I do not believe that the motion is directed against one individual Minister. At the heart of the motion lie issues directly related to the overall aims and objectives of the Good Friday Agreement and the intent to undermine that agreement. Over and above the detailed arrangements and commitments that it contained, the Good Friday Agreement, signed just three years ago, was a signal of a new start to be characterised by a determination that the only means by which disputes would be resolved would be through the democratic process of political dialogue based on the principle of consent.

The new start was also to be characterised by a spirit of reconciliation and of reaching out and trying to understand and respect each other as individuals and as members of their respective communities. To make that possible a new political partnership was to be forged between the communities, a partnership represented in the new political institutions by Unionists and Nationalists in the Executive and working together at Committee level.

As a member of the Executive I am proud and pleased, if somewhat disappointed, at the progress that we have made. I am pleased that the Executive have brought representatives of three parties, the SDLP, the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin, into a close and effective working relationship. I am proud of the Executive's record in the short time since it took office and proud that it has begun to demonstrate a capacity to leave historic differences aside and address the many social and economic challenges facing us.

The Executive's record on dealing with the current agriculture crisis is widely acknowledged to be positive and reassuring. Their record on primary, secondary and tertiary level education has also been seen as positive, and their record in economic development, health and in promoting the equality agenda and respect for cultural differences has begun to show what can be achieved when we work together.

I am also proud of the positive manner in which the Executive have been perceived and received by the wider community. Working with David Trimble and his Unionist colleagues is an exciting and challenging experience. It has not made me any less committed to the objectives of the SDLP, objectives that include working through agreement for the ultimate unity of the people of this island. All members of the Executive continue to hold to their ultimate objectives. I am sure that that is as true for Martin McGuinness and Bairbre de Brún as it is for my SDLP Colleagues and Members from the Ulster Unionist Party.

Some of my disappointment arises from the fact that the DUP Ministers have chosen not to join the Executive fully, although it should be appreciated that they are only half out. Both DUP Ministers correspond with the rest of the Executive members individually and collectively. They seek our advice, comment and agreement on matters pertaining to their portfolios, as we do with them. They work with my SDLP colleagues and myself, with the Sinn Féin Ministers and with the Ulster Unionist Party Ministers and have, therefore, after a fashion, begun working the new arrangements. It is a pity that they do not more openly acknowledge that and do not fully embrace the responsibilities that they undertook when they took the Pledge of Office.

In the Executive I have found the Education Minister, Martin McGuinness, to be a very good Colleague who discharges his responsibilities in a satisfactory manner. With his area of responsibility very closely related to mine, it is essential that we work together. Consequently I have come to appreciate his commitment to making a positive difference to education services.

It is not only in the Executive that a new start is being made. This is also reflected in much of the work at Committee level, but above all the signals going out from the Chamber are being positively received in the communities, beyond our borders and beyond our shores.

The events of Bloody Sunday and Martin McGuinness's decision to appear before the Saville inquiry are the immediate cause for today's debate. I would like to think that Minister McGuinness, no less than anyone else, acknowledges that to the pain of Bloody Sunday can be added the pain caused by many other killings for which the organisation of which he is now acknowledged to have been a leader was responsible.

Order. The Member's time is up.

I quote from a recent publication from South Africa on truth and reconciliation

Terrible things happened in Northern Ireland. As Maya Angelou, the wonderful black writer, said

Today we are discussing our desperate attempts not to repeat the events of the past. Mr Speaker, you coined a phrase during our peace negotiations:

There is no monopoly of blame or shame in the Chamber. Different parties face each other, throwing boulders of blame and shame at a time when the people of Northern Ireland desperately need to hear a voice of confidence coming from the Assembly, instead of a voice of no confidence. Is that all we can serve them up?

Just jumping on people and attempting to put them out of office, or even to have people threatening to leave office will get us nowhere. We need to send a different message about the new contract, as Dr Farren stated. My party is one of the signatories to the Good Friday Agreement, and we developed a new contract - a new commitment that the past would not be repeated and that the future would bring us some stability. The Minister of Education has brought us stability through the reforms that he has put forward. It is on that basis that he should be judged today, because the no confidence motion relates to Mr McGuinness as a Minister. For many years, as a parent and as a citizen of Northern Ireland I have looked forward, and I will continue to look forward, to the reform of our education system. If there is anything that we should have no confidence in it is that dreadful, painful, shameful examination - the 11-plus - which we impose on our young children.

