Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 8 October 2001 (continued)
Provision of Residential Developments
6.
Ms Armitage
asked the Minister of the Environment if he has any new plans to promote and provide quality and affordable residential developments for all and, in particular, first-time home buyers.
Mr Foster:
Through the development plan process my Department has responsibility for zoning land to provide for housing growth anticipated by the regional development strategy. The Minister for Social Development advises me that increasingly developers recognise the commercial potential of providing new housing development within co-ownership price levels, and that in redevelopment areas houses are being set aside for co-ownership in a drive to promote sustainable mixed tenure estates. The regional development strategy recently published by the Department for Regional Development sets as policy a requirement to provide a housing choice by achieving a mix of housing tenures and house types, to promote home ownership and generally affordable housing and to provide social housing targeted to meet identified housing needs.
The strategy sets targets for achieving brownfield housing development through the development plan process. At my specific request - and progress is monitored against those targets - account will be taken of the need for the planning system to make provision for affordable housing, particularly, but not exclusively, for first-time buyers and those on lower incomes.
With regard to quality, in June 2001 the Department published planning policy statement 7: 'Quality Residential Environments'. That sets outs my Department's planning policies for achieving quality in new residential developments and advises on the treatment of that issue in development plans.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr D McClelland] in the Chair)
Ms Armitage:
Can the Minister tell the House how long it will take for his policy to have any effect?
In many areas in Northern Ireland, the problem of second home owners has resulted in a situation where there is no settled community. School numbers are in decline and church numbers have dropped. In one area in my constituency, over 70% of homes are empty for approximately 42 weeks of the year. As a result, shops have closed, and the post office no longer exists. Is the Minister content that his efforts will overturn this situation? If so, how long does he envisage it will take? I hope that the Minister does not intend to drag his feet any longer over this important matter.
Mr Foster:
I am aware of Ms Armitage's concerns about second homes in her constituency. The demand is great at the moment, and it is not easy to contend with. The recently published regional development strategy indicates that in future, development plans will identify settlements and areas under pressure from second homes. The development plans will deliver a set of criteria which allow for evaluation, in consultation with local residents, of the capacity of a small town or village to absorb new second home development. The development plan process will take account of such matters as scale, character and setting. Consideration can be given if local planning policies are needed, and an assessment made if there is a need to zone additional lands to ensure local supply of affordable housing.
As for dragging my feet - I have been 17 or 18 months in this post, and I do not accept that I have been dragging my feet. A magic wand cannot be waved overnight to solve the problem, much as I would like that.
Rev Dr William McCrea:
It is important to provide and promote quality in affordable residential developments for all, particularly for first-time home buyers. One of the major problems faced in my own constituency of Mid-Ulster is that of developers who build homes without planning permission. Action should be taken by the Department to make it an offence to build without first having planning permission. The law should apply equally to all buyers, whether they are individuals or big companies.
Mr Foster:
I am aware of the Member's point in relation to enforcement. We are working on the planning amendment Bill, which is aimed at strengthening the Department's existing enforcement powers and giving primacy to development plans in deciding planning applications. The opportunity is also being taken to introduce some other provisions to strengthen and improve the planning system in Northern Ireland.
For a long time we were short on resources, both financially and in personnel, but I stress that the problem is not being ignored.
Recycling
7.
Dr McDonnell
asked the Minister of the Environment to detail his plans to promote the recycling of household and industrial waste; and to make a statement.
9.
Mr Armstrong
asked the Minister of the Environment to indicate what measures he has in place and what measures he plans to put in place to recycle waste products from industrial processes.
Mr Foster:
Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission I will answer Questions 7 and 9 together.
My Department's policy on the promotion of recycling of waste is set out in the waste management strategy for Northern Ireland, published in March 2000. One of the aims of the strategy is to move waste management practices towards increased reuse, recycling and recovery for all waste streams, including household and industrial waste. The strategy sets out challenging targets for recovery and recycling, and for reductions in the quantity of industrial and commercial waste and biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill. District councils are working to finalise comprehensive waste management plans. One of the aims of these plans is to ensure that there are adequate facilities for the recycling and recovery of waste to meet the targets set out in the strategy. These draft plans will be subject to public consultation. In order to help promote an informed public debate my Department will mount public awareness and education campaigns, which will highlight the need for recycling. These campaigns will run in parallel with the public consultation stage of the draft plans.
