It is with a sense of loss that I rise to speak to the motion, a sense of loss with the realisation that the opportunity to create a template for conflict resolution that could be used around the world is being put in abeyance. I do not say lost, but put in abeyance for some considerable time. I remember President Clinton's visit to Armagh, when he made the point that he could now go to any other country in the world and tell his hosts that they could solve their problems by looking at how they were solved in Northern Ireland.

I also have a sense of sadness. In two weeks' time, there will be nobody sitting on these Benches. In two weeks' time, there will probably be no Assembly sitting. In two weeks' time, all decisions will be moved from here to the Northern Ireland Office, to those who come here, do their jobs diligently, but without the commitment that is in the Assembly and the Executive.

I have a sense of futility that, given what is happening throughout the world, and the enormity and complexity of those problems, we have squabbled our way once again into suspension and put at risk that which is absolutely essential to making the new future that we all seek.

It is a matter of regret that the Ulster Unionist Party has tabled this motion. Its members were highly committed, able negotiators in the talks leading up to the Good Friday Agreement. They have been very able Colleagues in Executive. However, this motion is a mistake. It is no different from earlier motions and attempts by the DUP and others to destroy the agreement. It has been initiated by the Burnside-Donaldson axis in imitation of DUP tactics.

Previous motions of this nature were rightly described by the Ulster Unionist leadership as stunts. They knew that they would not be successful. You cannot solve the type of problems we have with stunts, whether they come from the DUP, the UUP or any other party under any type of pressure. This is really about the internal power play of Unionism within the Ulster Unionist Party and between the UUP and the DUP.

It is an unseemly struggle for who leads Unionism. In a fight such as this logic and principle are very often forgotten, and that is happening now.

Look at the irony in that one of the parties to the motion speaks and interprets for Loyalist paramilitarism; so that attendant to this Ulster Unionist Party motion are the opinions which are seen manifest in bomb explosions, vitriol, sectarianism and the type of attacks that we have seen. The Ulster Unionist Party is a proud party; it does not need that type of association.

Our party has consistently worked throughout to establish the institutions. Our record of working in partnership with the Ulster Unionist and Sinn Féin Ministers in the Executive speaks for itself. At the same time, we have argued consistently for the putting of arms beyond use. We have supported, and not interfered with, the efforts of the two Governments and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. In doing that, I have no sympathy whatsoever with the Republican movement - indeed, I recognise the overwhelming onus on it to honour its commitments and to follow the primary responsibility, which is there for all of us in the Good Friday Agreement.

Decommissioning was settled by the agreement, which recalled that its resolution

The agreement sets out the commitment of all participants to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. How often have I heard people dismissing this as an irrelevancy, as an unreasonable Unionist demand? How often have I heard it said that they will not jump to meet the desires and needs of a British Government; that this is not what Republican areas and supporters want; that this is, indeed, an impossibility? What they have been doing, in effect, is signalling their unwillingness to imple­ment the agreement fully, thus undermining Unionist confidence with it and defying the will of the Irish people who voted in such overwhelming numbers for the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations.

A heavy onus now falls on the Republican leadership to undo the damage that has been done and to turn the recently emphasised commitment to decommissioning into effective action. Words are not enough; deeds speak. The SDLP in conformity with the agreement seeks the completion of decommissioning to the satisfaction of Gen de Chastelain - no more, no less. I do not know whether, or when, that will happen, but I know, and I believe that everyone in the Chamber believes, that without decommissioning, the agreement will not survive.

Without decommissioning and the standing-down of paramilitary organisations, there will not be reconciliation and political stability on the island of Ireland. Without decommissioning, the time will come - and maybe has come - when there will not be any room in public or democratic life throughout the world for parties associated with paramilitary organisations.

Shortly after I became Deputy First Minister Designate, I said that the agreement gave us the opportunity to build something new for ourselves and to change utterly that which had gone before. I still believe that.

The Assembly, the Executive and the North/South bodies have proved their value and potential. Northern Ireland, and the whole island, is a better place because of their operation. They have provided the setting for a bright economic period and have enhanced the potential for investment.