I also hear certain MPs and Members from across the Chamber throwing allegations about who is related to whom. I say to them that I stand on my own two feet and not on the basis of being related to anyone. Judge me by the politics of a cross-community coalition that is built on diversity and difference. Those are the politics I would like to see in Northern Ireland.

Yes, it is time to move on. It would be good to hear that the guns could be left as was written one day on the notice board of Stormont Presbyterian Church:

If we are to move on, then we could all start to build a little peace and begin with a little bit of confidence in the competence of Ministers carrying out their duties in the Assembly.

If I had any difference with the Minister of Education it was about the realpolitik of Northern Ireland - the differences I have had with him on private finance initiatives, where I have seen the sale of hockey pitches and public property. It is not about the confidence I have in him in trying to bring about a different way forward for education. I have confidence in the Minister of Education, and I will continue to do so.

Order.

At present, Johnny Adair, after being convicted in due process, is where he ought to be - in prison. Martin McGuinness is the self-confessed adjutant of the Derry brigade at a time when, in its murderous activity, it was responsible for the deaths of dozens of people and bombing the guts and heart out of Londonderry. He is the Minister for Education, responsible for shaping and moulding the future of our young people.

Over the last 30 years the IRA and its fellow-travellers have committed acts of indescribable brutality. They have caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Many of their most callous deeds have been perpetrated against civilians. Kingsmill, Bloody Friday, Teebane, Enniskillen, Darkley, La Mon and the Shankill bombings bear witness to the violence of their conduct. Innumerable innocent individuals, from Pakistani caterers to teachers and bread servers, were all designated legitimate targets, and that was sufficient to justify their murder.

As the recent murders in Derry and Belfast illustrate, the IRA continues to reserve the right to be judge, jury and executioner while its masked thugs continue to beat, brutalise and intimidate. The same alleged freedom fighters have, since 1969, destroyed and damaged property worth billions of pounds. Their political legacy is the thousands of victims who live physically crippled or mentally impaired, and mothers, widows and orphans who are left with nothing but grief and ruined lives.

In a civilised society, which is governed, I hope, by the principles of democracy and subject to the rule of law, one might reasonably expect the perpetrators and their supporters to be treated as moral and political lepers. However, the reverse is proving to be the case. They are admitted to Government; they are placed in authority; they dictate the future of our children's education and the health of our young and old people. They are elevated to positions of authority.

Martin McGuinness has come a long way since, as a butcher boy and IRA second-in-command in Londonderry in 1972, he gave press interviews behind the lines in the Bogside. Now he gives interviews as the Minister responsible for shaping the education of Northern Ireland's children. As other Members have pointed out, he has scaled equally dizzy heights in those inextricably linked organisations, Sinn Féin and the IRA. However, for him and his party the goal of political legitimacy cannot emerge solely from the gun barrel. It remains to be fully achieved. In this regard the democrats of pan-Nationalism in the SDLP and the Alliance Party are those to whom the words of the book of Revelation might apply:

They are assisting in giving these people a political legitimacy that no real democrat would entertain.

I see my friend, Dr Joe Hendron. He has some specific, personal experience of the activity of these democrats. Are they not ashamed? I believe that they are decent people and that they are essentially democrats. What are they doing? They are supporting and legitimising the activities of people who are not in the business of reconciliation. If they were, they would not retain the weaponry with which to threaten democrats in society at large. I have no hesitation in supporting this motion, because I am a democrat. I carry no baggage of a violent or sectarian nature. If it were Johnny Adair who was sitting in place of Martin McGuinness, my views would be exactly the same.

People in this country are asking what has happened to democracy. On a programme this morning, a lady said that there are terrible arguments over the man who committed the Great Train Robbery. That lady asked what had happened in Northern Ireland. It has been suggested that Ronnie Biggs should serve the rest of his sentence, but in Northern Ireland those guilty of terrorist acts are in the Government of the country. What has happened to democracy?

I am happy to be at the receiving end of Sinn Féin's comments. Typically, it produced a document that was rejected by the majority of Unionist people - the Cameron report was mentioned by Mr Pat Doherty. That inquiry was not sworn, and its findings were riddled with untruths and lies and attacked by all sections of the community.

There was another inquiry - the Scarman inquiry. That was a different kettle of fish. Every man had to take an oath and be cross-examined. It is a pity that Mr Doherty did not read what the learned judge Mr Scarman said about me and the findings in that inquiry. He would have discovered that it was entirely different from the picture that he draws.

