Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 8 October 2001 (continued)
4.45 pm
Mr McLaughlin:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Durkan knows when he is misleading this House, and I hope that he will withdraw that remark. Mr Durkan knows that in that programme I absolutely condemned what had happened in Pittsburgh, Washington and New York. [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order. The question of Ministers misleading the House is one thing. Conveying a misinterpretation of each other's comments appears to be a stock- in-trade on all sides of the House - nobody is particularly guilty of it. While Members may want to clarify matters, I cannot take matters of that kind as points of order on which I can rule.
Mr Durkan:
Mr McLaughlin seems to think that I was referring to a particular TV programme. I said it was about his second contribution. It was not in the TV programme that he was referring to. He will find that the quote was carried in several media sources at the time, and not actually repudiated.
Since New York, Sinn Féin has tried to say that that was terrorism, and anything that has happened here is not terrorism. We have heard language about things being "ethically indefensible". Members across the Chamber have said, and I agree, that there is no ethical difference between the violence in New York and the violence that has been carried out here in the name of various paramilitary groupings. We cannot accept or see the ethical difference.
Maybe people might see an empirical difference as far as those paramilitary groupings are concerned now. The empirical distinction that might be made that could give people some confidence and basis of self-respect for continuing to take the risks that they have with this process would be if progress was achieved on decommissioning - not more commitments made, only to be withdrawn. It would be terrible if the Republican movement, having made further commitments in recent weeks to engage intensively with Gen de Chastelain, were to try to use the excuse of crass Unionist tactics - in particular, recruiting the two signatures for the motion from the PUP, with all of its associations - as the latest excuse for not doing anything about decommissioning.
We hear a lot about the "securocrats". We have also suffered in this process at the hands of the "obdurocrats" in the various paramilitary organisations who will not move. They insist that they will determine the pace at which the process moves on; that they will determine that various things have to be done as bargaining chips to achieve decommissioning. I take the point that was made earlier by Sinn Féin Members, but let us remember that that bargaining-chip process has been going on at an inverted level on the part of Republicans as well.
We need to make sure that we can move forward with this agreement and the institutions intact. We can only do that if we are able to believe that this dispensation gives us all hope of a new inclusive basis for working together. The best way to create the belief that people have changed their ways over past violence is for them to give up the means.
Mr Dodds:
I welcome the debate on the two motions. I also welcome the fact that on this occasion there is a good turnout - particularly on the Ulster Unionist benches. When this was previously debated, I think that only Mr Kennedy was present to speak and vote. The change and the progress that has been made away from negative language such as "stunts", "political opportunism" and "waste of time" has to be welcomed.
The Unionist community will welcome the fact that there is a unity of purpose among Unionists in the Chamber today in taking on Sinn Féin/IRA and attempting to put them out of the Executive. Many of us wish that it had come earlier. Belated as it is, we welcome it.
I also welcome the fact that the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party has indicated that he is prepared to withdraw his Ministers, and that he is going to have them resign, or dismiss them. Although that too could have come sooner, it is welcome. Many of the arguments that we are debating this evening have been rehearsed here before. The situation has not changed: there has been no decommissioning, and there was no decommissioning when we debated the issues in the past.
If it is right now that IRA/Sinn Féin should not be in the Government of Northern Ireland, it was right in May 2000, because exactly the same situation pertained then as does now. It was right in November 1999, when the decision was taken - wrongly - to put IRA/Sinn Féin into the Government in the first place. All the damage that has been done to the democratic process, and the corruption of that process, could have been avoided, had those wrong, misguided decisions not been taken by the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party.
We have made progress, and more parties now support the motion. However, it would be very welcome if the Prime Minister, who was very strong, and rightly so, in his denunciation of terrorism on the international stage were also to open up a new front against terrorism in his own backyard. He should join with the political parties who are trying to rid the Government of Northern Ireland of those who still remain totally wedded to the use of the Armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other.
There will be no use in standing up in the House of Commons later tonight to decry the fact that Governments across the world are providing safe havens and cover for terrorists when in part of the United Kingdom there are members of a political party and a Republican movement, which is still wedded to violence, who are at the heart of Government. They control half the Budget of this region of the United Kingdom. There are double standards, and Mr Blair should face up to that.
