have been involved in terrorism themselves might not have wished to include that in their election manifesto. It might have been slightly hypocritical to say that they would not sit in Government with bombers and gunmen.

To return to the point, the pledge made by Mr Trimble and his party members before their election to this Assembly was that they would not sit in Government with those who were still inextricably linked to terrorist organisations. He abandoned that policy, much to the disappointment and the opposition of the majority of people within his party, I believe. And yet he has the effrontery to go to the Ulster Unionist Party conference at the Waterfront Hall on Saturday, having outlined in his manifesto that they were all obliged to sign up so that the Unionists would have a veto in the Assembly; that there would be no terrorists in Government; that they had saved the RUC; that there was no Sunningdale, no united Ireland; that the agreement was the death of the frameworks; that the territorial claim of the Irish Republic had gone; and that the Union was strengthened.

Having published a document which sounded like a Unionist utopia, he told his party that there was no Unionist utopia and that it had to get real. Mr Trimble has moved from saying that he did not sign up to this agreement to saying that as he did sign up to it, there is no option but to buy it. The crumbs that are being offered from the tables of the British Prime Minister and Mr Ahern in Dublin - and there will no doubt be a farcical announcement in the next few days of another so-called inspection of arms stocks - will not be sufficient to cover Mr Trimble in the coming days.

4.45 pm

The most compelling reason given by Mr P Robinson for a vote of no confidence in Mr Trimble was his pledge that he would not participate in Government with people fronting terrorist organisations. We heard the First Minister trying to distance himself from any involvement in providing cover for anyone trying to improve their armoury and increase their weapons stocks. Mr Trimble played a very significant role in this by not bringing it to the attention of this House. If he had any reservations about the Belfast Agreement, this was the time to say that all bets were off and that he could not support the process any longer because the terrorists were rearming and trying to improve their capability.

My appeal is to those in the Ulster Unionist Party who are not in the Assembly party, because only one or two of the Assembly team are prepared to keep faith with their pledges to the Unionist electorate. Mr Close and Mr McGrady think that we are attempting to hide our objective, but that is not the case. Those of us in the Assembly who are in the anti-agreement camp were elected to bring this process down and to bring the Belfast Agreement to an end. We were elected to end this effrontery to democracy and to end the whole edifice that has been set up here, which ignores the will of the people of Northern Ireland. From day one, when Mr Trimble signed and endorsed the Belfast Agreement, he became the Government placeman, the man who, under all circumstances, was going to make sure that his party continued to work the Belfast Agreement.

There is only one option. If at the end of this debate today the majority of Unionists in the Assembly vote for or against this motion of no confidence, it will not remove Mr Trimble from office. The only people who can do that - and these people have a wider responsibility to the community of Northern Ireland - are those within the Ulster Unionist Party who quite clearly and rightly can determine David Trimble's future. Just as with Jonah, who was thrown overboard in order to save the boat, I appeal to those in the Ulster Unionist Party to throw Mr Jonah Trimble out of the boat in order to save the very Union itself.

In the days ahead we will require a degree of Unionist unity. I look forward to the time when those in the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the UK Unionist Party and the Northern Ireland Unionist Party can come together to finish it off once and for all and to vote out the First and the Deputy First Ministers.

We then set about the task of putting proper structures of democracy in place for all the people of Northern Ireland regardless of colour, class or creed - not this excuse for democracy that has placed representatives of a terrorist organisation in Government. I support the motion and I look forward to the day when we can sit in this House with a proper democratic structure for the people of Northern Ireland.

Ms McWilliams:

I suppose "no" is a very easy word to say. Every time my children say that, I tell them they should stop resting in the comfort blanket of the word and start taking some of the responsibility that goes with growing up. "No, we will not agree." "No, we will not take a risk." "No, we will not compromise." It is no, no, no, no, no.

How sick do we have to get in this Chamber of hearing that tiny little tiny word being endlessly repeated? Instead, they should credit those who take the courage - and indeed it is a risk to have the courage - to say "yes" because that involves making a change and taking the responsibility for making that change. God knows that Northern Ireland and those who lived through the past 20 or 30 years of horror in this country will know how much we value that change.

Some days I stand in this Chamber and try to imagine if people really went through what we went through. They call these the bad days, the awful days of trying to implement a very difficult peace process. Of course it is hard, but the mandate of the people still stands. It is above any single party's election results. Much as I congratulate Dr McCrea on his recent election, that is all it is. It is a single party's success at a recent election, and this agreement is above any single party's success, even if that Member flits from one constituency to another.

I have heard a great deal of talk about confidence and lack of confidence. I ask Members to focus on achievement. What have we achieved? Indeed, what did the Ulster Unionists and the Progressive Unionist Party achieve? They achieved an acceptance that the constitutional future of Northern Ireland will be determined by the will of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. It will stand until there is a referendum, but that is the most prized possession of all for Unionism. Let it be repeated over and over and over again.