It is thanks to those bodies that the community, which Members lead, won the battle against foot-and-mouth disease. Even in the difficult circumstances of the past fortnight the Executive were able to produce a draft Pro­gramme for Government and a draft Budget and make strategic decisions on gas pipelines and roads that will improve people's lives. There have also been decisions that will begin to help in the difficult process of bringing peace to north Belfast. I pay tribute to Sir Reg Empey who has been a good colleague in recent times in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

I conclude with a plea to those who have tabled motions today and to those who have caused the motions to be tabled: it is seldom in the history of any area that has suffered conflict resolution that all of the ingredients for a solution are in place. We have the agreement; we have the institutions; we have the machinery; and we have the panoply of support that is essential. What would some of the countries involved in conflict give to have those advantages? What would they give to have the agreement, the institutions and the machinery for solving problems? Do not throw the opportunity away. Do not squabble this political generation into political extinction. Use it; use it now, and use it well.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thanks to the fan club on the Unionist Back Benches. I also thank Mr Adams for his kind words to me and for the words of tribute that he paid to my predecessor and friend, Sean Neeson.

There is no doubt that since the referendum was held we have encountered multiple problems in implementing the agreement - decommissioning is the biggest problem. Those problems have arisen because Republicans and Loyalists have failed to live up to their obligations, at least under the terms as everyone else views them. How­ever, in the case of Loyalist paramilitaries there are no Ministers, so no exclusion motion is appropriate.

The issue before the House should be simple: it should be one of democrats versus those who are still prepared to resort to violence. Those who have a past are entitled to have a future, but some do not seem to want a present. This morning Mr Adams treated the House to a rehash of the Ard-Fheis speech. I do not expect him to condemn his comrades for their past activities; I am realistic enough in that regard. However, in the Chamber today Members expect to hear a clear, strong lead from every party as to the way of the future, and I regret that they have not heard that in the detail that they should have done.

Many groups have engaged in violence and, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know as well as I do that there have been three murders in south Antrim recently - all committed by Loyalists. Ironically, two of the victims were Protestants who were assumed to be Catholics. In all of this Sinn Féin will argue that its guns have been silent since 1994, but, unfortunately and palpably, that is not the case. There have been numerous beatings and shootings, and up to 30 murders have been committed against dissidents and drug dealers. There is a warped notion that one can kill without impugning the ceasefire so long as it is only a case of Unionists killing Protestants or Nationalists killing Catholics. The Alliance Party considers that the integrity of the ceasefire does not depend upon the interplay between the religion and politics of the victim and the perpetrator respectively.

Mr Trimble said that he did not wish to have a single Unionist motion because he did not wish the motion to be regarded as being sectarian. I found that bizarre. Once David Trimble and his Colleagues sought to co-opt the PUP to signing their motion it became a simple issue of Unionist versus Nationalist; not an issue of democrats against those who resort to violence.

On Saturday, I heard Mr Ervine say that decom­missioning was just around the corner. I therefore presume that he feels that the motion, in the context of unilateral sanctions, is going to help, not hinder. I would like him to explain how those sanctions could possibly be beneficial.

Mr Trimble has compounded his error - the error of being sectarian and making it a purely Unionist matter - by trying, yet again, to impose a deadline. That is particularly surprising, given that he highlighted in his speech the occasions where he had not imposed a deadline and where he had tried not to have one. By his actions over recent weeks and by his threat of what he and his Colleagues will do when the motion falls, he has again imposed a deadline. Experience has proved that deadlines have never worked, and will never work in the process. The unilateral Unionist deadline that almost destabilised the Mitchell review in late 1999 was a classic example of that. There are other examples. Unilateral dead­lines have never worked, because the talks process never worked on that basis. It worked when it was inclusive, when people were brought together and when they sought to reach an accommodation.

The sanctions on North/South meetings, which have been in place over the past year, not only did not work but have been held by two courts to be illegal. Today Mr Trimble seemed to rejoice in that judgement because he was playing politics and misusing the courts. It was not the legal system; it was a matter of his use of the courts to make a political point.

If the UUP is serious about decommissioning, and if it wants the Assembly to consider matters in a genuine, balanced way, why did it put forward this pan-Unionist motion? Why did it not talk to the SDLP, the NIWC or Alliance about how there might be joint action to confirm the integrity of the process and to ensure that decommissioning happened? It knows that exclusion could only be a realistic prospect if there were widespread agreement, yet it has not sought that agreement. It is simply playing Unionist politics.