Other Members have clearly, and at some length, detailed why Sinn Féin has a case to answer. It seems that each time those issues are highlighted - whether it be the Colombian holiday adventure of three leading Republicans, or today's debate - so that the spotlight is turned on the murderous activities of the Republican movement, the stock reply is that Sinn Féin has no case to answer.
There is a very strong case to answer. There have been 30 murders since 1994. Guns have been used, beatings have been carried out, and there has been racketeering and intimidation. There has been a summer of violence, much of which, as the Chief Constable made clear, was orchestrated by the IRA. We had the Florida gunrunning episode, during which it was made clear that at the highest levels the Republican movement was involved in the plan to import armaments from the United States. Sinn Féin's liaison with the narco-terrorists, the drug dealers of Colombia has also been very clearly exposed.
The nauseating distinction, already pointed out by my Colleague Peter Robinson, by some in the Republican movement who label the terrorism of 11 September as unacceptable, and claim that they were not engaged as terrorists, but as freedom fighters in a struggle for liberation, is also hypocritical. That hypocrisy will not be lost on the relatives and loved ones of those who they turned into human bombs, or left orphaned, and for whom they have not one word of remorse, regret, or apology. Rather, they try to justify their war and their terrorism.
I have listened to Mr Mallon lament the fact that in two weeks' time there may not be an Assembly. Of course, that is very much down to how he and his Colleagues vote today. Will they decide to back the terrorist frontmen, or will they vote with the democrats to put the frontmen out of Government? That is their choice.
I listened to the argument that to exclude Sinn Féin would not be in keeping with the provisions of the agreement. The agreement and the legislation that flowed from it include explicit provisions for the exclusion of parties. Therefore, a vote to exclude parties would carry out what is included in the Act and therefore what flows from the agreement.
To answer all the talk about full and early implementation of the agreement, why not use one of the provisions in the legislation that was designed to exclude parties that are not committed to exclusively democratic means. The SDLP's decision to vote along with Sinn Féin/IRA is not based on any desire to protect the agreement; it is a decision to protect its own party. The SDLP should have learned by now. Mr Durkan, in his first speech in the House as leader elect of the SDLP, does not seem to have learned anything from the past four or five years. He should have learned that by going down the same road with Sinn Féin/IRA and by refusing to take it on, he is encouraging its greater electoral success.
I remind Mr Durkan - and he should consult Hansard - that on Tuesday 18 September, when it is clear that the SDLP amendment weakened the import and thrust of the DUP motion proposed by Peter Robinson, the SDLP called for the decommissioning of IRA weapons and the DUP supported that. He should, therefore, correct the comments he made earlier.
I have also listened to the argument that the only way to achieve decommissioning is to persist with the approach of including Sinn Féin/IRA in Government and to continue to offer the carrot rather than the stick, and that nothing will be achieved by coming down hard. The carrot has been dangled in front of Sinn Féin/IRA for the past two to three years. We were told initially that unless it got into Government, it could not be expected to decommission. We were then told that it was not in Government long enough to prove to its troops on the ground that it was worth persevering. It has now been in Government for almost two years, during which time it has continued to engage in murder - and still it will not decommission. It is long past the time to use a bit of stick. It must either be the handover of weapons or expulsion from the Government of Northern Ireland.
There was much coverage in the weekend newspapers about a move on IRA decommissioning, and on such occasions we have become used to the IRA/Sinn Féin leadership coming forward with a gesture designed to put itself on the high moral ground, so to speak, in propaganda terms. Let me make it clear that the concreting over of two redundant compromised arms dumps will not fool anybody in Northern Ireland. We were told by Members on both sides of the House that decommissioning would have to be completed by May 2000. We are still waiting for decommissioning to begin, and gestures and stunts will not work and they will fool nobody.
There is a basic flaw in the agreement, and while the motion may not succeed because it does not have cross-community support, let it be remembered that as a result of the vote tonight the continued presence of Sinn Féin/IRA in Government does not enjoy cross-community support. It invalidates its presence in Government just as much as it may claim that the vote is invalidated by lack of cross-community support. It applies both ways.
There must be a fundamental review of the agreement. Let us stand on the side of democrats; reject terrorism and vote for these motions.