They also won the removal of articles 2 and 3, and as someone who sat for two years in the negotiations it seemed to me that that was a prized possession. The pro-agreement Unionists won the removal of articles 2 and 3. Indeed, I have to tell you that when I went out to the streets, villages and towns during the referendum campaign I expected to be asked about articles 2 and 3 by people who had a great deal to fear during the years when those articles were in the Irish Constitution. However, it was almost as though that was that. They had been ticked off. People had moved on, and people had forgotten. Well, let us not forget that it took a major effort and an international treaty to abolish articles 2 and 3.

What else was achieved? I agree with Mr Close that those who fought long and hard for devolved administration almost forget that it was the people on the anti-agreement side and the DUP in particular - who put down this motion - who seemed to want that more than anything. They spoke in the negotiations about what a new Northern Ireland Assembly might look like and it probably is the case that only Mr McCartney would not see that as an achievement.

Again, why is it that the Ulster Unionists and the Progressive Unionists have to fight alone to see another achievement in the British-Irish Council and everything that was in the agreement on social and economic progress, on process of reconciliation, and on law and order?

It is not surprising that we have a great deal of debate and division over the issue of law and order. It probably relates more than anything to what went on before the agreement and to the wishes of those who also want to see change. Indeed, the officers of the RUC have said that they have signed up to that change.

It was not a case of whether there would be change, but of how that change would take place. There are many issues in the agreement that are reflected in today's debate of "confidence" or "no confidence". Should the police force be pluralist in its identity? Should it be representative in its composition? Should it be even-handed in its operation? Yes, yes and yes. When it is implemented, it will, and should, be all of those things. Let us not talk about bringing down any agreement on the back of something that we all want - to be representative, inclusive and even-handed in the future of our policing.

I am also greatly concerned that the flags issue has again created some notion that there is no confidence in the agreement and in the First Minister. Unionism won an important battle on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. The agreement stated that sovereignty would be exercised with rigorous impartiality, not only in its operational terms but also in recognition of our symbolic diversity. Who ever said that that would be easy? If all the identities in this country are valid, then so too are all our symbols.

Power-sharing goes further than the Executive deciding what ministerial posts will be handed out. It goes as far as talking of how the space for diverse symbols and identities will be shared, painful though that may be. Continued refusal to share is what threatens the agreement most. If anything threatens it, it is that constant refusal:"I will not share. I will not share positions in the Executive, I will not share my viewpoint with you, and I will not share power with you."

Ms Morrice:

Does the Member agree that although the "No" camp tells us that the agreement is fatally flawed, it has to say that because it will be out of business if the agreement works? The Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, of which Dr Paisley is Chairperson, has met more times than any other Committee in this Assembly, and it has Sinn Féin members on it. Coming in a close second for the number of meetings held is the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, of which Mr Pat Doherty is the Chairperson, and which has DUP members on it. Can anyone then explain the logic of the DUP position of not sharing?

Ms McWilliams:

No doubt the Member knows, like myself, that fear has no logic, and clearly the DUP is afraid. It is the only party in the Assembly that I see shaking in its boots every time it is mentioned that it is in the Executive. It worries, jumps or cringes at the idea of somebody constantly repeating that rotating Ministers is not fooling anybody. DUP members are in it; they will stay in it and they love it.

People may have reservations. Everybody who signed the agreement had something in it for themselves, and there was obviously going to be something in it for others. People have reservations about the sections they did not place themselves. The Women's Coalition also has reservations.

I am delighted to see the Civic Forum finally taking place today. I do not care who takes the credit for the Civic Forum; it is more important to my party that it has finally been established. Surely that is the stand that every Member should start to take. People should be big enough to not worry about whether a piece was for them or for someone else. In the end, what matters is that it was for the people of Northern Ireland.

5.00 pm

If we continue to do this - and I have said this before - it is little wonder that people make jokes on David Dunseith's programme about Ulster not being at the crossroads but at the roundabout going around in circles. Every time a motion of no confidence is laid at the foot of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister, or jointly, we are led around and around. The parties that are leading us straight on are those that still believe in the agreement. It will work, and it shall work.

Mr McCartney:

David Trimble is the First Minister. He is also the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. The first of these offices, under the Belfast Agreement, requires him to serve on institutions and to carry out policies that are totally inconsistent with the declared objectives of the party of which he is the Leader and as have been described in its manifesto. His difficulty is that he is never sure whether he is Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde, so in his absence I will endeavour to address both his personalities.

We heard the canting piety of Mr McGrady about the behaviour in the Chamber. Has Mr McGrady any memory of Michael Heseltine seizing the Mace and swinging it round in the House of Commons? Has he ever seen the differences of opinion and the vigour with which they are demonstrated in the German Bundesrat, the French National Assembly or the Italian Assembly? Has he anything to say about the vigour and differences of opinion that were demonstrated during the Danish referendum? To talk this nonsense in such a holier-than-thou tone about how we behave in the Chamber is a measure of our parochialism and his.

As for Monica McWilliams, she makes a virtue out of saying "Yes". Through the years everybody knows - at least, every parent knows - that the easiest thing to say is "Yes". I have found it extremely difficult to say "No". When you say "No" you are called everything from a warmonger to a rejectionist Unionist, an enemy of the people to a dinosaur. You are called all these things. When you say "Yes" you get maximum exposure on the BBC, you are featured in the 'Belfast Telegraph', and you are virtually canonised in the 'News Letter'. So I can assure Monica that it is extremely difficult, very tiresome and sometimes wounding to say "No". You say "No", however, because you believe that there are certain things such as taking sweets from strangers or gifts from Bertie Ahern to which it is very dangerous to say "Yes".

