Assembly Business

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why is there a table in the Chamber? I always thought that in a voting Chamber such as this, no one was allowed to say how a matter would be settled. I understand that the table is there because Members think that they are going to be able to change their position. The table could have been brought in later, if that was the decision of the House, rather than jumping to the conclusion that this was a rubber-stamp Assembly that would do what the powers that be want it to do.

The Member is wrong. The table is there so that if a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister are elected —

That is an assumption as well.

It might be so, but that is another matter.

If a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister are elected, they will be able to come forward, one to each side of the table, to take the Pledge of Office. The Member was erroneous in thinking that it was related to re- designation.

You must be bitten by the same flea —

Order.

Speaker’s Business

I must advise the House that owing to a personal and family engagement, I will not be able to be in the House on Monday 5 November.

Assembly Standing Orders

If the motion is moved, the debate will last for no more than one hour. The proposers of the motion and the single amendment on the Marshalled List will each be given no more than seven minutes. All other speeches, including the winding-up speeches, will be limited to five minutes. The vote on the substantive motion will be on a cross-community basis, but the vote on the amendment will be on a simple majority basis.

I beg to move

That the following amendment to Standing Orders be made: In Standing Order 3(8), line 2, delete all after "during" and insert

There is confusion about the motion, the motives of the Women’s Coalition, and the legitimacy of what we hope will be the end result. I want to clarify our proposal and our reason for making it.

The motion is not about the principle of re-designation. Any Member of the Assembly has the right to change his or her designation. The rules of the House rightly make provision for that. A Member’s ability to change designation allows for the art of political persuasion. That is what politics is about. If a Unionist, a Nationalist or "Other" is persuaded by the political position of his or her opposite number, that Member can change designation. That is a logical argument. That is normal politics.

Our reason for tabling the motion is not that we have been persuaded to change our identity. The cross- community nature of our electorate enables us to do that. Some DUP Members have described that as "political cross- dressing". The accurate description is "cross-community". It is unfortunate that people cannot recognise that.

We are a coalition of Unionists, Nationalists and "Others". We draw our membership and our votes from all three designations. We have never claimed to be a party of the centre. We do not attempt to persuade one another of the merits of our different cultural, political, religious and constitutional beliefs. We attempt to understand and respect one another’s differences, listen to one another, and learn from one another. We first signed the Roll in the Chamber as Unionist/Nationalist/ Other. When that designation was not accepted we agreed to designate as "Inclusive Other". We want to change that designation in order to be consistent with the diversity of our coalition. If the motion is passed, my Colleague Monica McWilliams will re-designate as Nationalist, and I will re-designate as Unionist.

That does not mean that we are joining new political parties. We remain the Women’s Coalition. It is a means of expressing the diverse, cross-community identity of our party. I have explained that the issue of re-designation itself is not up for debate this morning. The motion concerns the timing of such a move, and it is not only about its immediate effect but the amount of time that we recommend should elapse before any other change would be considered.

The choice to change designation can often depend on a change in the political context. The speed of that change, as we all know very well, is totally unpredictable. The timing of this change is crucial, not only because of the looming end of the six-week deadline for the Assembly but as a response to the highly significant events of the last 10 days. I refer specifically to the move by the IRA to decommission its weapons. We could not have predicted 30 days ago that the IRA would make such a momentous move and that David Trimble would put his Ministers back into Government. — [Interruption].

Order. I am finding it difficult to hear the Member.

Thirty days ago we could not have predicted that we would be facing one of the most crucial votes in the Assembly. If we had known that the IRA was about to do what we had been asking of it for years, we might have expected very little opposition. Perhaps we should have known better.

If, as a result of today’s vote, we do not respond positively to these events and do not get ourselves out of this political limbo and restore stable power-sharing government to Northern Ireland, we will give the opponents of decommissioning the opportunity to say "I told you so". This amendment to Standing Orders may appear to be procedural, but it is much more than that. It is about making our votes count. It is ironic to think that our votes will not count if the motion does not pass. Our votes have no value otherwise. The motion provides an opportunity for us all to change designation. I urge others to take that opportunity.

The Women’s Coalition got into politics to make a difference. Our voters will not allow us to sit on our hands and allow the Assembly to fall apart, and neither will the people who supported the Good Friday Agreement.

Order. I must ask the Member to bring her remarks to a close.

If this vote can make a difference, we are prepared to take that risk.

Order.

I have received one amendment to the motion, which has been accepted and is published on the Marshalled List in the name of Mr Peter Robinson.

I beg to move the following amendment to the motion: In line 2, delete "an Assembly session" and insert

and in line 2 delete "immediately" and insert

About four or five years ago several politicians from Northern Ireland went to South Africa, among them the leader-in-waiting of the SDLP and myself. During that trip many of us found that one of the valuable mechanisms employed in the process in South Africa was the concept of sufficient consensus. We came back during the early part of the "talks about talks", which later became the talks themselves, and expounded on the virtue of ensuring that in a divided society a mechanism was in place to secure support from both sections of the community for whatever major decisions were to be taken.