I am well known in this Province. I submit myself to the people, and they vote for me in larger numbers than for any other politician. I can stand to my mandate. I welcome attacks from those who have attacked better people than I. They did not attack them with their lips but with bullets and bombs.

A convicted terrorist and a self-confessed commander of the most bloodthirsty and murderous gang of the IRA, the Londonderry brigade, sits as the Minister of Education in this House. He tells us that the Saville inquiry needs him, for he alone can tell the truth. However, his credentials for truthfulness curry no favour with any right-thinking people, neither Protestant nor Nationalist. We know all about this man. We know his deeds and what he has said. He stands indicted by himself.

Today, the blood of innocents stains him. He has destroyed families by his direction of the Londonderry brigade of the IRA on its wicked, murderous ploys. He has destroyed families. He has destroyed the peace of men and women, boys and girls, fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers. That brigade butchered their loved ones in a most atrocious and bloody way.

There is a voice speaking today here - the voice of the bereaved, those whose loved ones were done to death by this bloody monster in Londonderry. They have a challenge to put to the House - "Let us now hear the real truth."

The Minister told us that the Saville inquiry wants to cover up murders. However, evidently today he does not want to have his murders, or those who did them at his command, uncovered. The people of Ulster will speak in a few days, and they will give their answer to him and all of his ilk.

I have no confidence in the Education Minister, and I will follow the logical consequence of that position by voting in favour of this motion. Yet again we have a motion which, unfortunately, will be deemed to have failed, irrespective of the votes cast. That is because the SDLP is riding like the seventh cavalry to the rescue of its Colleagues across the Chamber; it does not matter what way the vote goes, as it will be deemed to have failed. As a Unionist, I would say how glad I am that we have power back in our own hands.

I agree with some Members opposite on one point only - that this debate should not be taking place today, because there should be no need for it. Sinn Féin/IRA, the PUP and the UDP are linked with paramilitary organisations that have not decommissioned or disbanded, and they should have no place in the Government of Northern Ireland. There should be no need for a vote of no confidence in Martin McGuinness, because he and his Colleagues should not be in Government in the first place.

We are also told that there is no need for this debate, because we should draw a line under the past. We are told that we are now in a new inclusive society in which we should forget about all past atrocities. It seems very strange to have that attitude when you marry it with the Republican commemorations of the twentieth anniversary of the hunger strike; when you see the vast fortune going into the Saville inquiry on one incident in the troubles; and when you see compensation for terrorists who were killed on active service. It seems that you should forget the past unless it is in the interests of Republicans, in which case the past is very much to be brought to the forefront.

We are told by Mr Ford that, so far, this has not dealt with the role of Martin McGuinness. However, the character, behaviour and background of any Minister are vital to his capacity to do the job. In the last 20 years some Ministers have been forced to resign their positions at Westminster. For people such as Cecil Parkinson or David Mellor it was because of personal indiscretions. In the case of Nicholas Ridley it was because of remarks made about a foreign country. In the case of our previous Secretary of State it was because of question marks over whether he had told the truth about the Hinduja brothers' passport application. Many of those resignations were justified on the basis of those Ministers' transgressions, but how much greater, therefore, is the need to remove a Minister whose organisation has been responsible for hundreds upon hundreds of murders?

The previous Member who spoke mentioned the return of Ronnie Biggs, who is rightly going back to prison. However, what would be the response if the Prime Minister were asked to include Ronnie Biggs in his Government? Perhaps Ronnie Biggs does not have as much blood on his hands as the Minister opposite whom we are debating today. It would be akin to a previous Prime Minister putting the Kray twins in Government, if they were still alive. That would be the moral equivalent of putting Mr McGuinness and Ms Brown into the Government of Northern Ireland. No democratic system in the world would tolerate having people whose organisation has committed murder after murder involved in its Government. On television programmes about the Kray twins the excuse is occasionally used that at least they looked after their own. Whatever the dubious nature of that claim, it is one allegation which cannot be levelled at Sinn Féin/IRA or the Minister present.

If Sinn Féin/IRA look after their own, try telling that to Rose Hegarty, and try telling that to the hundreds of Catholics who were brutally murdered by the IRA, and you will see the type of background that the current Minister has. But it is not just a matter of the past; we need to look at the current situation. We have a terrorist organisation that is fully armed. A private army and a private police force are operating. People are subject to punishment beatings on a daily basis, and, on some occasions, they are killed.

