I am afraid that the Member's time is up.

Much has been said today about the timing of the announcement of Martin McGuinness's decision, at long last, to speak to the Saville inquiry.

Last week the Saville inquiry wrote to me asking, and I quote:

That letter was dated 25 April; it arrived with me on 26 April; and, hey presto, on 29 April, Mr McGuinness decided to make it known to the public that he was at long last going to give evidence to the Saville inquiry. I may have had little influence over the sequence of events, but I will leave others to judge the merits of Martin McGuinness deciding to give evidence to the Saville inquiry.

The issue is not whether Martin McGuinness is a suitable person to be Education Minister inasmuch as how he conducts himself in the office of Minister of Education between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm. The issue is whether Martin McGuinness is a suitable person to be Minister of Education because of his background, his activities, and his adherence to the philosophy of violence and murder. That is the issue.

Very often, in the Chamber and elsewhere, people have raised the nonsensical issue that DUP members do not wish to co-operate with Nationalists and Republicans because of their political allegiance. Dr Farren was partially, but not completely, correct. We have co-operated with Nationalists on many occasions, and we will continue to do so. Despite what I have seen and have experienced of the triumphalism and sectarianism of Nationalist representatives, which very often comes to the fore, they do not support murder. Therefore we can speak and co-operate with them.

Members of the now defunct Irish Independence Party were unapologetic Republicans. I co-operated, spoke and negotiated with them, not because I have any love whatsoever for the Republican philosophy - I abhor it - but they did not support violence or murder. However, there are those who do, and Martin McGuinness is one of them. That is why we will not have any dialogue or debate with him.

There is a very sad individual in a back room of the UUP who has to count up the number of Committee meetings that take place so that every week, or month, the UUP can issue a statement indicating the number, whether it be 600, 800 or 1200. The UUP does not say that in all of those Committee meetings, we do not have dialogue or debate; we do not confront, negotiate or give any legitimacy to the spokespersons for terror - because that is what they are. We will never ever do it.

They must make the decision. Are they democrats, or are they terrorists? That question was not satisfactorily answered last week. It is not about what Martin McGuinness was doing on Bloody Sunday. The question is that if he authorised the Provisional IRA not to use their guns on Bloody Sunday, did he also authorise them to use their guns on the Thursday before Bloody Sunday, when two innocent policemen were murdered? We can have no confidence whatsoever in a person who advocates murder and terror. The DUP will never ever give legitimacy to people or a party like that. I am confident that the Unionist community will recognise that failure to give any legitimacy to them.

I understand that heretofore when a Minister rose to reply he got 20 minutes. If it is not a Minister who is replying, is he limited to five minutes?

When a Minister is replying, he or she is generally given 10 minutes per hour of debate. On this occasion Mr McGuinness has asked his nominating officer, who is the person who put him in as Minister and the only person outside who could refuse him, to answer on his behalf. Therefore, he will have that time at his disposal.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Who asked Mr McGuinness who was going to reply for him, and who decided that if it was not a Minister, he would be allowed the same time as a Minister?

The question came through the usual channels. That is the way in which most of these matters are negotiated. I made the decision as to who was acceptable.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you confirm that when we discussed the speaking allocation for this debate in the Business Committee meeting at lunchtime today, all Members agreed that the respondent - whoever it might be - would be allowed 20 minutes to speak? That included Members from the DUP, who now profess to be shocked.

The timings were agreed. However, it may not have been clear whether the respondent would be Mr McGuinness. I did not discuss who the respondent would be. It might have been a reasonable assumption that it would be Mr McGuinness. However, there was complete agreement about the timings.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful that you have provided clarification and rebutted the usual misinformation from Mr Murphy. I note that a precedent has now been set of discussing Business Committee business on the floor of the Chamber.

There was no reference to substitute Members, or to the Minister's running away and scurrying into a corner and allowing his leader to speak for him, rather than answering himself. The understanding was that the Minister would speak. The normal rules would apply on that basis.

I was taking that as a point of order, but it seems that the Member was giving a ruling on the point of order, rather than asking for one. That is something that the Chair guards rather jealously.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. If this takes place now, is it a precedent that on any other occasion when a Minister does not want to reply, whomever he nominates will be allowed 20 minutes, or 10 minutes for each hour of debate?