Mr M McGuinness:
First, this has been a long and difficult journey for all Members, including Sinn Féin Members. It has been a difficult journey for the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP, many of the smaller parties and, of course, the DUP. Against all the odds, we reached an agreement on Good Friday 1998. Undoubtedly, that was, and will remain, a very significant date in the history of this island.
It was an interesting experience. I found the journey to the large room in Castle Buildings interesting; it was a hive of activity and a lot of excitement. People came together from all political parties, and the political representatives of those parties took their positions at the table.
5.00 pm
At that time, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, David Trimble, whom I watched carefully, said that he was in favour of the Good Friday Agreement. I could see that it was painful for him to sign up to it. When it later became clear that the British Prime Minister had effectively handed him a side letter on decommissioning, I knew that we were in trouble and that the Good Friday Agreement was in big trouble. I also knew that decommissioning, contrary to what some Members said, would be used to prevent the implementation of the agreement and that it would be a big problem for Sinn Féin in the political process.
When Jeffrey Donaldson walked out of the peace talks, it became clear that some Ulster Unionist Party members were not prepared to face up to the change that the Good Friday Agreement heralded. Ever since that day, the Ulster Unionist Party has tried to deal with its internal contradictions over the agreement. The Ulster Unionist Party has tried to ride two horses. It stated publicly that it was a pro-agreement party, but at the same time it caved in to people such as Jeffrey Donaldson, David Burnside and others who were opposed to the agreement.
I listened to Robert McCartney pooh-poohing the notion that Fenians were not wanted about the place. I have also heard senior members of the Ulster Unionist Party state on television in the North of Ireland since Good Friday 1998 that they were opposed to the Good Friday Agreement because they were opposed to power sharing. They believe that there should be majority rule, and that is what the DUP believes. The DUP is not a pro-agreement party; it is opposed to the Good Friday Agreement lock, stock, and barrel. It does not want a Fenian about the place. Not only does it not want a Fenian of the Sinn Féin variety; it does not even want one of the SDLP variety. Boxcar Willie, Peter the Punt, Papa Doc - none of them wants a Fenian about the place. That has posed a huge challenge to Sinn Féin.
In the recent years, Sinn Féin has tried to deal with the need to implement the Good Friday Agreement fully and to get all the political parties who said that they were pro-agreement to put their shoulder to the wheel to get the agreement implemented in full. That has been a difficult task, particularly given the Ulster Unionist Party's decision that it would emasculate the Good Friday Agreement.
Peter Mandelson changed the rules on flags to satisfy the Ulster Unionists. The British Government caved in to the Ulster Unionists on the policing issue; they were not alone in that. At an early stage, the British Government caved in to Unionist attempts to rewrite the section of the Good Friday Agreement that deals with decommissioning and how it should be handled; they were not alone on that either.
This morning I listened to the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party taking Members on a legalistic journey for about 15 minutes. Many Members wondered where it was all leading. Not once during those 15 minutes, when he tried to state the legal case in defence of his exclusion of Bairbre de Brún and myself from the North/South Ministerial Council, did he acknowledge that he had twice been found to be acting illegally by a court in Belfast. Of course, the British Government have not said a word about it - [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker:
Order. Will Members check that any communication equipment that they have is either switched off or on vibrate mode, so that Members can continue the debate uninterrupted by pagers or phones.
Mr M McGuinness:
It was interesting to hear the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party say that he had no doubt about the commitment of the PUP to use only peaceful and democratic means. I say that while freely acknowledging that David Ervine and Billy Hutchinson have been two of the most positive contributors to the peace process over recent years.
Only 12 months ago, members of the UDA and UVF were killing one another on the Shankill Road, yet David Trimble sought the support of a party associated with what happened then. Responsibility for what happened on the Shankill Road lay mostly with the UDA, because of its anti-agreement stance.
David Trimble made another important statement. He said that decommissioning was important as an indicator of future intent. With due respect, I have never heard such rubbish. It took someone on the Unionist Benches, a short time later, to point out that the LVF had indeed decommissioned some time ago, yet it was the LVF who killed Rosemary Nelson and the LVF who recently killed Martin O'Hagan. That is the reality.