4.00 pm
The main barriers to the expansion of recycling here are a shortage of local markets for recycled products and a lack of reprocessing infrastructure. The recently established Waste Management Advisory Board, which I referred to in a previous answer, will oversee the introduction and development of a market development programme to stimulate demand for recycled materials and products.
Dr McDonnell:
I thank the Minister for his answer and for the answer in response to question three, which was also relevant. Is he not concerned that local councils are not big enough to handle the problem? There is a need for a regional strategy that is comprehensive and seamless? He mentioned the advisory board, which is welcome, but something with more teeth is necessary. Perhaps a recycling agency would work. The Minister said that there was no market for products. Could he talk to his colleague in Roads Service -
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Dr McDonnell, there were three questions in there.
Dr McDonnell:
Recycled concrete, aggregates and hard core should be used. I am told that the biggest problem concerns the market for the products.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Minister, you might not have time to respond, but you can reply in writing.
Mr Foster:
I will reply now. I am aware of the recycling problem. It involves a long, arduous programme of education. The primary target of the waste management strategy is to recover 25% of household waste by 2005 and 40% of household waste by 2010, of which 25% will be for recycling and composting. It is a big issue. It is not going unnoticed; we are working on it and we are working on cross-border issues as well.
Exclusion of Sinn Féin
Debate resumed on motion:
That this Assembly resolves that the political party Sinn Féin does not enjoy the confidence of the Assembly because it is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means. - [Mr Trimble.]
The following motion stood in the Order Paper:
That in consequence of, the failure of the Provisional IRA to offer up its illegal weaponry for destruction; the Republican Movement's continuing terrorist threat, and active pursuit, of terrorist outrages to secure its aims; the maintenance by the IRA of an active terrorist organisation; the growing number of cases of IRA involvement in terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and across the globe; the fact that the Provisional IRA is inextricably linked to Sinn Féin; and the involvement and dominance of members of Sinn Féin in the decision-making "Army Council" of the Provisional IRA, this Assembly resolves that Sinn Féin does not enjoy its confidence because it is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful means, and further, in accordance with Section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, determines that members of Sinn Féin shall be excluded from holding office as Ministers for a period of 12 months from the date of this resolution. - [Rev Dr Ian Paisley.]
Mr P Robinson:
During the first few hours of this debate, I noted that a number of Members spoke in acrimonious tones. The word "hypocrisy" seemed to feature in everyone's speech. I look at this debate more positively than some who have spoken. I welcome Mr Trimble and the Ulster Unionist Party to this debate on the exclusion motion. My Colleagues are well used to such things - they have been through them on several occasions.
On the first occasion, Ulster Unionist Party Members decided to lock themselves in their Glengall Street office. The whiff of the debate might have been too strong for them. On the second occasion, they ventured into Stormont although they locked themselves in their rooms. Therefore, it is real progress to have them here for an exclusion debate. As Mr Mallon said, they used to consider such a debate to be a stunt; Mr Trimble now sees it as a clever tactical move, replete with moral efficacy, and that must be progress for Unionism.
There are those who say that it is hypocritical of Mr Trimble to withdraw his Ministers, or to contemplate doing so, having chided the Democratic Unionist Party for many months, if not years, for taking up what he described as an unacceptable position. I recall that when Nigel Dodds and I first went into ministerial office, he referred to us as rogue Ministers. Members may say that that is hypocritical of Mr Trimble, but I see it as progress. Just because someone got it wrong in the past, it does not mean that he must get it wrong in the future. I welcome the fact that he has taken the DUP line on exclusion and withdrawal. He may want to take it a step further and recognise that immediate resignations are required.
There are also those who consider a joint Ulster Unionist/PUP motion to be hypocritical. How, they argue, can the UUP table a motion to exclude IRA/Sinn Féin while in harness with the PUP? Well, it gives us an opportunity to vote twice for the exclusion of IRA/Sinn Fein, and we should not miss any opportunity to exclude terrorists from Government.