A Minister may ask one of his or her ministerial Colleagues to reply in a debate. That is reasonable in other circumstances. This is not an Executive matter in the same way. This is a question of the appointment of a Minister and of confidence in that individual. It is not unreasonable that the nominating officer, whom I recall nominating Mr McGuinness for the education portfolio, should reply on his behalf. Should one of Dr Paisley's Colleagues be in the same position, they could not pick anyone more eloquent than himself to speak on their behalf, as nominating officer and party leader.

It is proper that I should speak today as the person who proposed and nominated Martin McGuinness as the Minister of Education. I am here to defend his position. - [Interruption]

There was not a whisper in the Chamber when the DUP were speaking, but if anyone else tries to speak - especially any female Member - you have a bay of discontent, bad manners, heckling and so on. Tá a fhios ag na daoine sin gur breá an tAire é an tUasal Mac Aonghusa. Chruthaigh Conor Murphy sin nuair a bhí sé ag caint faoin obair atá déanta ag Máirtín Mac Aonghusa go dtí seo. Níor dhúirt Teachta ar bith de chuid an DUP oiread agus focal i gcoinne Máirtín Mac Aonghusa mar Aire.

Cén fáth? Cad chuige nár dhúirt siad focal amháin ina choinne mar Aire? Mar tá a fhios acu go bhfuil sé ag déanamh a dhíchill mar Aire agus go bhfuil sé ag déanamh a dhíchill ag an am chéanna le próiseas na síochána a chur chun tosaigh.

I am not only having difficulty hearing with this ear, I am also having difficulty hearing with the other ear. This corner was keen that I should have a translation so that I would understand whether matters were in order. [Interruption]

I will give a ruling on that to the Member when I hear the translation. Mr Adams, please continue. - [Interruption]

Order. I am not taking a point of order at the moment. I will take it at the end, because this is becoming silly. - [Interruption]

I am not taking any further points of order on that until the end of the speech.

Pat Doherty gave some quotes and some of the history of the DUP. William McCrea called for Thatcher to sanction the bombing of IRA headquarters in Dundalk, Drogheda, Crossmaglen and Carrickmore, and some eejit - may I use that term? - some fear amaideach, is shouting "Hear, hear" when I requote that. Dr Paisley said that power comes from either the ballot box or the barrel of a gun. Gregory Campbell said that the Free State should be brought to account. He said that there should be a disciplined Protestant army, determined to take whatever action is necessary to tackle Republicans, North and South. Jim Wells said that we would have no problems with the IRA, that if left to ourselves, we would soon weed them out.

Then we get to the friends who have been killed. This is in the middle of the "Smash Sinn Féin" election campaign, and where did that go? Was Sinn Féin smashed? Even on the back of the killing of Sinn Féin members Bernard O'Hagan and Eddie Fullerton, we had the then Lord Mayor of Belfast, Sammy Wilson, asking if the council would be prepared to congratulate all those who had done a good job on both sides of the border. He also referred to Sinn Féin voters in North Belfast as sub-human animals. He said that what we needed was a policy of extermination, shoot-to-kill, or whatever.

Of course, at an Ulster Resistance rally, Ian Paisley and Peter Robinson were pictured with Alan Wright and Noel Lyttle, who was later arrested in Paris for selling missile parts to the South Africans in return for weapons supplied by a South African diplomat. In Bangor, Ian Paisley said that there were many like himself who would like to see the agreement brought down, and would we not be fools if we were not prepared. Then there was Brian Nelson, the common factor in the killing of Brian Finucane and many others, and there was Ulster Resistance.

When I read that, I said to myself that this is sad, depressing reading. Then I said to myself that William McCrea has a mandate. I do not agree with the man, but he has a mandate. Ian Paisley, Peter Robinson and the rest of them have a mandate, and I have to accept that. I have to accept that I have a responsibility to try to work with these people.

Now what is this about? It is not about a vote of no confidence in the Minister. There has not been one word about Martin McGuinness's role as Minister of Education, and he said very clearly this morning on the record, through the Cheann Comhairle, that he had ceased to be a member of the IRA. If he had not admitted that he was a member of the IRA, and if he had not come forward and offered evidence to the Saville inquiry, would he be more acceptable as a Minister? Is Bairbre de Brún more acceptable as a Minister? No. Is this not about having a Catholic, an uppity Fenian about the place? Let us get real about this.

This is obviously aimed at the UUP and is part of the ongoing battle within Unionism.

At the beginning of this period in our history, the Poet Laureate, Seamus Heaney, described it as a space in which hope could grow. At another time, David Trimble said that just because someone has a past, it does not mean that he or she cannot have a future. That goes for Unionism as well.