The hullabaloo about decommissioning has not gone down well in the Nationalist/Republican community. People watched in amazement as the issue was elevated over the rest of the agreement, despite 250 pipe bomb attacks on the Nationalist community throughout the North. Yesterday, at the Davitt's Club in Swatragh, County Derry, a child lifted a pipe bomb, and we never heard a word about it. Condemnations are dragged out in television interviews.
We see despicable scenes in north Belfast, with little children walking to school with spittle running down their faces. I was there several days ago and was told by people, with immaculate credentials, that the protesters at Glenbryn held pornographic photographs of women up to parents of the children as they walked into the school. Who was with the protesters that morning and afternoon? Nigel Dodds, the MP for the area, was there with them.
Mr Dodds:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is entirely wrong and outrageous for this IRA commander, members of whose organisation went into a hospital and shot through incubators, such is its regard for children, to stand there and tell barefaced lies about what happened.
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Member knows very well, from here and from elsewhere, the language that should be used in the Chamber. Therefore in response to his point of order, I put back a point of order.
Mr M McGuinness:
I am satisfied with the accuracy of the information that I received on that matter.
I said that it had been a difficult journey. There are good and decent people in the Ulster Unionist Party, as there are undoubtedly good and decent people in the Unionist community who voted to endorse the Good Friday Agreement three years ago. It is important that we try to build bridges and to work together. For 18 months, we have worked together in the Executive. We have worked well with the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Ministers at Executive meetings. The public would be pleased to see the way in which their elected representatives approach the work that goes on at those meetings on health, education, agriculture, the environment, the economy and many other matters.
People continually ask where Sinn Féin stands in relation to the Unionist community and Unionist political leaders who say that they are in favour of the Good Friday Agreement. We value the contribution made by those people. Unionists must also take on board the strong opinions in the Nationalist community about the way in which they have messed about in the past three years, while we tried to implement the Good Friday Agreement. I am sure that everyone heard my Ard-Fheis speech. In it, I acknowledged that some Unionists feel strongly about decommissioning. Some Unionists also feel that the issue can be used to prevent change and political progress. It is important that Sinn Féin deals with the concerns of those whom we believe are serious about the search for peace on this island. Without contradicting Mark Durkan, I strees that I am not retracting what I said in that speech. I am saying that the decommissioning issue must be dealt with and that all political parties have a responsibility to do their part to make it happen. Where do I stand? If decommissioning were to happen tomorrow morning, I would be as pleased as Punch. It is my job and that of all pro-agreement political parties and the two Governments to try to make it happen. We must create the circumstances in which we can remove all the guns from Irish politics.
I do not accept that decommissioning is the reason for the current difficulties in the peace process and the institutions. It would be wrong of me to say that, because I do not believe it. We are in difficulty because Unionist political leaders of the anti-agreement variety - and even those who say they are pro-agreement - find it difficult to come to terms with the fact that Sinn Féin is growing in political strength in the North and all over the island of Ireland. The Westminster and local government election results came as a significant shock to the Unionist community. Sinn Féin representatives now chair Strabane, Omagh, Cookstown, Magherafelt, Dungannon and Newry and Armagh councils. We also have four Sinn Féin MPs. People are concerned about the fact that the combined votes of the SDLP and Sinn Féin amount to something which can no longer be ignored.
The days of second-class citizenship are over; the days of Nationalists and Republicans sitting at the back of the bus are over. Given the increasing confidence of the Nationalist and Republican community, the last thing we want to do is to be part of a political process that consigns any section of the community - be it Ulster Unionist, DUP or anyone else - to the position that we have endured since the partition of this island. Go raibh maith agat.
5.15 pm
Mr Trimble:
It falls to me to reply to the motion. Due to a misjudgement, we put the motion down with only my name on it. Then I discovered that I had to wind up, as well as propose the motion, otherwise I would have happily passed that duty on to someone else.
I will try to refer to several of the speeches that were made. I ask Members whom I do not mention to accept my apologies. It is not that their contributions were unimportant, but time is limited, and I want to focus my comments on those things that are especially significant.
I start by congratulating Mr Ervine on his contribution, which was serious and honest. Every Member who listened to it will have been impressed by it. I found it curious that so many of the comments from other Unionists were not directed to the motion; they were not directed towards criticising Sinn Féin, although that is their position. The bulk of what they said criticised my Colleagues and me. I listened to Mr Cedric Wilson, who said nothing that was not an attack on me and my Colleagues. The kindest phrase to describe it would be "a farrago of nonsense".