Following the summer holiday excursions to Colombia and the dreadful events of 11 September in New York and Washington, there is worldwide pressure on any organisation that is carrying out acts of terrorism. However, today, the day after British forces, as Mr Trimble has highlighted, went into action against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, the Ulster Unionist party is giving the IRA "wriggle room". This is the only way that it can be presented. The rest of the world is turning against terrorist groups while Unionists are taking that pressure off by being unilateral and one-sided.

As Mr Mallon reminded us in July, the Government have responsibilities in this area, yet they have taken no action. Mr Mallon implied that if the Government were prepared to take action, he would follow it through. I trust that if they do take action, the SDLP will live up to that promise.

Unionists and Republicans have groups that are allegedly on ceasefire and which have taken no action on decom­missioning. Decommissioning is long overdue on the part of all paramilitary groups, including those linked to Sinn Féin, the PUP and the UDP.

There is the serious issue of the removal of weapons, but the motion is not dealing with that. It appears to have been precipitated by Ulster Unionist members such as David Burnside and Jeffrey Donaldson, and it is not in any way seeking a way forward for the institutions. It has played into the internal games of the Ulster Unionist Party, and it is most regrettable that Ulster Unionist Members of the House have taken the opportunity to follow it through. Perhaps the unhappy looks on their faces, the corridor chats last week, the talk of further post­ponement and the endeavours to avoid crisis are an indication of what most Unionist Members - at least those from the Ulster Unionist Party - really think about this.

In proposing the motion, Mr Trimble said that his objective was to have both decommissioning and devolut­ion. However, the motion is merely attempting to buy off his internal dissidents. The motion, followed by further threats of resignation, has, as Mr Mallon has just said, every potential to destroy devolution without bringing decommissioning any further forward. It should be resisted.

In the light of the horrific terrorist activity in the United States of America on 11 September one could be forgiven for believing that the people of Northern Ireland would expect something different in the approach to terrorism from Northern Ireland parties. We have listened to Mr Mallon's words and to the approach of the SDLP. We need to bear in mind that that party is washing its hands like Pontius Pilate and refusing to join with other democrats in excluding from Government those who are inextricably linked to a terrorist organisation. No amount of smoke, mirrors or imagery will change that fact.

Mr Trimble has laid out a catalogue of blame for the plight that those of us who are committed to peaceful and democratic means find ourselves in. He mentioned the British Government and Mr Blair's betrayal of the pledges that he made that those involved in and inextricably linked to terrorist organisations would not remain in Government. In the referendum Mr Trimble encouraged the people of Northern Ireland to support that position and endorsed the Prime Minister's guarantee. The Irish Government also had a duty. Mr Trimble reminded us that we are three and a half years into the process and still not one ounce of Semtex or one bullet has been handed in by the IRA.

We would have expected different things from those in authority in the United States of America. Not one person whom I have spoken to or met with has not been amazed by the events in Dublin at the weekend when the United States of America's Ambassador to Ireland attended the terrorist conference and brought the American Administration into disrepute. Circumstances such as that have contributed to the fact that Sinn Féin is in the Government here today.

A crucial question has to be asked about the Ulster Unionist Party's involvement in bringing about the present situation. It is clear that Mr Trimble has discredited a worthwhile and needed debate on the exclusion of those inextricably linked to terror by aligning himself with, and seeking the support of, those who are fronting Protestant, Loyalist paramilitary activity. That he did so to enable himself to table a motion to exclude those who are involved in armed Republicanism has everyone aghast.

Mr Trimble did not need to do that to achieve today's debate. He could, personally, have walked into the Business Office any time during the past 12, 18 or 24 months and signed any one of the various motions in the name of the DUP, the Northern Ireland Unionist Party, Mr McCartney's party and others tabled to exclude Sinn Féin, which required only one further signature. Mr Trimble can attempt to excuse his position, but that leads us to the real game plan and to the real reason for his taking the convoluted route of seeking the support of the PUP. He told my Colleagues and myself that he wanted to delay the motion to exclude Sinn Féin at the behest of Mr Blair - the man who, Mr Trimble said, betrayed the Unionist cause and gave false promises and undertakings. This is the man who is still pulling the strings of Ulster Unionist Party policy at Glengall Street.