In May 1998 the Ulster Unionist Party published a document entitled 'Understanding the Agreement'. In view of David Trimble's revelations in 'The Daily Telegraph' last week, I wonder if he understood the agreement. The full text of 'Understanding the Agreement' was accompanied by a simplified synopsis for the slow readers in the Ulster Unionist Party, and it was entitled 'Ulster Unionists Say Yes'. It is not clear, however, whether these documents represent an understanding of the agreement which David signed up to or of the one he did not sign up to.

What is now perfectly clear is that the Ulster Unionist understanding of the agreement as demonstrated in these documents is entirely different from that of the Irish Government, the SDLP, Sinn Féin/IRA and, saddest of all, the British Government. Perhaps this is due to what David described in 'The Daily Telegraph' as "constructive ambiguity", which means that if an agreement is totally ambiguous, it is open to all parties to it to construct whatever meaning they choose.

David, for his sins, is not only a politician. He was also, once upon a time, a law lecturer, and in that guise he taught students the basic principles of that discipline. Two of the most basic principles, curiously enough, relate to agreements. They are known to every first-year law student and every rookie barrister. The first principle is that the parties to any agreement must have a shared understanding of its contents, its nature and its consequent effects. The second principle is that no party to a multiparty agreement can add to, alter, vary or amend the terms of that agreement without the consent of all the other parties to it. David now confesses that the agreement that he thought he was signing was different from the one being implemented.

Of course poor David knew all along that what he was signing was not what Sinn Féin, in particular, were signing up to. David knew, as every party to the negotiations knew, that 24 hours before this dastardly document was signed Sinn Féin threatened to walk if the terms of that agreement obliged them to give any undertaking that the IRA would decommission, or that Sinn Féin would suffer any sanction if it failed to do so. As a result, we had a paragraph in the decommissioning section of the agreement that specifically stated that Sinn Féin was in the same category as all the other parties, including the democratic parties - the SDLP, the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party. All the parties were put under an obligation to use their influence to bring about decommissioning by 22 May 2000. Nowhere in that agreement was any sanction imposed on Sinn Féin for failing to do so. There was no criterion by which anyone could determine whether Sinn Féin had used its influence to bring about such a result. There were certainly no sanctions, such as exclusion, if it failed to bring about that result.

"Davy boy" knew all this. He knew it as a politician and he knew it as a lawyer. He now complains that he did not understand the first basic principle, which is that the parties to any agreement must have a consensus ad idem, a shared understanding of what they were agreeing to. Neither side was agreeing to what the other intended, so we had this novel concept of constructive ambiguity. It is a result, because everybody gets what they want. When, ultimately, the ambiguity has to be resolved, someone is left with the short straw. In this case, it was poor Davy.

That was not the only principle that he breached. The second principle is that no single party to an agreement can alter, vary or amend a multiparty agreement without the consent of all. That was breached when David naively went to his friend Tony, who told him not to worry and that he would give him a letter of comfort which would contain all the pledges that he had made: there would be no terrorists in government until they finally put away their weapons and declared permanent peace; and no prisoners would be released until all these obligations were fulfilled. Tony said that, by decommissioning, he meant that simply the handing over of arms but - and he emblazoned it on the front of that awful newspaper the 'News Letter' - an end to all beatings, intimidation and all the other terrible things.

Tony said "David, go thou forth and tell all the people in the Ulster Unionist Party and all their chums and friends that I have said unto you that if Sinn Féin/IRA do not perform all these wondrous miracles I will step in, and like Jupiter or Zeus, I will put an end to all of this." That was nonsense, and David knew that it was nonsense. However, poor David, all of this having been dashed from his lips, now says "This is wrong, Tony; this is not the agreement I signed up to, and that you promised." There is a word - a very expressive word - to describe David Trimble's behaviour in these circumstances. It is "gombeen" - a political gombeen to buy into all this nonsense.

Where does all this stand with his fitness to be First Minister or the lack of confidence in him as a First Minister? In any democracy, if a Prime Minister, a Taoiseach, a Premier, or whatever he is called, misleads his people, if he is elected under false pretences as to what he is going to do, if he shows a blundering incompetence in negotiating on the people's behalf, if he does not understand the basic principles of his own profession, let alone the politics, people might be persuaded to say "This is not a man in whom we can have a great deal of confidence as the First Minister, who is supposed to be leading the administration that purports to be for the manifest betterment and welfare of our people."

I think it is entirely logical that there should be a question mark over the Assembly's confidence in a man who has been deceived, who has been proved to be naively gullible, who has failed to understand the fundamental principles of negotiation and who now declares that what he signed up to was not really what he thought it was. If this does not justify the questioning of the competence and ability of such a person to be the First Minister of what passes for a democratic institution, then I do not know what does, despite what Mr McGrady says.