The main issue is the exclusion from the Government of Northern Ireland of a terrorist group still wedded to active terrorism. It is not a new issue for debate - there are no new factors. In the debate on 18 September, I outlined in detail the breaches of the so-called ceasefire and the contraventions of the principle of exclusive commitment to peaceful and democratic means. I showed that the Provisional IRA had carried out 170 punishment shootings during the period of its so-called ceasefire. On top of that, I said that it had been involved in 250 paramilitary beatings, in robberies, in excluding people from Northern Ireland, in gunrunning from Florida, in training and in equipping itself with new expertise in bomb warfare in the jungles of Colombia, as well as multiple murders. The IRA has murdered Jim Guiney, Robert Dougan, Brendan Campbell, Andrew Kearney, Eamon Collins, Brendan Fegan, Paul Downey, Charles Bennett, Joe O'Connor, Christopher O'Kane and Paul Daly. That organisation is on ceasefire and is supposed to be committed to exclusively and democratic means.
We have had the hypocrisy - there is that word again, Mr Deputy Speaker - of the leader of IRA/Sinn Féin saying in the Assembly today that no reason had been given for excluding it from Government. Are not those names good reasons why it should be excluded from Government? IRA/Sinn Féin is still tied in to active terrorism and has not given it up. As Mr Adams said himself, the IRA "has not gone away, you know." It is not necessary to argue too much of a case that the Provisional IRA, with its political wing, Sinn Féin, is in breach of any requirement to be committed to peaceful and democratic means. It has used its weaponry to extract concessions and intends to continue to do so.
We have had the nauseating spectacle of Sinn Féin/ IRA's attempt to dissociate itself from terrorism because, today, there is an acceptance throughout the world that those who are involved in terrorism should be shunned. IRA/Sinn Féin attempts to distance itself by saying that there is some distinction to be drawn between the violence that it was engaged in and the violence that we saw in New York and Washington. Indeed, at the Sinn Féin conference, the Member for North Belfast said that the IRA was not a terrorist organisation:
"When I went to war against the British because they were at war with the occupied section of my people, I didn't think it was immoral. On the contrary, I thought we had a moral right. But I have no hesitation in condemning what happened in America because hijackers took civilians in aeroplanes and crashed into other innocent people in the towers and the Pentagon. Those were quite obviously acts of terrorism."
He cannot condemn the bombing of the World Trade Centre out of one side of his mouth and then decree that virtue and merit should be ascribed to the bombing of Canary Wharf, the City of London, Enniskillen or La Mon, or any of the other acts of terrorism in which the IRA has been engaged. The leader of IRA/Sinn Féin suggests that the heroes of Enniskillen and La Mon are brave men. The world rightly condemns terrorism, of which the IRA is an integral part.
The road is running out for the IRA. The world has changed since 11 September, and they know it. They will now consider trying to placate world opinion by some token act of decommissioning. The two dumps with their obsolete weaponry have already been compromised. Perhaps they will consider concreting over them. That will not satisfy Unionist public opinion, nor will it satisfy world opinion. To be meaningful and credible, decommissioning must be complete and publicly verifiable. Moreover, it will necessitate a programme for dismantling the IRA's paramilitary machine, which in every aspect is still active.
The SDLP has coasted through the debate by telling the Ulster Unionists, Sinn Féin and the DUP that they are wrong, without focusing on its own behaviour. The SDLP could keep the Assembly operating, but I know that it will instead maintain its link with the IRA/Sinn Féin. Like the Taliban in Afghanistan, it will not give the terrorists up. However, the SDLP must choose between Taliban tactics or side with those who will not accept terrorist rule.
The Prime Minister, Mr Blair, and President Bush, at the start of the present campaign, which affects the whole world, said that they would invite nations to choose to be with or against the terrorists. They asked, "Whose side are you on?" Today in Northern Ireland, the same question is posed in this Chamber. When we go into the Lobbies, we will see who votes for the terrorists and who votes against them.