We could rail against the record of the Ulster Unionist Party. Where was John Taylor, the Minister of Home Affairs, at the time of the Bloody Sunday killings? Why did Ian Paisley cancel his counter-demonstration? We could rail against all of that. However, if any of us is to have a future, we should not forget the past. I do not profess to be a Christian clergyman, and I do not lead a church, but there has to be some sense of forgiveness, some sense of people's reaching out, looking back - [Interruption]

If that is what Members want to talk about, let me say that there have been 30 years of war in this part of this island, and before that there were 50 or 60 years of institutionalised violence by the state against citizens here. I regret that. I have said, on record, at Republican funerals that I regret the fact that Republicans have hurt other citizens, because I accept that which some Members do not: that all of us have a responsibility to put together a solution.

The problem with the DUP, some members of the UUP and others, is that that they do not think that they have any responsibility for what has happened here since partition. They think that it is nothing to do with them. They crow like juvenile delinquent schoolboys when there is an attempt to try to engage with them. The learned lawyer echoes all of that and then tells us that he is not a bigot.

Where do we go from here? I was sceptical about these institutions, but I believe that they are working, notwithstanding the First Minister's removal of the rights of the Ministers of Education and Health. Sinn Féin came into this space, which we thought that DUP Members would be comfortable in, in an attempt to try to put the past where it belongs - behind us. Now where do they want to go? They want to go back into the past.

I have been in prison. Dr Paisley and Peter "the punt" Robinson have been there as well. Young loyalists have talked to me and said that they are sorry that they ever listened to the rantings of some of those who, at that time, were representing the Democratic Unionist Party.

Let us try to look at this debate in terms of what it is. It is part of the DUP's trying to prevent change. It is my view - and people may crow or yo-ho about this - that the time will come when DUP Ministers, as is their right, will work with Sinn Féin Ministers. It is my view that the people who are now protesting so much about the new dispensation will actually be part of that, because we know that they are semi-detached.

In fairness to the UUP, we know that it had the courage to go into the negotiation chamber and try to work something else out. Where was the DUP? It was not there. It is here now because its members are well paid. They work with Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the other parties in all these institutions, and they like it.

As a leader of Sinn Féin, what do I say here as I come forward and try to make sense of this? I am trying not to rise to the baiting from the Opposition Benches. I am trying not to rise to the awful racist, sectarian and anti- Catholic bile that is in some of these quotations. All I can say is that the old days are finished - they are over. The people of this island want to build a future where Ian Paisley's children, grandchildren and great- grandchildren live with David Trimble's children and all of the rest of the people on this island and try to carve out something decent. Whose fault is it for the last 30 years?

It is the IRA's fault.

Some people say that it is the IRA's fault. What is the solution? Some people are saying that the solution is to exterminate those who have, as they see it, the responsibility for the problem. However, how are the vast majority of people on this island trying to put it all together? They are trying to put it together by accepting the hurt and the difficulties that were faced and by upholding Martin McGuinness's right to be a Minister. He has a mandate that must be upheld in the same way as the rights of the other Ministers are being upheld.

I call upon Members to reject the motion. I do not wish to patronise Unionists, but do they want to go back to what we are trying to come out of? Do they want to be part of the politics of spitefulness and nasty remarks and killing and all of that? Do they want to go back to plastic bullets and internment?

I asked a friend of mine who is a cainteoir dúchais, a native speaker, what he thought about the motion. In his own way he made some sense. He said:

He was speaking to Dr Paisley. He said:

He also said that it would be better if we all co-operated to make a new society, a new country - [Interruption]

Order. Members have pleaded for a translation when Irish is spoken. It would be helpful if Members would listen to it.

He said that it would be better, speaking to yourself, to co-operate now to build a new society, a new country for yourself and for your children. He also said that like a stream running under - [Interruption]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members are told over and over again to address the Assembly through the Speaker, but here we have some idiot addressing me in Irish. Is that in order? Is that the sort of debate that Members are looking for?

Dr Paisley, I have repeatedly called on a number of Members from your party to observe the same proprieties - [Interruption]

So do the same to them.

Order. I have also called on Mr Adams's party and all of the other parties to do the same. If I were to call on every occasion when the DUP broke the rules, we would never get anywhere in any of the speeches. It is the case that Members from the DUP as frequently observe the rule in the breach as in any other form.

My friend went on to say that it would be better that all of the hurt would go like a stream under a bridge and be cleaned in the process.