Mr C Wilson:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The record will show that, once again, Mr Trimble has lost it.
Mr Trimble:
I am confident that the record will show the emphasis that Mr Wilson gave, and it will show that my comments were accurate. The same comments are true for 95% of the speech by Mr Wilson's former leader, Mr McCartney. It is so nice to see both of them singing from the same hymn sheet again.
Mr McCartney:
I have arrived in time.
Mr Trimble:
I cannot reply to that comment. The acoustics of the Chamber prevented my hearing it.
I congratulate Dr Farren on his comments. In his opening line, he said that the motion, in a sense, should never have come before the House; he was right. If other people had kept their obligations and implemented the agreement in the way that they should have done, the motion would never have come before the House. It comes before the House only because of the failure of people to keep their obligations.
Several comments were made about recent court rulings. I will not go into details, but nearly all of them misunderstood the position. The court said that some of the reasons that I gave for my actions went outside the ambit of the Act, but it indicated that other reasons were within the ambit of the Act. I am acting wholly within the ambit of the Act and have been doing so. I have also been acting within the ambit of the existing judgements. If the party opposite does not believe that, let it go back to the court and challenge it again. They can go to the House of Lords and challenge the issue there. Then, we will see how things work out.
Reference was also made to the timing of the resignations of Ulster Unionist Members. All of those comments were wrong. The reason for our action is simply that we are not here to cause an abrupt disruption to the business of government, but to arrange for an orderly transfer of business to the relevant Northern Ireland Office Ministers when suspension comes. It is not another deadline - that was a fatuous comment. It is not to give the IRA another chance. It is not necessary. If suspension comes, people can decommission afterwards, and then there can be resumption; that is not a problem. The Members who made those comments were completely wrong.
The nature of decommissioning was also mentioned. We should remind ourselves of the simple. There is legislation. It contains a statutory definition. The definition states that decommissioning is a method by which weapons and other materials are made permanently unavailable and permanently unusable. If it is not permanent it is not decommissioning. General Chastelain, who is there to verify that decommissioning has taken place, will certify to that effect. Those are the basics. There may be discussion about the details, but no one can make any mistake about the basics. Those tests must be satisfied; otherwise decommissioning has not taken place. I suggest to those Members who are concerned about whether or not an act constitutes decommissioning that they remember the basic principles. They should wait and see and keep those principles in mind if and when something happens. I hope that something does happen, but if it does not the consequence of that will lie elsewhere.
Sir Reg Empey:
Does my right hon Friend agree that the frustration that is felt on these Benches is occasioned by the discrepancy between the requirements as set out by the former Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam, that all parts of the agreement move forward in parallel and the expectation of the Republican movement that every part of the agreement should be concluded before it will, for tactical reasons, make any move on decommissioning? Does he also agree that the objective of the entire exercise was that all parts of the agreement would move forward in parallel, and that, regardless of what anybody else says, no actual decommissioning has occurred? That is what is causing the frustration on these Benches?
Mr Trimble:
My hon Friend is right. Indeed, he could have gone further and said that while the then Secretary of State made it clear that all elements should have moved together, it was that Secretary of State who failed to ensure that that happened and who consequently did much to bring about the present unsatisfactory situation.
It was interesting to hear a Member quote something that I said off the cuff three and a half years ago about having a past and a future. It seems to be going down in history. I have taken the trouble to locate the text of a speech that I made at the first sitting of the Assembly, because it is worth revisiting. If I may pat myself on the back, that speech was entirely extemporary. If certain Members check the record tomorrow, as they have been advised to by Mr C Wilson, they will find that they quoted my phrases inaccurately. It will be worthwhile if I take a little time to remind them of what I actually said. To set the context, I had been questioned about my party's Assembly manifesto, which made references to "unreconstructed terrorists". In response to that, I made the following comment:
"A number of Members who are here today have done terrible things."
That was simply a reference to the violence in which some had been involved in the past. I also said:
"I do not need to elaborate, though I should say that those concerned are not all in one corner of the Chamber."