That was enshrined in the rules through a fairly elaborate formula in the talks process. Since then it has found its way into our Standing Orders in a formula that is still elaborate, though less so. It is now known as "designation". The principle behind it is that in a divided society, whether we like it or not, it is not sufficient to carry the support of only one section of the community. We Unionists found that out to our cost during the period of the old Stormont Parliament. Unionists were happy with the institutions and would have been happy for them to go on. Nationalists, however, were not happy, and the institutions fell. Nationalists would have been content for the power-sharing Executive to continue. Unionists were not content, and they brought it down. It was recognised that there needed to be widespread support. That was the virtue that was enshrined in the Belfast Agreement, the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and Standing Orders.

The reality for society in Northern Ireland, whether or not people voted for the Belfast Agreement, was that a safeguard was placed in that agreement. It appears in strand one and 2, under the heading "Safeguards". That is where the issue of designation appears. It is a safeguard for both communities. No key decision can be made unless there is the support of both sections of the community.

Therefore it seems strange that some Members who say that they are here to save the Belfast Agreement want to break it. The only permissible and valid reason for re-designation would be if someone genuinely wished to become either a Unionist or a Nationalist.

Neither the Belfast Agreement or the Northern Ireland Act 1998 make any reference to re-designation. However, the Assembly — and the Committee set up by the Assembly — recognised that such a situation might arise. Therefore the Assembly provided for a change of designation. When that decision was taken, it must have been known that some unprincipled Members might attempt to use this mechanism to achieve a result different from that intended by the legislation. The Assembly must have known that Members might attempt, for convenience, or for some spurious reason, to change their designation to affect an outcome.

For that reason two qualifications were set down in Standing Orders. One was that 30 days had to pass. This meant that a Member could not decide one day to change designation and impact on the outcome of a vote; a period had to elapse. That was the safeguard against such abuse. The second qualification was that the re-designation had to remain in place for the life of the Assembly. This meant that if re-designation were not being sought for a genuine reason, a Member would have to think twice about it.

The purpose of the motion is to set aside those safeguards. The Women’s Coalition wants to set them aside because the proposed re-designation of its two Members is not based on a genuine reason. Re-designation is not being sought because Monica McWilliams wants to be a Nationalist and Jane Morrice wants to be a Unionist. I can say that with certainty because they said so publicly. This week, they said that their re-designation would be for the "sole aim" — no other alternatives — of saving the agreement. It was not being sought because they had genuinely changed their designation; it was being sought for the "sole" political purpose of saving the agreement. It is abundantly clear that the Women’s Coalition’s reason for re-designation is not valid according to Standing Orders, the Northern Ireland Act 1998, or the Belfast Agreement.

Some Members might say that this suits them, although it is not in line with what was intended. However, think of the mischief that could be caused if this re-designation is permitted to take place. That is why I tabled my amendment. It further removes the temptation for Members to use re-designation for a spurious and false purpose. My amendment extends to beyond six weeks the time frame in which to give notice, a period that might, in some people’s minds, be a useful interval for re-designation.

The bottom line, for the Assembly is that if this re-designation is permitted, what is there to stop a bunch of Unionists from either party, after an election perhaps, from re-designating themselves for a moment as Nationalists? What if Sinn Féin got its nose in front of the SDLP and thought that one of its members was going to become Deputy First Minister? What would happen — a re-designation, some sidestepping, some sleight of hand?

Order, the Member’s time is up.

The SDLP will support the motion to amend Standing Orders. I listened with interest to Peter Robinson. It is important to emphasise that he supported the concept of re-designation from the outset, as indeed did the DUP. Mr Robinson referred to his visit to South Africa, from where the concept emerged. There is, therefore, no principled opposition to the motion by the DUP. It is opposing the motion for party political reasons. Standing Orders clearly permit this procedure, and if the motion is carried, the Women’s Coalition will be exercising a right enshrined in them.

Mr Robinson said that there are safeguards in the procedure for re-designation. A fundamental safeguard is that Standing Orders can only be changed with cross- community support. Cross-community support is the real safeguard. If the Assembly decides, on the basis of cross-community support, that re-designation is a proper course of action, the change will be made. The proposition by the Women’s Coalition is not an unprincipled one. It is being made for a good purpose, for a valid reason, as explained by the representative of the Women’s Coalition, a party which is making an important and constructive contribution to the Assembly and to sustaining the agreement.

We all know the circumstances that gave rise to the motion. We are in a grave situation which calls for supportive action. The fate of the Assembly and the agreement should not be permitted to be in the hands of those least committed to the agreement. People should not be held to ransom by two quixotic Members. Is it not more credible that the Women’s Coalition should use its position to bolster the Assembly, which has done much constructive work for the community, and the agreement, which 71% of the people of Northern Ireland support? The DUP owes its places in the Assembly to that agreement, and some members of the DUP are secretly wishing that the situation would pass by and they could retain their positions here.

Should the future of the agreement and the Assembly be in the hands of maverick Members? The motion — [Interruption].

Order. It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to hear the Member and therefore to maintain any semblance of order.

The motion sensibly changes something that is quite arbitrary — the time period.