He said that after he had read what Dr Paisley had said on the Shankill Road - a part of my constituency. Dr Paisley asked the people of the Shankill Road what was wrong with them, because there were papists living at 425 Shankill Road, 56 Aden Street and 38 Crimea Street. I forgive the Rev Dr Ian Paisley for those remarks. - [Interruption]

Liar.

Let him face up to his responsibilities and let us all build a decent island, an Ireland of equality where we can all be comfortable in our own place. Let us put all of this behind us and reject this motion. Go raibh maith agat.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to make an accusation in the House, as a result of a letter, that has no foundation in fact? I represent a large constituency made up of Protestants and Roman Catholics. I defy them to find one Roman Catholic whom I do not serve.

Order. It was often the case when Our Lord was asked a question that he responded with another. Is it in order for one Member, from a sedentary position, to call another Member a "liar" in a parliamentary Chamber?

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sitting down here, and I heard no one call the Member a liar. I heard them refer to the person who made the remark which was being quoted by a Member as being a "liar". There is a difference.

There may well be a difference, and I will make that decision from the Chair. Members from that corner are good at putting points and answering points of order themselves, which is convenient, but out of order.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am glad to hear that you will look into the remark. From this side we clearly heard the word "liar" shouted at Mr Adams. You have ruled on this matter before, and I trust that you will follow that precedent.

Listening to Mr Adams speak about moving forward and forgiveness, one would not think that members of the IRA have been the butchers of innocent people in Northern Ireland for 30 years. Not only is Mr Adams a proxy speaker, but he is a deviser and implementer of proxy bombs. Last weekend the Daly family - and the previous weekend in Londonderry the O'Kane family - had family members murdered in broad daylight by the organisation of which the Member is part and parcel. This is the hypocrisy, the nauseating sanctimoniousness and righteousness of the person who still fronts an organisation which holds on to all its terrorist weaponry in Northern Ireland. If he really wants to move forward, why not make a gesture today? Why not throw his weapons away and come into the democratic fold? Why does he remain wedded to a terrorist paramilitary organisation? It is because he is so wedded, and he stays wedded, that we have tabled this motion today.

Order. I draw the attention of the Member to the point of order raised by his party leader when referring to me.

When you did not follow that through, Mr Speaker, I was under the impression that you had allowed me sufficient licence to proceed.

The Member knew very well that I had not.

I listened carefully to your ruling, and that is exactly why I proceeded in the way in which I did.

When the Member talks about baiting, racism and sectarianism, he may have been referring to his Colleague Mrs Nelis, because every time she rises in the Chamber, bile, sectarianism, racism and bigotry flow out of her. Perhaps he could have a quiet word with her instead of lecturing others.

We hear a lot of talk about moving forward and not going back, about our having forgiveness, and so on. Yet we have calls for inquiries into the Finucane case and the Hamill case. There is £100 million to be spent on the Bloody Sunday inquiry.

On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to draw your attention to the gestures being made by the Member. I do not want to be involved in pantomime, but I want to bring his actions to your attention.

I will try to observe and to listen as best I can. It is not always easy.

The proud leader of the Republican movement is worried about a gesture across the Chamber. He wants you to look into it. How are the mighty fallen. The "soldiers of Ireland" must be saying "Well done, Gerry, for raising that point in the Assembly." This is what we have come to, and he is the one talking about not turning this into a farce.

We were being accused of silly behaviour and politicking. The reality is that people in Northern Ireland, and in Ulster, would have been astounded had this Assembly not decided that this issue was one that should be debated as soon as possible after the confession of the Minister of Education - albeit a self-serving and limited confession.

The leader of the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition said that people do not want this motion of no confidence to be debated. I do not know where she lives or whom she represents, but people on the ground are demanding that this corruption of democracy - having a self-confessed terrorist in our Government - should be brought to an end as swiftly as possible. That is why we saw it as our duty to bring this motion forward as soon as possible.

Mr Weir has already mentioned the reaction to other Government Ministers who were guilty of far less. They were hounded from office. An Austrian Minister, the leader of the Freedom Party, has been hounded because of remarks that he is alleged to have made in support of Nazi activities. People are implementing sanctions against him, and yet we are expected to listen to sanctimonious rubbish about the need to move forward in relation to having a self-confessed terrorist in our Government.