Mr Trimble does not seek to exclude Sinn Féin; he has made that clear. He said that he wished to see it remain in Government, and he noted the valuable con­tribution that it had made to the process. Mr Trimble has embarked on a scheme to allow time for some act of decommissioning that will catapult him back into his position as First Minister, with Mr Mallon as Deputy First Minister. I remind Mr Trimble, and lest Members think that this point is hypothetical, those in the Govern­ment agencies in Northern Ireland -

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, is the debate not about the exclusion of Sinn Féin rather than about Mr Trimble?

Mr Wilson may continue.

I say this as a warning to those in the Ulster Unionist camp who may weaken in the next few weeks. I remind Mr Trimble that he said that, even if there were to be some act of decommissioning by the IRA, that would not convince him, nor would it convince the people of Northern Ireland, that Sinn Féin/IRA, represented by Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, is fit to be in Government. A paramilitary organisation may decommission a few weapons; the LVF decommissioned weapons some years ago. However, I do not imagine that the family of Martin O'Hagan would regard that as a guarantee that that organisation would not return to violence.

Mr Trimble and his Colleagues work hand in hand with the Government to have him and his Colleague, Mr Mallon, reinstated in the Northern Ireland Executive. There is only one way for Unionists to exclude Sinn Féin from the process, and it is in our hands. We cannot depend on other Governments or on the other people at whom Mr Trimble points the finger of blame. Mr Trimble and Dr Paisley could remove their Ministers from the Government today, and Mr McGuinness and his Colleague, Ms de Brún, would no longer be in the Executive. If we cannot have decommissioning, and if the price for Govern­ment in Northern Ireland is having terrorists in that Government, we should seek a better form of Government.

Mr Trimble said that Mr Ervine and Mr Hutchinson had convinced him that they were in favour of peace and that he could do business with them. Mr Adams said that if that is the case, it does not matter what the IRA's position is; Sinn Féin Members need only convince Mr Trimble that they are seeking peaceful and democratic structures in Northern Ireland. If Mr Trimble is to be consistent, he cannot take a different approach.

We need to remove from the process those who pollute and corrupt it. Mr Trimble chided the Democratic Unionist Party in this Chamber for months and said that to withdraw Ministers would make no sense. He told the DUP that it was still up to its neck in the process, as he and his Colleagues will be for the next two weeks. Had he any integrity or decency, he would do what the DUP leader has done. Dr Paisley has proposed the immediate resignation of his Ministers. I trust that Mr Trimble will follow his example, and that he will not play around with the process any longer. The honourable and decent thing for Mr Trimble to do is to resign. He should withdraw his Ministers, and the Executive will fall today.

I support both motions. Leaving aside Mr Cedric Wilson's comments, I welcome the united Unionist front in this debate. Speeches made today have reflected the Unionist community's frustration at an agreement that has failed to deliver and, particularly at the inability of the forces of infidel Republicanism to state that the war is over and prove it by giving up weapons.

I have said before that my difficulty with the Belfast Agreement was not so much decommissioning, or even prisoner releases, but the North/South bodies. As a Unionist, I had a genuine fear that they could lead to some form of joint authority. However, decommissioning and prisoner releases were also important moral issues. We are dealing with an important moral issue today - decommissioning.

There is a real need for decommissioning. Looking at the situation in north Belfast, with which some of us are familiar, and the orchestration of much of what has happened recently, we can see the need for some form of decommissioning. Over the years, 132 members of the security forces have lost their life in north Belfast. More significantly, 281 Protestant civilians in the upper Ardoyne area have lost their life during the troubles. That is why we must view the situation seriously.

The issue of decommissioning concerns us all and must be addressed. Sinn Féin has cynically used the process to change its strategy. If Sinn Féin were genuinely of the opinion that the war was over, there would have been an element of repentance - an apology, or an assurance that it would not happen again and some evidence to show that. There has been no repentance. Instead, Sinn Féin cynically changed the system.