Let me very briefly review some of David's understanding of what the agreement offered to him and why Ulster Unionists should say "Yes". The Union would be strengthened. Is there anyone in this Assembly who seriously believes that Sinn Féin, let alone the SDLP, would have signed up to an agreement which, according to Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, and all those other laser-like minds in the Ulster Unionist Party, as well as Mr Trimble's, decreed that the majority would rule, that the Union would be put beyond debate and that they would be given a veto over anything that other Members of the Assembly might decide? Anyone who seriously believes that, Mr Speaker, is in need of your assistance, not as the Speaker but in your professional capacity as a psychiatrist.

Then comes the second point, that there would be no unreformed terrorists in Government. The agreement makes a provision that any parties that have not begun decommissioning will be excluded and removed from the ministerial Executive of the Assembly when it comes into full operation. That was a point that Mr Trimble confirmed in the debate which took place, I think, on 15 December 1998 when every Unionist, bar, I think, those in the Progressive Unionist Party, voted unanimously in favour of the motion that day.

Members all know Fred Cobain. Fred was singled out for special approbation. "Well done, Fred" said the Leader at the party conference last Saturday. "Well done, Fred." During the drafting and preparation of that motion (which Mr Cobain, the Leader, and the Minister of the Environment supported with a hairy-chested vigour) Mr Cobain must have said to me 50 times "My bottom line, Bob" - and with that he put out his five o'clock shadow jaw - "is no guns, no government." Where is his bottom line now? It is a pity he is not here because I would say "Well done, Fred."

5.15 pm

The agreement is the death of the framework document. John Major, whose Government were responsible for the careful drafting of the framework document and who, through Patrick Mayhew, conducted the first year of the negotiations, has since stated publicly on Sky television, while promoting his book, that the Belfast Agreement is his framework document with knobs on it. According to David, this agreement is the death of the framework document.

Eire's territorial claim will be surrendered. Ms McWilliams was at pains to tell us at length what a great achievement it was to have this amendment. It is an amendment that apparently turns what the Republic's Supreme Court described as a constitutional imperative into an aspiration. In 1985, Garret FitzGerald was telling me personally, and others publicly, that an aspiration was all it ever was. It was only four years later, in 1989, that the Supreme Court apparently put him right and told him that it was a constitutional imperative. We are now back to an aspiration. Who in their right mind would not give up a claim for a factual down payment in the governance of the country to which you make that claim- and that is what this is really all about.

Maryfield will go. When I read this, I could hardly believe it. In exchange for removing Maryfield from the most inconspicuous up-a-country-lane locus, they have brought it down and lodged it in one of the major business forums in the centre of Belfast.

Ms Morrice:

Will the Member give way?

Mr McCartney:

No.

I understand that the work force down there has been increased. It is going, Mr Speaker, but it is only going to a more prominent and effective place.

No united Ireland - this is no Sunningdale. Of course, when Michael Mates went as a special spokesman to the States - and being a rather foolish man he thought he could express his mind there, not realising it would be transmitted back to Northern Ireland - he said (and here he echoed the words of his Leader, John Major) that what they were going to get in this agreement was Sunningdale with knobs on it. And it was.

There is no licence to terrorists. We all know that they certainly are licensed. They have all been got out.

What about the enforcement of the rule of law? What about the policemen and policewomen who lost their lives putting these people behind bars? What about the judges, guarded 24 hours a day, some of whom lost their lives and some who were gravely injured? These are the people who see the rule of law turned into a judicial farce. They see people like Caraher and McGinn, who pulled the trigger and murdered 12 men including Lance Bombardier Restorick, out after 18 months. They see, on the loyalist side, the brutal killers of young James Morgan - battered to death with a hammer and flung into a pit for diseased animals - and with a very tenuous connection with any paramilitary organisation released after 18 months. This is what the agreement has bought us. Perhaps there is no licence for the terrorists. There is not only a licence to terrorists, there is a licence that has seen them expand paramilitary criminality to new heights, to Mafia-like proportions involving huge sums of money.

We now see a turf war being fought on the Shankill between competing paramilitaries, both of whom, the UDP and the PUP, were used by the First Minister to get his office with their votes. Now we see the UFF, the military wing of the UDA, represented by the UDP, and the UVF, the military wing of Mr Ervine's party, murdering, maiming, exiling, intimidating and emptying houses all over the place.

And who did this First Minister, in whom we are to have confidence, put down as one of his nominees in the wonderful Civic Forum? Gary McMichael, Leader of the UDP, the front organisation for the UFF and the UDA. Marvellous, what a giant leap forward for democracy in Northern Ireland. The RUC has been saved- well, I am not even going to mention that.

Let me say in closing that the First Minister has demonstrated political incompetence as a negotiator. He has misled the people of Northern Ireland. He has failed to understand an agreement which the vast bulk of the professional members of his own negotiating team told him not to sign, warning him of the dangers, but he went ahead. If all these failures do not add up to a substantial deficit in his competence, I do not know what would. All I can say is that under his leadership - and I adapt the words of Winston Churchill - "Never in the history of democracy has the constitutional welfare of so many been sacrificed for the financial betterment of so few."