Dr Farren:
We are debating a motion which should never have come before the House. Those of us who signed the Good Friday Agreement recognised that it required more than signatures to end conflict and to facilitate the development of new political partnerships. Mutual trust remained to be built, not just by working the new institutions but by delivering on all the confidence-building measures prescribed by the agreement, including decommissioning. Mutual trust is clearly not yet sufficiently present among all the pro-agreement parties, and especially not between Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party. Until it is, the agreement's promise will be only fitfully realised and its very continuation endangered.
Removing the only context in which the agreement can submit considerably increases the risk of its collapse. For 30 years, Sinn Féin supported the IRA's campaign of violence. Thousands of its victims were from the Protestant, Unionist community. The need for Sinn Féin and the whole Provisional movement to build confidence in its commitment to the Good Friday Agreement was therefore an inescapable and profound challenge. Building that confidence had to mean more than participation - no matter how enthusiastic and committed - in the institutions alongside Unionist representatives. Participation accompanied by mere promises on decommissioning does not generate sufficient confidence that the IRA really intends to put its arms permanently beyond use. I accept that the inspection of arms dumps has not been unhelpful, but promises to the international commission have not been followed through by practical steps towards putting arms permanently and verifiably beyond use.
4.15 pm
Do the IRA and Sinn Féin not see that a minimalist and apparently reluctant approach to decommissioning is seriously undermining pro-agreement Unionist confidence in Sinn Féin's commitment to the agreement? It is also, perhaps, undermining the agreement itself. I cannot believe that they do not see that. To judge by some things that were said and by some things that were done, I am forced to believe that some of them do not care. It is a strange position for a movement that claims that its ultimate objective is to unite the people of the island.
It is not just Unionist confidence that Sinn Féin and the IRA are required to encourage. The wider Nationalist family in Ireland, which also suffered greatly during the 30 years, from IRA and Loyalist violence, and which overwhelmingly opposed politically motivated violence is just as entitled to know whether the Provisional movement is fully committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
As much as anyone who has been involved in politics in Northern Ireland, I recognised that putting 30 years of violence behind us was never going to be easy or swift, no matter how widespread the support. People in both communities needed convincing both by their own leaders' words and by the words and deeds of leaders in the other community. Resolute action to have all aspects of the agreement gradually implemented in parallel was required. A willingness to take account of each other's difficulties, as well as one's own was required. Perhaps, Martin McGuinness's words at his party's Ard-Fheis last week about how Unionist concerns need attention can be welcomed as a shift in that direction.
The UUP and other Unionists, just as much as Sinn Féin, should have realised the need to take others' difficulties and perceptions into account. Prevarication in the early months of the Assembly over the Executive and the North/South Ministerial Council and, more recently, sanctions against Ministers' attendance at North/South meetings have raised doubts about the depth of their commitment to the political process and the Good Friday Agreement. Loyalist paramilitaries claiming to support the agreement should also have realised and acted on the requirements to build trust, just as much as the IRA. Their re-engagement in violence has been even greater than the IRA's, and it has stretched the meaning of being on ceasefire beyond belief. Is the PUP's support for the exclusion motion to be taken as a signal that the Loyalist paramilitaries who are associated with that party are, at last, prepared to commence actual decommissioning? If so, the PUP's support for the motion, in one sense, can be taken as a welcome signal. If not, the sincerity of its support for the motion is seriously open to question.
I recognise that the UUP agreed to enter the Executive - not once, but twice - following IRA promises on decommissioning. As a result, together with Ministers from my party and Sinn Féin, UUP Ministers have demonstrated what can be done for the people of Northern Ireland when we combine our political resources. Last week, I addressed the House with Sir Reg Empey on the threats hanging over hundreds of workers in the aerospace industry. This week, I am due to engage with Sir Reg and Mr Morrow on the economic development of west Belfast and the Shankill. I am engaged with Ministers de Brún and McGuinness in dealing with drugs and alcohol abuse, especially among the young. I make those points to illustrate the positive work that the Executive and the Assembly are doing. We should work together to address the problems that affect all the people of Northern Ireland. However, to sustain our efforts, we need more trust and confidence between pro-agreement parties.