It is unfortunate that when Sinn Féin changed its strategy to one of orchestrating violence, it knew exactly how people in the Protestant community would react. There are difficulties in the Protestant community because of that. Protestants have reacted predictably and, at times, have followed self-defeating strategies that have taken away from what is happening in those areas. They have distracted attention from the failure of the Provisional IRA to decommission and from the needs of a Protestant community that has suffered greatly - more so than the Catholic community, particularly in north Belfast. Attention has been deflected away from the genuine needs of people in those areas. It is slightly nauseating to hear Members of Sinn Féin deriding the large amount of money to be invested in north Belfast and saying that the Protestant community, which is greatly in need of that money, should not receive it because it is a payment for violence. That is untrue and inaccurate. Of course, Sinn Féin can, and does, get away with making such statements.

I understand why the Protestant community follows self-defeating strategies. Housing conditions in Protestant areas have been poor, and that problem has not been addressed. The Provisional IRA has failed to give up the weapons of war that have created such unease and uncertainty in the Protestant community. Attitudes in that community have hardened, with the result that if a referendum on the agreement were held today among the Protestant community, there would be a wholesale rejection of everything that many Members have tried to establish. Thankfully, I was not one of those Members.

What is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? I am not sure. I had a strong Presbyterian upbringing, and, to me, right was right, and wrong was wrong; I still see it that way. I do not see how it can be said that a war is going on between the Provisional IRA and the British occupying forces. Where were the British occupying forces at La Mon, Tullyvallen, Darkley, Kings­mills and Teebane? Where were they on Bloody Friday - an exercise orchestrated by a Member of this House? Eleven people were blown to bloody smithereens because of the activities of that individual.

There is an absolute need to give up the weapons of war, to decommission, if only on moral grounds. No one who is involved in democratic politics should be allowed to hold on to illegal weaponry. People are pretending to be involved in the democratic process but are holding on to the weapons of war. We all know why. They hold on because some of them hope to go back to war for a final push towards their ultimate aim. They do not realise that people down South do not want them either, but that is a debate for another day.

Today, we are debating a serious moral issue. People who are involved in the democratic process do not need illegal arms. For those in democratic politics, there is a legal imperative not to hold illegal weaponry and not to be involved in illegal activities such as gun smuggling, protection rackets or bludgeoning a community into support, even if the community's wish is to reject such actions. All those issues are involved.

I support the motion for all the right reasons. I welcome the fact that there is a united Unionist front. I urge the House to reject Provisional IRA/Sinn Féin and to exclude it from Government.

Unlike my Colleague, I hardly celebrate such Unionist unity. If there are as many knives in my back when I have finished as there were in David Trimble's before he started, we will know how much Unionist unity there is.

We in the Progressive Unionist Party are accused of hypocrisy, and I am sure that we will be accused of more later. I need to clarify that my party's policy is one of inclusion and pluralism; we recognise that exclusion is at the core of our historical difficulty. If exclusion is that core, inclusion is a way to correct it. I wish that it were a perfect world and that we could do what we wanted on any given day. We made a decision to sign a motion. We had never signed one before. Nobody was that keen on asking us, because we were expected to refuse.

We are in an interesting phase. With or without this motion, we face a suspension, an election, or whatever the Secretary of State decides on, following consultation. Perhaps, however, we have an opportunity to tell each other the truth, to hear that there are serious problems and that others have not fully understood or been prepared to understand? I can give examples. Once, there was 72% support for the Good Friday Agreement. There were those who thought that 26% of the vote was the majority. They found out differently; there was a readiness in both sections of our society to try, to explore and to see.

When we walked out of Castle Buildings on 10 April 1998, we all said "Bye-bye" to each other. We all sold the agreement in ways that could not be described as collective. We were fearful - if we cannot convince the people whom we need to take with us, where will we go from there? In a divided society, no one can convince the people whom he or she represents that they are going in the right direction alone; former enemies are also needed. If the theories and arguments that are being put forward are aimed at pointing people towards the future - along what are, undoubtedly, uncharted waters - those people's representatives and their former enemies must tell them that they are going in the right direction. People need to be shown that circumstances have changed. That has not happened.