The reality is, as Mr Peter Robinson said, that we know of Martin McGuinness's role in the leadership of the IRA. That is why we opposed the setting up of an Executive with IRA/Sinn Féin in it. That is why we put down an exclusion motion to put Sinn Féin/IRA out of the Government of Northern Ireland. This is not a last- minute motion that was put down because of an election. This is something that is ongoing, because our role in the Assembly is to harry Sinn Féin and expose its members for what they are.

I urge and challenge any true democrats in the House, regardless of their party, to ask themselves whether it is acceptable for the Minister to remain in office. Would it be acceptable in any European democracy, or anywhere else, for someone who has confessed to being the adjutant of a terrorist organisation to remain in office? He has never indicated when he left the IRA, if ever. There is a list of crimes ascribed to that organisation which were carried out when he was in a leading position. Did he think that that would not be challenged and that it would not raise serious concerns that would lead people to demand that he should be voted out of the Government of Northern Ireland? I do not think that that would be the case at all. However, in Northern Ireland, despite the fact - [Interruption]

Order. I do not know who has the mobile phone or musical instrument - nor whether it is in the Gallery or in the body of the House - but I ask the person responsible to please attend to it.

It may be one of the "foot soldiers" ringing to congratulate the leader of the Republican movement on his tremendous speech.

I take Mr Durkan's point about some of the comments on Mr McGuinness's so-called "coming clean". He is not coming clean at all. He has made a self-serving statement limiting his involvement and painting the IRA as having been engaged in no shootings and in nothing illegal at all. We are expected to believe that its members were out bombing and murdering people on any other day, but that on that one day - even though the people were under attack - they decided not to do anything.

It is quite simply incredible. McGuinness, of course, needs to be investigated. There should be an inquiry into his involvement and those of other IRA Army Council members named today in illegal terrorist activity.

IRA victims do not believe that this confession is somehow going to help the healing process in Northern Ireland. They do not believe that it is part of that process for someone to escape justice or to gloat over the murders of innocent people.

The SDLP's Mr Maginness said that the DUP did not table the motion in order to get Martin McGuinness out of Government, but that rather it was an attack on the Belfast Agreement. That simply disguises the fact that the SDLP have decided to align themselves with Sinn Féin/IRA, to scurry behind them, to ride to their rescue and to vote to keep Sinn Féin, terrorist, IRA Minister McGuinness in the Government of Northern Ireland. However, their true motivation will not be lost on the people of Northern Ireland.

The Alliance Party and the Women's Coalition tell us that the Minister has done nothing wrong as Minister of Education. The analogy is, of course, that if he were dishonest, or a paedophile, that would not really enter into the equation - as long as he was doing his job. That is the equivalent of what they are saying. The fact that he is a murderer and is someone who guided the instigation of terrorist acts should simply not come into it, even though he has a job that involves formulating policy that moulds the minds of children in Northern Ireland. It is utter rubbish.

The Alliance Party and the Women's Coalition tell us that they have to be judged on their merits. The people will judge them on their merits on every single occasion that they ride to the rescue of the Republican movement and back Republican, Sinn Féin/IRA in the Chamber. They will, no doubt, get their answer at the local elections. They are not putting forward any candidates for the Westminster elections - I wonder why.

The lie was stated that the DUP is somehow working with IRA/Sinn Féin. My Colleague, Mr Campbell, answered that. We will not be working with, fraternising, associating with, wining, dining or otherwise discussing anything with IRA/Sinn Féin. That is the position, and no amount of spin or talk will change that.

Members should note that I have spent most of my time dealing with the positions of Sinn Fein/IRA, the SDLP and others. However, the Ulster Unionist Party managed to get the grand total of one Member to speak - and I am still not sure, after he finished speaking, what the exact position of his party is. I hope that when the vote is taken that his position, and the position of his Colleagues, will be clear. He talked about a timetable now being in place to deal with the issue of Sinn Féin/IRA in Government. However, this is the third or fourth timetable we have had.

The time for action is now - not after the election. I ask the Ulster Unionist Party to go into the Lobbies, vote no confidence in Martin McGuinness and join with the DUP in voting to exclude Sinn Féin/IRA from the Government of Northern Ireland.

That is the true test - not to wait until after the election to see how that goes in order to fudge the situation, as has happened so many times before. People see the IRA being compensated. They see terrorists coming out of jail. They see terrorists in Government, and they see nothing in return. Now is the time for action.

Order. The Member's time is up.

Question put.

The Assembly divided on a cross-community basis: Ayes 31; Noes 45

<< Prev