There is a private army that still has not decommissioned even a single bullet. It is because of his current links, as has been said, that we have no confidence in this Minister. I urge everyone in this Chamber to strike a blow for democracy today and show that they have no confidence in Martin McGuinness as Minister of Education. I urge Members to support the motion.

Let us be clear. This is not a motion of no confidence in the Minister of Education, it is a motion of no confidence in the Good Friday Agreement. It is a proxy motion, put down by the DUP to undermine that agreement and this Assembly. It is a device of the DUP to distract attention from the achievements of the Good Friday Agreement in the face of the general election that was called today. This debate is, in short, part of the DUP's electoral strategy for the next four weeks.

This is not a motion of no confidence in the Minister of Education. It is a clear attack on the agreement. This debate cannot be about the Minister of Education's performance in office. He has performed without any serious criticisms such as might have led to the bringing of a motion of no confidence. I can think of no issue that could reasonably account for this motion's having been tabled today. I have listened very carefully to the contributions from the DUP Benches and from the DUP leader. I have heard no charge relating to the performance in office of the Minister of Education. No charge has been brought, and neither has any point of substance been raised in relation to the discharge of his duties as Minister of Education.

If the only substantive reason for this motion of no confidence is that he admitted in a preliminary submission to the Bloody Sunday tribunal that he was in the IRA and that he intends to give oral evidence to that effect, that reason is insufficient. While such an open and direct public admission is rare for someone involved in paramilitarism, in this instance I have to say that it was hardly shocking or surprising. Apart from Mitchel McLaughlin, the whole of Derry and possibly the whole of Northern Ireland suspected or believed that Mr McGuinness was a member of the Provisional IRA. What is so incorrect about his admitting his membership to that tribunal?

It would have been worse had he failed to make a public statement to the tribunal so that it might get on with its task of determining the truth about Bloody Sunday. For the Minister of Education not to give evidence and not to make a candid admission would have been a serious omission. It would have been a breach of faith with the relatives and families of those who died that day, because it is they who have carried on a persistent search for the truth. Mr McGuinness's submission was a necessary duty, which he performed.

The search for truth about Bloody Sunday - and about the troubles generally - is a necessary part of the healing process which can contribute to the strengthening of peace in our society and bring about ultimate reconciliation between our two traditions. The process of finding truth about our tragic past will help to purge and ease the pain of the last 30 years. The Minister's contribution to the Bloody Sunday inquiry is a small part of that.

I oppose the motion.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The most bizarre dimension of this motion is that it has been proposed by former DUP Ministers. They themselves have singularly failed to earn the confidence of anyone outside their own backward- looking party.

Indeed, perhaps they failed to find confidence in their own party. It is an added irony that these two replaced Ministers apparently gave up their posts as part of a rotation policy, and yet the Ministers who replaced them have now been in position for almost twice as long. That can only lead to three possible conclusions. First, the Ministers were incompetent and had to be permanently replaced. Secondly, the party leader looked down the ranks and, seeing no more ministerial prospects there, decided that he must stick with the two people that he nominated. Thirdly, the policy is a hypocritical sham to mask full participation in the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement.

There is nothing original or surprising in DUP hypocrisy. The DUP is opposed to Sinn Féin and the SDLP in Government; it is opposed to the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process. The motion is supposedly about confidence in Martin McGuinness as the Minister of Education. However it comes from a party that has failed and refused to reach out to its political opponents; it comes from a party that rejects the entire concept of reconciliation and peace making; it comes from a party whose only agenda is the destruction of the peace process.

In his role as Minister of Education, Martin McGuinness has attempted to reach out to everyone in our community. He has conducted himself with scrupulous impartiality at all times. Most importantly he has concentrated on doing his job, unlike his DUP colleagues whose primary focus remains the destruction of the peace process.

In his short time as Minister, Martin McGuinness has delivered real improvements to the education system. In two successive years under his leadership, we have seen the largest ever investment in the school building programme, amounting to a massive £200 million to build new schools for all of our children. He has instigated a fundamental review of the post-primary education system that will, I am confident, see an end to the iniquitous 11-plus. The ending of school performance tables was welcomed by everyone, except a tame and toothless Rottweiler on the DUP benches. Mr McGuinness launched a fundamental review of school funding with the objective of creating fairness in the distribution of resources for the first time. He allocated additional funding for schools including a £20·4 million windfall in March this year; made massive investment in computer technology for schools including £13·3 million in March 2001; and increased investment in pre-school provision that will deliver places for all of our children by 2003. He is also responsible for the creation of an Irish-medium promotional body and trust fund to deliver on the commitment in the Good Friday Agreement to

He has honoured his Pledge of Office - unlike those who propose the motion and their Colleagues.