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

I want to be brief, but some things were said by the First Minister this morning that need to be answered. He told us that he alone in his party defended the police. He said that my deputy and Mr McCartney were absent from debates. He said it was in the House of Commons that this battle for the police should be fought. I agree that the fight had to happen in Westminster. What I do not like is men like Mr Trimble and Mr Taylor coming over here, getting columns in the press and informing people that the other Unionists do not attend Westminster. That, my friend, I nail as a lie. I have the books here so that we can look at what happened at the debate. There was a Second Reading at the debate where Peter Robinson spoke. Peter Robinson and I voted and, to my memory, Mr McCartney was also present. That first debate was on 6 June. Then we had an allocation of time debate on 11 July. Both myself and and Peter Robinson spoke and voted, and so did Mr McCartney. At the Report Stage there were three votes and Peter Robinson and I voted on every division. At the end of the debate there were no speeches for the Third Reading, but my Colleague and I voted.

Where were the members of Mr Trimble's party? Were they all lined up to march through the Lobby? Anyone who wants to look at Hansard will see that this morning the First Minister completely misled this House and the people of Northern Ireland, who were seeing and hearing it as it was reported. Of course he wanted to get in before lunch time and then get away. We have not seen him at the debate the afternoon.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

Does the hon Member agree that the best way to save the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the best way in which the fight can be fought and won in the House of Commons, is to make sure that at the next election the Unionist people return Members of Parliament whom they can trust? They need Unionist Members of Parliament who will turn up and do the job. Members of our party are prepared to do that job in the House of Commons.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

I agree. I cannot say "No" to that; I can say "Yes".

Mr Trimble held up an ancient piece of paper from the time when we were dragged out of the Chamber. We were dragged out illegally; the police had no place in the building. That was verified later. We were brought out and thrown down the steps outside by RUC members. I am not sure whether they were RUC members; every one of them had an English accent. Those matters were raised at the time. The womenfolk and the young people who were there supporting us had been abused, physically and verbally, by the members of the RUC, speaking in English tones. The women were called "Orange whores" and "Orange bastards". That was the language that poured out of them. I said to them that night that if that was how they were going to behave they could not expect me, as a public representative, to stand in their defence when their homes were attacked. The First Minister alleged that I excused or lent favour to the criminality of attacking policemen's homes - nothing of the sort.

Let us look at the record of the Ulster Unionist Party representatives. I have sat in the House of Commons for 30 years. In my early days I was a leper, because I had the same sort of victory in North Antrim as my good friend has had in South Antrim; they would not speak to me. In fact, one of them told me to sit quietly. I said "You'll be doing better than my wife. She can't get me to sit quietly." I defended the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the House of Commons. I went to Europe to oppose the Haagerup Report. It was a wicked report conceived with the help of Irish Republicanism to damn the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I was the only Member who opposed it. Mr Taylor had his 40-foot barge pole; he was nowhere to be seen. I have every respect for the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but I have no respect for members who dishonour the uniform, and dishonour what it should stand for.

In the middle of the debate, Sam Foster suddenly showed some energy. I was amazed. He jumped up and said he wanted to intervene, and so he did. My Friend let him intervene - to his cost, because he had time cut off by you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this intervention. Sam Foster read us a lecture.

On 15 December 1998 Mr Foster said

"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 incredible Assembly? Would it be dishonest or honest? Would it be deceit or falsehood or a lack of integrity? Are there no morals whatsoever?"

That was not Ian Paisley, by the way; it was the mighty Samuel Foster. Surely we cannot begin to govern until there is decommissioning, when I hope peace will be actioned. Sam held forth today in defence of his First Minister, but it was because my deputy stripped the rags of deceit off the First Minister that poor Mr Foster saw his own rags coming off, and he jumped for a fig leaf to try to cover his imminent nakedness.

5.30 pm

We have heard strange speeches today. I have known Eddie McGrady for many years. I never saw him in a tantrum until today. I was amazed at his use of the word "God", and the other things that he said, but I realise that he is trying to outdo Sinn Féin - out-Sinn Féin the Sinn Féiners - and so he had to use those tactics. Today we saw that he was after something entirely different. All the Members from those Benches, including the mighty Mr Close, said that we want to bring down the Assembly. Mr David Trimble told us today that we want to uphold the Assembly. We are the greatest safeguard that the Assembly has. I was amazed by some things that were said today.

We are not defending violence. We are seeking to defend our people from violence. That violence is there. Sam Foster is right, it is hidden away, ready to be released upon us. When the concessions cease, the bombs and the shootings and the Omaghs will recommence. That is the fact of the matter. After what was discovered in America, Mr Trimble should have taken steps and said "Enough is enough". These men are arming. They are getting the guns in. What for? To kill innocent victims, as they have done hitherto. It is time to call a stop to it. We have our resignations ready, Mr Trimble. What about you? Sign up today, and deliver this Province from the curse that has fallen upon it.

Mr Savage:

I oppose the motion. It is pointless and a waste of time, and it is an insult to the people who elected us to serve them in this Assembly. In recent weeks we have debated a wide range of issues affecting the day-to-day life of Ulster people, such as fuel tax, retailing, local community nursing, and pensions. Those were constructive debates about things that really matter. Our constituents can look to this place and say "Yes, our elected representatives are working for us. They care about our hospitals, they care about our schools, they care about our future."