We are on the brink of another of those critical moments that have plagued the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The SDLP remains convinced that the agreement, with all its checks and balances - constitutional and political - together with its human rights, policing and justice agendas is the only basis upon which lasting peace and stability can be achieved. What is needed, even at this late stage, is a political breathing space that would help to cement the agreement. That would strengthen, not lose or endanger, the emerging partnerships. Through their past actions and their intentions over the next few days, the Unionist leadership, together with Sinn Féin, are denying the process the space that it requires.
Mr Leslie:
As someone who has supported the agreement through thick and thin, I know a bit about taking political risks. I take no pleasure from the fact that we find ourselves forced to table this motion. However, I see no any alternative. I remind the House that the mechanism that is reflected in our motion was envisaged in the agreement and, therefore, in the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
There were - and still are - three things that the Republican movement could do to demonstrate its good faith in the implementation of the agreement: decommissioning; saying that what they call "the war" is over; and ending the violence. Curiously, ending the violence perhaps receives the least attention. Although it appears from the evidence of recent years that the Republican movement has given up fighting the Army and the police - a contest in which it could never get more than a draw - it has certainly not given up terrorising its own community; nor have certain Loyalist elements. When it suits them, Republicans and Loyalists terrorise the interface to make one side stir up the other. Nowhere would an end to violence be more welcome than in those paramilitary fiefdoms. Unfortunately, those fiefdoms seem to have expanded over the past five or six years.
The Republican intimidation and terror machine was at its most visible during the recent election campaign. In 'The Irish News' on 5 June 2001, Ms Rodgers, who was the SDLP candidate in West Tyrone, said that she had received a warm reception from most people in West Tyrone, but that
"there are some Sinn Féin supporters who are engaged in a sinister and systematic campaign of abuse and intimidation against me and my election workers".
That is a disgraceful situation in a democracy. When that election was over, Ms Rodgers said that she did not want to make a fuss. Had that intimidation come from part of the Unionist community, we would still be hearing the fuss. There is no doubt that it suits Sinn Féin to undermine the electoral process, but it does nothing but harm to the SDLP and the institutions that are elected through that process. I sometimes wonder whether the SDLP is really the voice of moderate Nationalism - the voice of the community that is having to live under the jackboot of nightly terrorism from the Republican machine.
For clear language on the subject, I turn south of the border to Mr Quinn, the leader of the Irish Labour Party, who made some pertinent comments at his party conference. He said that
"To be a Republican is to believe in the sovereignty of the people. But these people are not true Republicans. For three years, they have refused to comply with the mandate explicitly voted for by the people of the whole island, north and south. That mandate was to put arms beyond use."
He went on to say:
"it's time. to stop peddling the lie, that the putting of arms beyond use is some kind of British or Unionist diktat. It is a direct order from the Irish people, no more and no less."
On occasion, we hear similar language from Mr Mallon. I have a question for Mr Mallon and his party. If a direct order of this kind is disobeyed, what action follows the words? Mr Bush and Mr Blair made direct demands of the Taliban regime. When they were not obeyed, that regime got the answer - in fact, just the beginning of the answer - yesterday. It is just as well for the IRA and the Irish Republic that we are dealing with this issue entirely through the constitutional mechanisms available to us, and not by more drastic means.
The SDLP could have won considerable political advantage by distinguishing itself from Sinn Féin. A consistently robust attitude towards intimidation by the IRA and towards its failure to decommission would be an obvious way to express that distinction, and I am surprised that the SDLP rarely seems to adopt such an attitude. The SDLP could also point out that terrorism has contributed nothing towards the realisation of the dream of a united Ireland. Indeed, it has made that possibility more remote than ever. Those are powerful arguments but for some reason, they are not being properly made.
The d'Hondt system was used to form the Executive. The system was not designed for that purpose; it was designed for use in the formation of Committees. The d'Hondt system, when used in the formation of an Executive, creates an unusual and distorted system of government. It was employed mainly to accommodate the Republican movement. If Republicans are not going to fulfil their obligations on decommissioning and non- violence, there is no need to persist with those distortions. That, however, does not mean moving away from an inclusive system of government. It means drawing a distinction between a fully inclusive system that includes terrorist organisations and an inclusive system that does not include those terrorist organisations.