That was a recognition that the violent and terrible things done in the past were not solely carried out by the Republican movement, but that other elements also have something to consider.
I then came to the point that has been misquoted today. I said that
"We are not saying, and we have never said, that the fact that someone has a certain past means that he cannot have a future. We have always acknowledged that it is possible for people to change."
It must be noted that that does not mean that there is automatically a future - it depends on change. I then said:
"Because of the situation in this society it is desirable that all Members with a terrible past should change and should demonstrate that they have changed."
I then described the process as an inclusive one. I continued:
"There is an opportunity for people to take part in the process if they have shown that they are committed to peaceful means and democracy. I underline these points not out of a desire to exclude but simply to emphasise the things that need to be done. The sooner there is a realisation of that need, the better." -[Official Report, Vol 1, p17].
Unfortunately, three and a half years later, there has not been a realisation of that need and the change has not taken place in the way that it should have done.
Mr Durkan said that the SDLP had always opposed exclusion. That was not always the case. I remember when, in 1998, the then deputy leader of the SDLP gave a formal commitment to exclude. He said that
"For many unionists there is the fear that Sinn Féin seeks to pocket the maximum sectoral advantage from the agreement - membership of the Executive, prisoner releases, changes in policing, criminal law reform, demilitarisation, new equality legislation - and then will fail to honour their decommissioning obligations under the agreement within the specified two-year period.
Mr Mallon then continued:
"I believe that this will not occur - and that it is not intended. But no one should have any doubt that if it did happen the SDLP would rigorously enforce the terms of the agreement and remove from office those who had so blatantly dishonoured their obligations."
Those are his precise words.
Mr Durkan:
The Member will recall that in that address to the SDLP Conference, Séamus Mallon made a twin offer: one that reflected and understood Unionists' concerns and one that fully understood the natural suspicions that Sinn Féin had. We made a twin offer to both parties; an offer that was aimed at setting up the institutions in 1998. It was rejected by the Unionist party, and the institutions were not set up until a year later.
Mr Trimble:
Mr Durkan is half correct. A twin offer was made, but the other half was not necessary because we did set up the institutions and included Sinn Féin in the Administration. I will not go back on it again.
Mr Durkan's second point is not correct. There is no conditionality here. Mr Mallon said:
"I believe that this will not occur - and that it is not intended".
But it did occur. He also said that
"no one should have any doubt that if it did happen the SDLP would rigorously enforce the terms".
It has happened. Mr Durkan must therefore consider whether it is appropriate not to follow those principles through. If SDLP Members seek further advice on the matter, I refer them to yesterday's 'Sunday Independent'. I believe - I stand to be corrected - that the 'Sunday Independent' has the largest circulation of any daily or Sunday newspaper published in Ireland. I should frame yesterday's editorial. It starts:
"The Ulster Unionist leader's move is inevitable and largely unavoidable. Mr Trimble's decision to press for Sinn Fein's removal reflects a crisis of public, and not merely unionist, confidence in both the intentions and actions of the republican movement in securing the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons."
It concludes:
"His move to secure the expulsion of Sinn Féin from the power-sharing Executive should not be seen as an act of revenge and frustration. It represents a final desperate move to save an Agreement that can only be worth saving if all who accepted its terms are willing to honour them in practice. Mr Trimble is right. That can only mean IRA decommissioning. And until it happens, Sinn Féin should have no place in government."
Those are the words of the 'Sunday Independent'.
Mr McGuinness:
Is that the same 'Sunday Independent' that crucified John Hume four or five years ago?
Mr Trimble:
It is yesterday's issue of the 'Sunday Independent'. The SDLP - and others - should reflect upon its advice.
Sinn Féin Members have lost the plot. They have been offered opportunity after opportunity that they have not taken. They seem to think that the game that they have been playing for the past three years can go on indefinitely; it cannot. Time and time again, we have given them opportunities. In dealing with the matters that they raised, the Government went much further than my Colleagues and I wished. Every point that they raised at Weston Park was dealt with sympathetically by the Government. What happened? There was silence in August - silence and inactivity.
Sinn Féin Members are determined to keep their head down, hoping that somehow the problem will blow over. Consequently, this action is necessary to show them that it will not blow over. There is only one way now in which they can proceed, and the sooner that they summon up the courage to do so, the better. When they decommission - they probably will, eventually - they will demonstrate something extremely important: the war was wrong.