And then what happens? The DUP, under Mr P Robinson's leadership, are back to their old games. They are not prepared to knuckle down to the work required of elected officers. They exist only to fight elections, and spend the rest of their time engaging in silly gimmicks. This is just another in a long list. I am told that there is only one policeman in Ballykissangel. Perhaps it is time now for one of those famous night raids.

The proposer of the motion went to lengths to blind us with his parliamentary knowledge. He suggested that motions of no confidence are practically everyday business in the House of Commons. Perhaps if he spent more time in the House of Commons he might be able to base his comments on his own experience rather than relying on his researchers to scramble through manuals of procedure to justify his actions.

The motion of no confidence will fail, but will the DUP accept that decision when it comes? Will it say "Fine, the Assembly has rejected our motion and we must respect that"? Of course it will not, because in public it does not accept the right of this Assembly to exist. The DUP is opposed to power-sharing. It wants majority rule. However, it is the minority party in the Assembly. By contrast, my party can legitimately claim to represent the greater number of people in this Province.

Has it occurred to Mr Peter Robinson that my party Leader is First Minister for the simple reason that he is the Leader of the largest party in the Assembly? He has the confidence of those who matter - those who voted him into the job. If the Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party truly has no confidence in the First Minister and therefore in the Assembly itself, why does he not instruct his Colleagues to withdraw? What are they doing here if they have no confidence in the place? They are doing what they have always done best - milking the system for their own petty advantage.

I have confidence in the First Minister. He is the First Minister of a Northern Ireland over which there is no longer a territorial claim from the Republic of Ireland. He is the First Minister of a Northern Ireland which is no longer governed by the Order in Council. He is the First Minister of a Northern Ireland which is no longer controlled by the Anglo-Irish Secretariat. These are his achievements, backed up and supported by those who really believe in devolved government. He is also First Minister in a power-sharing Government. How easy it would have been for him and us to run away from the acceptance of the make-up of this society, to run away from the issue of decommissioning and to run away from the challenges presented by the Patten Report. How easy it would have been to be a member of the Democratic Unionist Party.

Perhaps Mr Robinson would be more honest if he were to table a motion of no confidence in his party's part-time Ministers. How much confidence has he in them? Why does he not let them attend meetings with their counterparts at Westminster, Edinburgh and Cardiff? Is he worried that a wrong word might be said in the wrong place?

Confidence, like charity, begins at home. The First Minister of the Assembly has confidence in himself to achieve peace and prosperity in this country. He has the confidence of his party and of his people. He has my every confidence. I have been privileged to be chairman of the Upper Bann Ulster Unionist Association under two fine public representatives. One was the late Harold McCusker, and the second is David Trimble, our current Member of Parliament. Harold McCusker famously called for my party to be a proactive party. David Trimble wears that mantle proudly and confidently.

Many Members had the opportunity to negotiate. I have listened closely to the speeches from Mr McCartney and from many of our Colleagues on my right. If their negotiating skills were so great, why did they not use them? Why did they run away? Let me quote a number of things, for I read the paper like everybody else. This is from a speech made by Mr McCartney, who I am sorry is not present to hear it but whose memory I want to jog:

"I'm all for power-sharing with the Catholic community, but I would have the greatest possible objections to sharing power with the Democratic Unionist Party."

Those are not my words; those are Mr McCartney's words. Many things have happened over the years, but I ask one thing: prior to the setting up of the Assembly, how many lives were lost?

I have another question. Since this Assembly was set up -

Mr Benson:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Savage:

No, I will not give way. I do not treat anybody differently. Since this Assembly was set up, has the standard of life in Northern Ireland not been a lot better than before? What value do we put on a life? All of us can make a contribution. The contributions made over the past years have been enormous. It is the one thing that we cannot back away from. I served on the security forces for 14 years and I am not ashamed of it. I was catcalled many times by many people. If one life has been saved since this Assembly was set up, then that is something we have achieved and it is something we can look forward to.

I could quote many things. I have a fairly good working relationship with the leader of another party. I believe that if we manage to achieve an alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and a democratic Government is set up in Northern Ireland, the matter of prisoners would have to be looked at very closely, with the various considerations being weighed in the balance.

Mr Speaker:

I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr Savage:

There are many things that we can quote, but the most fundamental thing that the Assembly has brought about is peace in our land. I hope that that will continue.

Mr Dallat:

Only one thing is clear from today's debate, and that is that the DUP has forgotten nothing and learned nothing. The motion reveals the nauseating bankruptcy of those behind it, but I would be the last to describe Peter Robinson as a parrot. After all, the DUP reserves that particular title for Her Majesty the Queen. That is the problem with the DUP. They have no qualms about getting involved in the most outrageous stunts, but they never accept responsibility for their actions. I am sure that when the papers are printed tomorrow, it will go unnoticed that when this debate was reaching a crescendo earlier, not all the DUP Members were present.

One was at a meeting in another part of this building, sitting with a member of Sinn Féin and eating sandwiches. And what were they discussing? - the Members' pensions. They were discussing the nest egg for the future, but there are 3,500 people who will not have a nest egg because they are gone. They are gone because of the bankrupt policies of the DUP.