Martin McGuinness is an excellent Minister of Education. That is accepted by all - apart from the DUP. He puts equality at the top of the agenda for the education system. He is delivering on the promises and potential of the Good Friday Agreement. The DUP is opposed to everything that he does; the motion is entirely consistent with that party's wrecker's agenda; and, like its entire political strategy, the motion has no chance of success. It sums up the DUP for the majority of our people. We can have total confidence in the failure of the DUP.

Mr Ford said that this important motion needed to be debated. However, later in his speech he lamented the fact that it was a DUP pre-election stunt. Did he not realise that when the motion was put forward? His deputy leader refused to turn up for the last DUP pre-election stunt motion, and, yet, Mr Ford sees the election stunt as a worthy motion to put on the agenda. Therefore the inconsistencies in the Alliance Party's approach are something that it must explain to the people. Go raibh maith agat.

We received confusing signals from those parties that are supposed to be pro-agreement; of course that is not unusual. The Alliance Party said that the reason for the motion was to go against the Ulster Unionist Party. The SDLP said that the motion was not against the Ulster Unionist Party but was rather against the Belfast Agreement. Another SDLP Member then said that the motion was not against the Agreement, but against the Assembly itself. They must make up their minds, because the Bible says that

Of course, that sums up the pro-agreement groups as well.

This is a serious matter. I understand that Mr Murphy had to speak in the debate - some time ago, a leaflet left in a photocopier stated that Sinn Féin must elevate Conor Murphy's position in debates to raise his profile coming up to the election.

I understand why he had to make that contribution and try to come out of the debate with muscles. If that is muscle, it is like a pimple on a bee's ankle.

Ms McWilliams said that we must draw a line in the sand - she usually tells us that. This phrase is very interesting, because the reason Mr McGuinness made his statement in the first place was the "line in the sand" of the Saville inquiry. Everything involving the Republicans is investigated, but nothing concerning the Unionists is examined. Those who were out in anarchy are investigated, but those who were simply getting on with their lives are ignored.

Will the Member give way?

No, I certainly will not. We have a costly inquiry, while hospitals are being closed under Sinn Féin. We cannot afford heart operations, but we have an inquiry, aided and abetted by the SDLP, that is so important that £100 million will be spent on it. It seems that the most important consideration is to have this inquiry before we draw the line in the sand.

After the Saville inquiry there will, of course, be another inquiry about Pat Finucane, or any others who belong to the Nationalist or Republican community. However, do not ask any questions about the slaughter of innocent people from this country, Protestant or Roman Catholic, who happened to be members of the security forces.

It has been suggested in the debate that nothing has been said in regard to Mr McGuinness's position as the Minister of Education. Mr McGuinness happens to be the Minister of Education, but his crimes, which, as an IRA man, he acknowledges, are crimes against humanity, ones which have affected people across Londonderry and the Province as a whole.

I do not know where some Members have been recently, because they seem to have missed the fact that allegations have been made against the Minister of Education in regard to the allocation of funds. Funds have been allocated to the maintained education sector, and there is deliberate discrimination against the controlled education sector.

Another Member told us that we should not be surprised, since Mr McGuinness has not said anything new. As Mr Kennedy suggested, the "dogs in the street" - or the "cows in the byres" - know Mr McGuinness's credentials. The only difference is that, for the first time, he has admitted his IRA involvement. For 30 years, he denied that he was a member of the IRA. He and his Colleagues tirelessly stood up and pleaded to the Chamber and requested that you, Mr Speaker, rule as out of order the use by Members of the term "IRA/ Sinn Féin". They said that there was no link between the two.

Mr McGuinness has acknowledged for the first time that he was a member of the IRA and the Army Council - and as we all know, he still is. In the book of the Unionist population, Mr McGuinness is an unrepentant terrorist, therefore he should not hold office in this democratic institution. It demeans democracy to have a Minister with those credentials.

We listened to Mr Kennedy say that he and his Colleagues had worked with Mr McGuinness. I trust that he and his Colleagues will now remove Mr McGuinness from - [Interruption]