The appointments to the Policing Board have already created a precedent for that situation, and I warmly welcome the SDLP's appointments to that board. I believe - I suspect that the SDLP believes - that, in due course, Sinn Féin will make appointments to the board. I would like to believe that, in due course, Sinn Féin will do what is necessary for its representatives to become bona fide members of the Executive. However, as Mr Attwood said a few weeks ago, without some use of the stick, how are we going to persuade Sinn Féin to do that? The precedent of the Policing Board shows the correct course to follow as we seek decommissioning and non- violence. In the interim, a price must be paid by those who do not comply with the will of the vast majority of the people.
The Ulster Unionist Party wants to work in an inclusive system, and we find it offensive to be accused of having any degree of equivocation on that score. My Colleagues and I have worked assiduously in every part, and through every mechanism, of the Assembly to demonstrate our commitment to inclusiveness. We have worked companionably and constructively with all parties, and we have shared information and ideas with a view to providing good and fair governance for all the people of Northern Ireland.
It has been said that the IRA will not do anything under pressure. It certainly does not do anything when it is not under pressure. Each time proper pressure is applied, we start to see some sort of movement in the Republican machine. Once again, we must apply pressure. The routine is becoming wearisome, but that is what we must do. Otherwise, we will continue to have a situation in which paramilitaries decide what peace is and in which the Provos say that there will be no peace if they have to give up their guns.
We must ask again what sort of society we want to live in. Is it to be a society that recognises and values diversity, and in which equality means equality of respect and opportunity, and freedom means the ability to live in peace with others? Or is it to be a society based on ideas peddled by the Republican movement, in which diversity is seen as a threat, the only law is Provo law, equality means joint authority and freedom has been perverted to mean a hatred of all things British?
That is the sort of society in which all too many people find themselves living in a climate of fear in those Republican ghettos.
In 1998, the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland decided which road they wished to travel. The Republican movement is still standing at the crossroads, where we should leave it while it dithers about its next step forward. We should proceed without the Republican movement.
4.30 pm
Mr McLaughlin:
Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Whatever the purpose of the motion, I have no doubt that it has little or nothing to do with achieving that which it purports to seek. In fact, the movers of both motions know that none of this will result in Sinn Féin's expulsion from the Executive. The more that the Ulster Unionist Party protests that its motivation to collapse the political institutions is to force the IRA into an act of decommissioning, the more obvious its real intentions become.
The Ulster Unionist Party now differs only tactically from the DUP and from those Unionist paramilitaries engaged in daily gun and bomb attacks. In fact, today's motion is part and parcel of a deeply rooted resistance within Unionism to political change and to the effective delivery of the equality agenda. We saw that at the time of the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement when almost 50% of Unionism voted to reject the peace process. We see that every day in the despicable blockade of schoolchildren on the Ardoyne Road.
I listened with disbelief as Mr Trimble and other Unionist spokespersons attempted to rationalise the reality of naked Unionist bigotry and sectarianism. A recent enduring image was created when Mr Trimble walked into the negotiations in September 1997 - in what he termed a show of Unionist unity - shoulder to shoulder with the political representatives of the UDA, UFF, Red Hand Defenders and UVF. On entering Castle Buildings, David Trimble asserted that they would not negotiate with Sinn Féin, but would achieve my party's expulsion. He did not succeed then, and he will not succeed now. Four years later, David Trimble is still fascinated and fixated by Sinn Féin; four years later, his authority and his ability to lead his community and his party is eroded. However, he still clings to the failed and foolish notion that to exclude the largest non-Unionist party in the North will somehow solve Unionism's problems.
I am obliged to point out that Sinn Féin represents more than 21% of the electorate - one in five of the people who live here. I must ask whether that is the democratic commitment of those who would seek to exclude that community. The threat to the Ulster Unionist Party comes from within Unionism, not from Republicanism. The Ulster Unionist Party leader has delayed implementation. He has been prepared to repeatedly break the law and to use public moneys to pursue his futile and unsuccessful legal defence of his party political actions. David Trimble has carried letters of resignation in his pocket. Finally, he resigned from the Executive - how ironic. I wonder has it even occurred to him that one of the consequences of his foolish brinkmanship is that he finds himself in the very position that he has sought to impose on Martin McGuinness and Bairbre de Brún. He is the one who is outside the Executive. That would be funny were not it so serious.