5.45 pm

Twenty-seven years ago they had no confidence in the Unionist Leader of the day, the late Brian Faulkner. To them he was a real Judas, sharing power with the dreaded SDLP - no Sinn Féin. Brian Faulkner had caved in to one man, one vote, had put Catholics into senior positions in the North's first power-sharing Assembly and promised reforms on employment, housing and other issues which affected not only Nationalists but - dare I say it - ordinary working- class Protestants as well. "Faulkner must go" was the war cry, as men donned their Ulster Resistance berets, climbed mountains with phoney gun permits and sent the message round the world that Northern Ireland was the last place to invest in. But they did worse than that: they fertilised the soil on which the blood of thousands of people, both Catholic and Protestant, was spilt, and they would do it again and again for their selfish interest. They used ordinary decent people as cannon fodder. To me, that is as close to a war crime as you can get.

For many people the stunts are over - too many have lost their lives. Tens of thousands have been injured, both physically and mentally. Our society has been denuded of young people who bought a one-way ticket and left, never to return. Many of them were from the Unionist community. There are too many tombstones in towns and villages across the North, all bearing messages of failure from the past: "An Innocent Victim of the Troubles", "Murdered by Terrorists", "Killed in Action". It does not really matter what the circumstances were; none of them should have died and none of them would have died if common sense had prevailed.

Always, always, there has been one common denominator. If someone in a position of influence in the Unionist community was seen to be showing any kind of leadership that would lead to a new political dimension in which everyone was involved on an equal footing, he had to go. Members of the DUP are always the ones to sound the war cry that someone must go, and today is no different.

But today is different because the electorate is learning that without compromise there is less likelihood of political stability and that evil people will fill any vacuum and re-create the horrors of the past. No one wants that, but surely if we cannot learn from the mistakes of the past we have to be held accountable for what happens in the future. This Assembly was elected to serve the people of Northern Ireland, to pick up the pieces and to offer leadership for future generations. It was severely handicapped by the last suspension which served no purpose other than to give dissident elements, both Republican and Loyalist, the kiss of life: a kiss of life which ultimately meant the kiss of death for others. I think in particular of Omagh where 31 people were killed, two of them still to be born.

Given the opportunity, the SDLP will not be found wanting in its determination to build bridges, not only in this Assembly but in every town and village throughout Northern Ireland. Together with our Colleagues on the Unionist Benches, we will implement policies which offer new hope and a new kind of dignity and social inclusion for all our people.

Mr Speaker:

Order. I must ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close. Standing Orders require that we finish by six o'clock, and we still have the start of the winding-up speech. [Interruption]

Mr Dallat:

Mr Speaker, I notice that the people on the DUP Bench are particularly pleased that you have instructed me to finish.

Let me end by saying this: the inevitable tide of common sense will sweep away both the DUP and the backward calls it represents. It will continue to sweep across this land, nourishing it, strengthening it, washing away our bloodstained past. Those who are of the past, like all those who offer our society little more than a return to the darkness of before, will languish in the history books. There is perhaps just one cry that should go out now: it is time for the DUP to go.

Mr Dodds:

To those parties who claimed this was all a terrible waste of time, I say that this is probably the best turnout we have had at this time of day in the Assembly for weeks, if not months. I thank Members for coming along, and I am glad that they were able to attend rather than pay lip service to the idea that the debate served no useful purpose. Those who claimed it was of no use, but participated in it, gave the lie to that. The DUP is listening to the Unionist grass roots and reflecting what people on the ground are saying. One should never forget that the Ulster Unionists who sit in the Assembly do not even represent half their own party. They claim to speak for a majority of Unionists, but they do nothing of the sort.

We have every right to put down such a motion. Indeed, it is our duty to do so, in the light of what has happened. There has been a lack of movement over decommissioning, despite pledges made by the First Minister specifically to get the Assembly and the Executive up and running again. It was incumbent on us to table the motion in the light of the destruction of the RUC - which is also happening despite pledges from the First Minister - and of the people's verdict on the agreement. The deputy Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party said that whatever way South Antrim voted, the rest of the country would follow. We are simply reflecting what Unionist people are saying. This process was founded on the basis that it had the consent of both communities, yet it patently lacks the support of the Unionist community.

I listened to the SDLP, the Alliance Party, the Women's Coalition and all the rest of them. None of them defended the First Minister, but attacked the Democratic Unionists instead. That was not surprising, since hardly anyone from the Ulster Unionist Benches took the time to defend the First Minister either. At most times, three quarters of their Members were absent. The Chief Whip of the Ulster Unionist Party said before the debate that he expected every Ulster Unionist elected to the Assembly to support the Leader. They have been fairly conspicuous by their silence today. We shall see if everyone elected as an Ulster Unionist goes through the Lobbies, because it was clear from the vote in July that on the main policy - to have IRA/Sinn Féin in Government without guns being handed over - not only has Mr Trimble lost support in his own party, but he cannot command even 45% of the Unionist votes in the Assembly. Ulster Unionist Members supported having Sinn Féin in Government. If they go through the Lobbies in support of Mr Trimble, they are supporting Sinn Féin's continued presence in the Government of Northern Ireland.