Mr Trimble referred to the mention of decommissioning in the Downing Street declaration of 1993. I have never been a loud advocate of decommissioning. I have been a loud advocate of each person's taking responsibility for identifying changes and shifts. In the first instance, in a divided society, that can only be a change in language. However, if someone is asked to say that the war is over and that person cannot do so, that means that the war may not be over. If there are so many caveats, it may not be possible to believe that it is over. That has been the case.

The Progressive Unionist Party's withdrawal from the process, after the Weston Park talks, was an acceptance, on our part that, unless the Unionist community could see greater political effectiveness from the Good Friday Agreement, we could not proceed. To achieve progress the opposite side must recognise the efforts of Unionists who have taken risks and are prepared to take greater risks. The opposite side must acknowledge those risk-takers, rather than believe, as it has consistently wanted to, that Unionism was attempting to exploit weakness and that there was some kind of game plan involving Mr Trimble and Mr Donaldson. It was thought that the difficulties that the Unionist leadership was experiencing were part of a game to box the Provos in. That could not be further from the truth.

The opposite side is bound to see the hatred, the bitterness and the venom in the Unionist community. We can change the old adage "If you put three Republicans in a room, the first issue on the agenda will be a split."; now, it is "put any three Unionists in a room, and the first issue on the agenda will be a split." Republicans saw a society being salami-sliced. Some incidents were not individually earth-shattering, but, taken as a collective, were nightmares for Unionists. We believed that there was a chance that when we explored the future, we would see the curtain come down on a brutal and awful past. That belief was blown out of the water by something as simple as the case of a lady who wanted to present prizes in a Catholic school. The Duchess of Abercorn wanted to present prizes for literature to pupils in a Catholic school. Sinn Féin vociferously opposed that, on the basis that the lady was a member of the royal family. Sinn Féin was wrong - she is not a member of the royal family. Unionists reeled at that. Then, when Fr Denis Faul met the RUC to discuss crime levels, a crowd of Sinn Féin activists hounded Fr Faul and the RUC officers, and Unionists reeled at that too. We thought that it was OK to have that dialogue; we were told that dialogue worked and that we must make politics work. In his own inimitable way, Fr Denis Faul was trying to make something work for a community that was suffering from increased crime.

There was the nonsense over the Angelo Fusco extradition to Northern Ireland. The extradition was perfectly legitimate within the parameters of the Good Friday Agreement, but pressure exerted by Sinn Féin leaders tragically encouraged the Irish Government to change their mind. Unionists heard a certain language from the leadership of Sinn Féin but saw different behaviour from Sinn Féin - or in some cases IRA - activists. Which is the true element?

It is difficult for someone who has stood exposed in his own community, having said that he believed that Sinn Féin and its leaders, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, were genuine about the future, to discover that most of his community, while willing to listen when the question was first asked, are unlikely to believe that Sinn Féin is genuine.

There will be another chance to put things back together. In some ways, the motion highlights the fact that we the Unionist community cannot be salami-sliced. The Unionist community cannot think that it will manage this society easily by itself and leave Republicanism and Nationalism behind. There must be a collective way to create inclusion - not a collective form of exclusion - so that people will be relatively comfortable. It might be a long time before we are completely comfortable. However, I appeal for us to do that.

In answer to David Ford, who asked where my confidence in decommissioning was, I should explain the comments that I made on Saturday. My confidence in the delivery of weaponry is not founded on morality. This society uses morality as a weapon, which does a great disservice to our hopes for the future. In a divided society, there is no single overarching morality or truth. We can weld ourselves into a little homogenous unit and touch each other's anal parts, like chimpanzees, for comfort, but we must learn to live together. The choice is simple. In order to show that politics works, decommissioning, or putting weapons beyond use - as some people like to term it - will come out of practicality, not morality.

Soon, we will face a choice. I hope that when the motion is defeated, as it undoubtedly will be, Sinn Féin does not spit out the dummy. I hope that it will recognise that, for whatever reasons, there is a requirement to give confidence to the Unionist community. Whatever move it makes could it please ensure that that move is recognisable?

October has turned out to be a sad month. It is also the month in which the Shankill bomb and the Greysteel murders took place. It is the month of the funeral of Marty O'Hagan, the first journalist to be killed in the troubles, and of the military response in Afghanistan. Undoubtedly, one of the saddest things for us is that we meet for probably one of the last times before we go into yet another suspension.