Instead of putting those sad experiences behind him, it seems that the Ulster Unionist Party leader is intent on repeating his mistakes by waltzing out of these institutions - once again hand in hand with Dr Paisley, and supported yet again by the PUP. However, there is a certain consistency to David Trimble. It is not only his relationship with Dr Paisley that has been opportunistic, hypocritical and ambivalent, Mr Trimble's on-off relationship with violent Unionism goes back to his Vanguard days, and specifically to his role as legal adviser to the UDA-led Ulster workers' strike in 1974. Indeed, Mr Trimble, we can all have a past as well as a future.
That ambivalence was again evident when he could not reach an accommodation with Dr Paisley in his quest for signatures for today's motion. Who did David Trimble, the crusader for decommissioning, turn to for support? He turned to none other than the political representatives of the non-decommissioned UVF. That is not so surprising when you recognise that Unionism's real agenda is not at all about decommissioning. Were that his genuine objective, the leadership of Unionism had the opportunity to demonstrate authority and vision in early August when John de Chastelain, in strict accordance with the Good Friday Agreement, reported that he had successfully negotiated a formula to put IRA weapons beyond use.
It was presented on a plate, largely because Sinn Féin had used its influence on behalf of the peace process, but Unionism could not find the courage to respond positively. I was disappointed to note today that neither Seamus Mallon nor Sean Farren availed of the opportunity to defend the initiative on IRA weapons and did not defend the agreed mechanisms of the Good Friday Agreement.
However, at the time, neither did the Irish or the British Governments. Even now, such validation would be very helpful. Unionism's real agenda is to stall the change that is already in train and to slow the progression towards a society that is built on equality. It matters not to the opponents of change how peacefully that objective is pursued.
Ulster Unionism's consistency has been its persistent opposition to change, but if Unionism believes that it can prevent change it is sadly mistaken. If Unionism believes that it can return to the days of untrammelled power, it is even more mistaken. And if Unionism believes that it can deny Sinn Féin's electoral authority as the representatives of the majority of Nationalist and Republican people in the North, it is absolutely and fundamentally mistaken.
Sinn Féin is committed to resolving all of the issues between us by entirely peaceful and democratic means - all problems, including the issue of weapons. I am pleased to have the opportunity to reiterate that today.
I urge those Unionists who do accept that there is a need for change to accept the hand of friendship that Sinn Féin offers and to join us in managing that change, so that it will be peaceful and beneficial to all of the people of Ireland, regardless of their religious or political persuasion.
I respond to a point raised by Dr Paisley in his contribution: contrary to his assertions - and it would be helpful if he would check the facts - there were no representatives of either ETA or the Puerto Rican organisations at our party conference. They neither attended, nor were they invited to attend. It is important that the record reflect the facts.
Collective elected leadership is the responsibility of us all. We are the representatives of our divided society. We represent the diversity of our society. We can self- determine in the Assembly to make politics work and to deal with the issues that have sustained conflict and division for generations, or we can self-determine to not do that. But what happens then? Go raibh míle maith agat.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Mr Durkan:
As my Colleagues have already indicated, the SDLP will support neither exclusion motion. We will oppose both, just as we have opposed all previous exclusion motions. The SDLP's position in regard to exclusion motions has not changed; the position of the party opposite has.
I understand the frustrations that are expressed in the Chamber today, and outside of it, regarding the failure to achieve decommissioning. We do not join with Sinn Féin in dismissing those concerns, and we are not playing games of "now you see it, now you do not". In other words, we will not address a party conference saying that there are legitimate Unionist concerns and then march in here and rubbish the very legitimate Unionist concerns that have been expressed - concerns that are well rooted in the agreement itself.
It is three and a half years since the Good Friday Agreement. It is time that we achieved decommissioning - not only by Republicans, but by all paramilitary groups. That was the promise of the agreement. People voted for the agreement with the prospect that along with the inclusive political institutions we would have decommissioning.