Some people have told us that we should not have this debate, because we are interfering in the internal affairs of the Ulster Unionist Party, despite the fact that the motion relates to Mr Trimble's position as First Minister. It is all right, of course, for Mary Harney to issue declarations telling us not to dump Mr Trimble. It is all right for Mr Ahern, to say in the 'News Letter' "Please save Mr Trimble." It is all right for Mr Major to be dragged out of semi-retirement, for Peter Mandelson to plead for people to preserve Mr Trimble, and for Mitchel McLaughlin to be wheeled out on behalf of Sinn Féin to say his bit. Mr Mallon, along with Mr McGrady, attempted today to speak up for Mr Trimble when his party Colleagues would not - and perhaps could not - do so.

This is not an abuse of the House, nor anything like it. In the Business Committee, Mr Close's party agreed to the tabling of the motion. In fact, it was agreed unanimously, so all those who believe that it was an abuse of the House's procedures should perhaps speak to their representatives on the Business Committee.

No defence was made against the charges brought by Mr Peter Robinson in his speech. For Mr Trimble, it was a case of blaming everyone but himself. He blamed the weather, the electorate, the media, and the other parties for the defeat in South Antrim. Now he has even gone so far as to say, in 'The Daily Telegraph' last week, that he should not be associated with what is currently going on, since it is not the agreement he signed up to.

When it comes to the RUC it is not the Ulster Unionist Party who is to blame. Apparently it is Mr Patten, in spite of the fact that Mr Trimble and his party signed up to an agreement that set the terms and remit of the Patten Commission. This flows inexorably and inevitably from those terms and the remit set out in the Belfast Agreement, as we warned at the time that it would.

When it comes to decommissioning he is running round saying "Do not blame us; blame the IRA." If it were not for Mr Trimble there would be no Executive today with IRA/Sinn Féin in Government, the IRA still having refused to decommission. It is Mr Trimble and the Ulster Unionist Party who are directly and solely responsible for having Martin McGuinness and Bairbre de Brún as Ministers in the Government; for having the arms retained; for the RUC being destroyed; and for this all-Ireland system of government, with executive authority.

Of course, we had the old red herring about the DUP seeking to mislead people - this from a man who claims pride for constructive ambiguity. Talk about having a central policy for misleading people. Do not speak the truth - it must be constructive ambiguity. So much for plain speaking, telling people the truth and where he stands. He quoted from the DUP manifesto - the only sound part of his speech, and we thank him for that. He then argued that the DUP is fully in this system. Mr McGrady, Mr Close, Ms McWilliams and the rest then criticised the DUP for not being fully part of the system, for being semi-detached and trying to bring the whole thing down. Yet Mr Trimble was saying that we do not want it to collapse, we want to keep it in being. It is time these pro-agreement parties decided what sort of attack to mount if they are going to attack the DUP instead of coming out with the nonsense that they do at the moment. They are in disarray not only in the country; they are in disarray even in this House.

The reality is that the DUP has adopted an honourable and principled position, in keeping with its election manifesto pledges. Members may not like this, but that was, and has been, endorsed overwhelmingly in the European election and in South Antrim, and every time we go to the people they endorse it again.

We have no apology to make for boycotting the North/South Ministerial Council and for boycotting the Executive, as long as IRA/Sinn Féin is there. We are proud of the fact that we give up our ministerial salaries. Our Ministers and Committee Chairmen are not benefiting one iota from their positions. They give up their salaries and put them into our election fighting fund and our fighting fund against the agreement. It is a pity that some Members who are so proud about their gambling exploits would not put theirs to better use as well. We are here to oppose Sinn Féin, as we do in local government, in Westminster and as we would in the European Parliament if they had seats there.

Let us come to policing. My hon Friend Dr Paisley has already dealt with the lies that Mr Trimble told in the House earlier and with his deceit when he accused my party Colleagues of not being present when in fact they were. There has been no decommissioning from the IRA. The recent report in 'The Times' showed that the weapons dumped by the IRA are obsolete ones - they are of absolutely no use. Mr Taylor, the Official Unionist deputy Leader, who is conspicuous by his absence from the House - some support that for his Leader - says that the IRA will not hand over any weapons. I am glad that he now acknowledges what the DUP has been saying all along. The IRA has no intention of decommissioning.

To bring Sinn Féin/IRA into the Executive was simply to reward it for its intransigence. The IRA has no intention of decommissioning, yet Mr Trimble has brought it into the Executive. He has allowed terrorists to be released; there has been an amnesty for IRA terrorists on the run; the RUC is being destroyed; the flying of the Union flag on Government buildings is being made illegal; our culture is being eroded; all-Ireland structures of government have been created; and security is being run down. All those are good reasons to vote for this motion today.

Question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 26; Noes 52.

AYES

Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, 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, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson. [Tellers: David Hilditch and Gardiner Kane]

NOES

Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Seamus Close, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, John Gorman, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Kieran McCarthy, David McClarty, Alasdair McDonnell, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Eddie McGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O'Connor, Eamonn ONeill, Ken Robinson, Brid Rodgers, George Savage, David Trimble, Jim Wilson. [Tellers: David McClarty and Eugene McMenamin]

Question accordingly negatived.

Adjourned at 6.14 pm.

<< Prev