5.30 pm
Mr Adams asked why there had to be a peace process. Why was there a need for one? Why was there a need for violence? There was never a need for violence; there was never any justification for violence. This was a democracy. It might have been flawed; it might have needed changes. Those changes could have been made peacefully. The violence that Republicans engaged in made the situation worse. They spread more bitterness in the community; they slowed down positive changes that would otherwise have happened; they have achieved nothing but the deaths of 3,000 people and have left a dreadful legacy to this society. It is time that Republicans addressed the need to change and to cure that problem.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 54; Noes 45
Ayes
Unionist:
Dr Adamson, Mr Agnew, Ms Armitage, Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Mr Berry, Dr Birnie, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mrs Carson, Mr Clyde, Mr Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Mr Dalton, Mr Davis, Mr Dodds, Mr Douglas, Sir Reg Empey, Mr Ervine, Mr Foster, Mr Gibson, Sir John Gorman, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr Hussey, Mr B Hutchinson, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Kane, Mr Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Leslie, Mr McClarty, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Mr Morrow, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mrs I Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr M Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Savage, Mr Shannon, Mr Trimble, Mr Watson, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr J Wilson, Mr S Wilson.
Noes
Nationalist:
Mr Adams, Mr Attwood, Mr Bradley, Mr Byrne, Mrs Courtney, Mr Dallat, Ms de Brún, Mr A Doherty, Mr P Doherty, Mr Durkan, Dr Farren, Mr Fee, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Mr Haughey, Dr Hendron, Mr G Kelly, Mr J Kelly, Ms Lewsley, Mr Maginness, Mr Maskey, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McGrady, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Mr McNamee, Mr Molloy, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mrs Nelis, Mr O'Connor, Dr O'Hagan, Mr ONeill, Ms Ramsey, Ms Rodgers, Mr Tierney.
Other:
Mrs E Bell, Mr Ford, Mr McCarthy, Ms McWilliams, Ms Morrice, Mr Neeson.
Total Votes 99 Total Ayes 54 ( 54.5%)
Nationalist Votes 39 Nationalist Ayes 0 ( 0.0%)
Unionist Votes 54 Unionist Ayes 54 ( 100.0%)
Question accordingly negatived (cross-community vote).
5.45 pm
Motion made, and Question put:
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.]
The Assembly divided: Ayes 56; Noes 45
Ayes
Unionist:
Dr Adamson, Mr Agnew, Ms Armitage, Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Mr Berry, Dr Birnie, Mr Boyd, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mrs Carson, Mr Clyde, Mr Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Mr Dalton, Mr Davis, Mr Dodds, Mr Douglas, Sir Reg Empey, Mr Foster, Mr Gibson, Sir John Gorman, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr Hussey, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Kane, Mr Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Leslie, Mr McCartney, Mr McClarty, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Mr Morrow, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mrs I Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr M Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Roche, Mr Savage, Mr Shannon, Mr Trimble, Mr Watson, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr C Wilson, Mr J Wilson, Mr S Wilson.
Noes
Nationalist:
Mr Adams, Mr Attwood, Mr Bradley, Mr Byrne, Mrs Courtney, Mr Dallat, Ms de Brún, Mr A Doherty, Mr P Doherty, Mr Durkan, Dr Farren, Mr Fee, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Mr Haughey, Dr Hendron, Mr G Kelly, Mr J Kelly, Ms Lewsley, Mr Maginness, Mr Maskey, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McGrady, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Mr McNamee, Mr Molloy, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mrs Nelis, Mr O'Connor, Dr O'Hagan, Mr ONeill, Ms Ramsey, Ms Rodgers, Mr Tierney.
Other:
Mrs E Bell, Mr Ford, Mr McCarthy, Ms McWilliams, Ms Morrice, Mr Neeson.
Total Votes 101 Total Ayes 56 ( 55.4%)
Nationalist Votes 39 Nationalist Ayes 0 ( 0.0%)
Unionist Votes 56 Unionist Ayes 56 ( 100.0%)
Question accordingly negatived (cross-community vote)
Adjourned at 5.55 pm
1 October 2001 / Menu / 9 October 2001