I reject those who insist that decommissioning is a red herring, or that it is a rejectionist ruse. For several years we have heard Sinn Féin's claims that decommissioning was not a requirement of the agreement in the first place; that the insistence upon decommissioning was a figment of Unionist rejectionism. Because I reject that, I welcome what Martin McGuinness said at the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis; the party seemed to recognise that there are legitimate Unionist interests in respect of decommissioning.
Those legitimate requirements in respect of decommissioning do not attach or belong to Unionism alone, inside this Chamber or in the community at large. We need to achieve decommissioning not only in the interests of the wider community, but to meet the democratic requirements of the country.
Mr Trimble spoke earlier about wanting to preserve the agreement and these arrangements. The SDLP wants to work with all other parties, not just in preserving the agreement but in developing it and the operation of all its institutions to their fullest possible potential. It is precisely because we want to protect the agreement that the SDLP has not supported exclusion motions in the past and will not support exclusion motions today.
In doing that, I want to nail Peter Robinson's misrepresentation that somehow we will be simply voting with Sinn Féin. [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order, order.
Mr Durkan:
In opposing the exclusion motion we are not voting for Sinn Féin; we are voting to protect the agreement. Three weeks ago in the Chamber the SDLP tabled an amendment to a DUP motion. The effect of that amendment was to call - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order. If Members will allow other Members to speak, more views can be expressed in the remaining time. I encourage all Members to listen in some degree of quietude to the views being expressed now and until the end of the debate.
Mr A Maginness:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The clock was not stopped during your intervention.
Mr Speaker:
Thank you.
Mr Durkan:
The effect of the SDLP amendment was to call
"on all parties who profess to be committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means to unequivocally repudiate any and all such [paramilitary] violence and to call on all paramilitary groups to give real effect to the decommissioning provisions of the Good Friday Agreement".
That was the SDLP amendment. The first part of it was entirely consistent with the Mitchell principles; the second part was entirely consistent with the Good Friday Agreement. Sinn Féin voted against the amendment. It was joined in the Lobbies against that amendment by the DUP. The DUP was voting with Sinn Féin here three weeks ago in repudiation of an amendment that reflected the Mitchell principles. [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Mr P Robinson:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for someone to misinterpret what took place, when clearly the DUP voted for precisely those words when it became the substantive motion?
Mr Speaker:
Mr Robinson has made his point.
Mr Durkan:
The DUP went through the Lobbies with Sinn Féin against that amendment. So, who voted with Sinn Féin in relation to the decommissioning issue in the Chamber a few weeks ago? Mr Peter Robinson need not think that he can throw up some sort of asides against the SDLP.
Let us be clear. If we are going to preserve these arrangements, we must make more progress. The institutions have worked well. In all the recrimination that might break out in the Chamber, let us not forget that together we have operated these institutions and these arrangements well. All parties in the Chamber have operated Committees well; all parties in the Executive have contributed to better governance in this part of the world. All parties that have participated, and that have been allowed to participate, at any level in the North/ South arrangements have made effective contributions to improving co-operation on this island.
The irony is that the institutions are now threatened, not because of any inherent failures in the institutions, not because of an inability of parties in the Chamber or elsewhere in the arrangements to work together, but because of difficulties in other areas of the agreement. We must make those good. The best way to concentrate on making good those outstanding issues elsewhere in the agreement is not by collapsing the institutions. I do not see how we get to the fuller implementation of the agreement by jeopardising such implementation as we already have by playing a game of chicken with the institutions.
Just as the SDLP opposes exclusion, it also clearly opposes the evasion that has passed for the Republican response to the issue of decommissioning.
I have already welcomed the remarks that Martin McGuinness made at the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis. However, contrast them with what I think was Mitchel McLaughlin's second reaction to events in New York. In one contribution he actually said that seeing aeroplanes used in that way to attack people shows the nonsense of decommissioning; if things can be used in that way, then weapons are not the issue. That amounted to equating some of our issues with violence with the violence in New York, contrary to the rest of the Sinn Féin spin on that issue.