Some of the language used today was important. We have heard again and again, as Mr Trimble said, that if a person has a past, he or she can still have a future. Those are important words, and they should not be disparaged. We should all apply those words to ourselves. I am fed up with the denial, the minimisation and the rationalisation that goes on when we talk about our past. Every one of us contributed to that past, so let us stop denying that we are unconnected to the reasons for our differences.

It is important that we continue to hear that militant Republicanism will be redundant - not in the past tense but, as David Ford said, in the future tense. That must be worked out. It is important that when Martin McGuinness, who is named in one of the motions today, contributed to the book 'Being Irish', he specifically addressed the Unionist people, arguing that

in what he also hoped would one day become a multi­cultural, secular society. Those sentiments would not have been expressed in the 1970s. However, they were expressed last year and continue to be expressed this year.

It is time to move beyond the newspaper articles that undermine confidence and the shock security disclosures of the past few months. It is also time to move beyond someone else's deadlines. The IRA need not wait for the correct political context to be set by others - I believe that it is within the IRA's power to set that context itself. That is why our language and our actions are important. If we go into review, we must ensure that the political context remains uppermost in our minds.

I am despondent. We have one final opportunity not to do what we have done during every other review, which is to create and continue a cycle of breakdown and patch-up, until we have almost destroyed the community's confidence in us to make the agreement work. It is hurtful to use the word "exclusion" and to tell people that they are not wanted and that they are to be excluded or marginalised - except for those who feel that they have a self-importance given to them at birth. It is important that, when an exclusion motion is tabled, or a review is entered into, parties realise that it is not only their issues that are on the agenda, but all parties' issues. Authorship of the agreement is ownership of the agreement. Therefore, we should work to include all parties. Some Members may say things that we do not wish to hear; none the less, it is extremely important that we hear them, especially if some think that those who support the agreement are the minority of a majority. A majority voted for the agreement in the referendum. However, if those who support the agreement are now in the minority, we must hear them say why it is not working.

Clarity about substantive issues and about the creation of relationships that enable those substantive issues to be dealt with makes for good negotiations. We know the substantive issues that contribute to making the agreement work, but we are useless at creating the relationships that would enable us to deal positively with those substantive issues. We must stop talking at each another and begin to talk to one another. To date, that major ingredient has been missing. We know the confidence-building measures that must be put in place. Our communities almost despair that we have not got enough faith in one another to put those confidence-building measures in place. Senator Mitchell said that

I have a great deal of respect for Alan McBride, whose wife and father-in-law were killed in the Shankill bombing. He represents victims in his work at the WAVE Trauma Centre and represents victims' organisations in the Civic Forum. He says that he does not represent all victims. At the Civic Forum, he said that he recognised that he was

He went on to make the important point that there would be the beginnings of a new future:

We should remember that that man lost his wife and his father-in-law, but he still believes that it was important for him that we put the agreement together. He believes more work must be done. As political leaders, the least that we can do is to stop demanding political progress and begin to work at it. If we are to go into review, the most important message that we can send out to people is that, this time, we shall set the terms of reference. It is ridiculous to talk about opening up the entire agreement. We know what substantive issues must be worked at and fixed, and that is the message that we must send out to the community.

Since entering the Assembly I have been consistent on two points. First, that the political representatives of active terrorist organisations retaining arms have no place in the democratic process. Secondly, I have a committed and dedicated opposition to all forms of sectarianism. As far as I am concerned, the remarks by Mr Adams about people who do not want Fenians, as he described them, about the place, are totally and completely inappropriate, and I have made that case many times here.

On the basis of those principles there is absolutely no way in which, even at the price of Unionist unity on this, I could conceivably support the UUP motion. There is no basis upon which one can argue, from either a rational or moral ground of justification, that a motion to exclude one group which is not entirely dedicated to peaceful methods should be supported by another group that is guilty of exactly the same intransigence.

Until today I had thought that if there were a contest for the crown of utter political hypocrisy, Mr Trimble and Mr Blair would be the front runners. However, Mr Adams has placed himself in prime position for that crown. When we hear people such as Mr Adams, Mr McGuinness and Mr Ervine give forth lofty sentiments about working together, democracy and peace, we have to examine their antecedents. Mr Adams himself was commander of the Belfast Brigade on Bloody Friday, and Mr McGuinness was a self-confessed officer - com­manding officer, perhaps - in the Derry Brigade during a period when 22 people had their lives taken from them.

We hear the mantra repeated by Mr Trimble, and echoed by Mr Adams, that because people have a past does not mean that they cannot have a future. It could be nonsense, or it could be true. However, the real issue is where they stand at present and whether they have shown any ability or capacity to transmute themselves from terrorist to demo­crat. I see no evidence of that. I see no such evidence because both Mr McGuinness and Mr Adams are members of the seven-man IRA Army Council, and recent inform­ation is that Mr McGuinness is now the general officer commanding. We have these people coming forward, and we have the "trainspotter supreme" gesticulating. Someone should send him a pair of binoculars so that he can see Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness more closely.

The truth is that Mr Trimble, as usual, has got absolutely nothing. He got nothing when he signed the agreement in April 1998. He was totally conned by Mr Blair. These are two lawyers. Mr Trimble is a lawyer who was conned by a letter from Mr Blair that gave him some sort of comfort. Mr Trimble should have understood that one party to a multi-party agreement, even if that one party were a Government, could not alter, amend or substitute any term of that agreement without the consent of all. That is the sort of stuff for first-year law students, not an alleged constitutional lawyer.

He desperately wanted to get his sticky fingers on what he believed to be the levers of power in the devolved Government. He got nothing after the Mitchell review in autumn 1999. He tells us now that George Mitchell made all sorts of statements about what was agreed, but when George was asked to make some public utterances as to what had been agreed, George disappeared. Mr Trimble got nothing after the Hillsborough talks in May 2000 either. However, before leaving George Mitchell's review, I should mention the infamous letter of resignation. This man of political awareness and acuity was so confident that the IRA would decommission that he offered his letter of resignation if his hopes were not fulfilled.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can the Member clarify whether he is speaking for or against the motion?

That is not a point of order, and I do not have to clarify it. It is typical of the bogus points of order that Mr Adams engages in. The truth is that Mr Trimble got absolutely nothing then. Then there were the Hillsborough talks in May 2000. He got absolutely nothing then either. Having got nothing three times, he was willing to be persuaded that he should re-enter the Assembly and the Executive.

Now he is under pressure from his own party and believes that there is a window of opportunity because of the events in New York and Washington. The focus of the world democracies is on terrorism generally, and sooner or later it will be on the terrorism of the IRA. He believes that that provides him with an opportunity to bring this, on the face of it, macho motion to exclude Sinn Féin.

In truth it is nothing of the kind. In essence the motion is a fraud. It permits Mr Trimble to withdraw his Ministers, hang about for 10 days or two weeks while all sorts of pressures are brought on Mr Adams and Company to produce some absolutely worthless gesture about decom­missioning that will enable Mr Trimble to get those sticky fingers back on the levers. So the UUP motion is not one that any democrat could support.

There was talk from Mr Mallon about stunts, but this is not the first time that a motion supported by every Unionist has come before the Assembly. In December 1998 the UKUP proposed a motion that every Unionist agreed with. What was that motion about? It was about preventing the representatives of paramilitary organisations who had not decommissioned from entering the Executive until they had shown their bona fides.

Mr Trimble supported that motion, but a few months later he abandoned all that and entered, in league with Sinn Féin, into the Executive. Having got them into the Executive, he was faced with the problem of how he could get them to honour the basic requirement of any democracy. Of course, all along the line he failed. Now, probably in league with his puppet master in 10 Downing Street, he produces the argument that they have to be put out.

Two weeks ago I described the political hypocrisy of Mr Trimble as mind-boggling. That was based on his condemnation of the UDA for its activities in north Belfast. However, he used the UDA and the UVF and their political representatives to get the Belfast Agreement signed and to be elected as First Minister. Now, within two weeks, he excels even that level of hypocrisy by inviting the representatives of one set of terrorists to bring about the demise of another.

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

I will be voting for and supporting the exclusion of Sinn Féin. I would also vote for the exclusion of the PUP if that were an option.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>