That is the essence of the motion. If Members wish to re-designate, they should not be held back by the artificial constrictions of an arbitrary time period. That is precisely what the proposed amendment to Standing Orders does. It does not change the nature of re-designation.

The SDLP supports the motion. It is in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland who voted for the agreement. I invite Members to support it.

I find myself in an unusual position in this debate, for two reasons. First, ironically, it would appear that I am the first and, possibly, the only Ulster Unionist Party member to speak in this debate. Secondly, and more importantly, I find myself defending the Belfast Agreement on this issue, possibly for the first and only time.

My position on the agreement has always been clear. Whether designation in the House was on the basis of Unionist, Nationalist or "Other", or on the basis of yes, no or John Taylor, I made it clear from day one that I did not regard the agreement as the best way forward. However, I am the only opponent of the agreement in the Chamber who was present on the first and last days of the talks, and I was a member of the Standing Orders Committee — which I freely admit as crimes to be taken into consideration.

We must examine the purpose of the clause in the agreement that relates to the designation of Unionists and Nationalists. It is no secret that, during the talks, Unionists took the view that they did not want people to be pigeonholed as Unionist, Nationalist or "Other". We felt that there was a danger that it would institutionalise sectarianism, and that it would lead to problems such as those experienced in Cyprus — which have been highlighted by Prof Anthony Alcock — where the designation of people in groups led to a double-veto situation.

However, as a result of strong pressure in the talks, the clause was agreed with the aim of creating a situation in which the interests of Unionists and Nationalists — not only in the Executive but on the Floor of the House — were protected by rights. The aim was that, if there were a vote, Unionists and Nationalists would genuinely have to support any measure of a cross-community nature. If that is the case — and it has been enshrined in the rules of the Assembly, it has worked to the detriment of Unionists at times and it has been there since day one — we tamper with it at our peril.

For example, if we allow instant re-designation, we could find ourselves in the situation where 28 Unionists re-designate themselves as Nationalists for a particular vote. That would constitute the necessary 40% of Nationalist support for any motion. However, that would clearly be a farce. It would drive a coach and horses through the rules and the intentions of the Assembly.

We are gathered here today for the serious purpose of electing a First Minister. I agree with remarks by David Trimble and others that the vote for First Minister should be based on the genuine wishes of the Unionist and Nationalist Members. There must be no sleight of hand. The key test is whether we will authorise sleight of hand. No matter how much the Women’s Coalition portrays itself as a coalition of Unionists, Nationalists and "Others", it is not —

Will the Member give way?

Time is short, and Ms Morrice has already had her chance. The Women’s Coalition is designated as "Other". Its Members have not had a genuine conversion to Unionism. As Mr Kennedy said yesterday, one cannot become a Unionist overnight.

For the sake of argument, I might, in a vain attempt to boost my sex appeal, call myself Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt. I might even delude myself that I look like Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise. However, I am sure that I need not tell anyone in the House — [Interruption].

Order. While I understand the response of the House, we should nevertheless hear what the Member has to say.

I may succeed in deluding myself that I am Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise but, as I am sure Members from across the House will agree, no one else will be convinced.

There must be integrity in the proceedings. If the Members from the Women’s Coalition are allowed to call themselves Unionist or Nationalist simply to get a particular vote through, not only will the terms of the agreement be abrogated but, more importantly, the Assembly will be turned into a farce and a circus. I urge Members to have the integrity to stand by their designations and ensure that Standing Orders remain as they are.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to make a couple of brief points — [Interruption].

Order. I cannot hear what the Member is saying. Please continue, Mr Maskey.

On behalf of my party, I support the motion.

There are a number of safeguards in Standing Orders which have been approved by all parties and Members. Standing Orders have also been changed on a number of occasions. The principle of re-designation is not in question — the purpose of the motion is to enable re-designation to come into effect immediately. Some Members have suggested that this would mean that Members could re-designate after every meeting, every vote or every week. That is not the case. The change is designed to amend the Standing Order for an entire session, which I believe is a calendar year. The amendment to Standing Orders is not designed to enable any Member to re-designate willy-nilly. That is not the case at all.

Some Members, Peter Robinson included, mentioned various technicalities. It is fair to do that because Standing Orders are designed to ensure that business is run properly. Members are at liberty to change Standing Orders if they wish. Cross-community support is needed to secure any such changes, that is one of the safeguards.

Peter Robinson talked about South Africa and the need for sufficient consensus. However, South African logic resolved conflict through inclusion — not exclusion, which is what the DUP has been solely and exclusively about all of its political life. I do not see that party changing, no matter how its Members designate. It is important that Members such as Peter Robinson and the public who must listen to him realise that his amendment is about the politics of exclusion, not the politics of inclusion. Inclusion was at the core of conflict resolution in South Africa, and the principle of inclusion was recognised by over 70% of people across this island in the referenda that followed the Good Friday Agreement.

After this vote, it will be seen that almost 80 Members will have voted to make the necessary change to save the agreement. That is what the motion is designed to do. That shows that there are a number of parties, participants and elements in society who support a peace process and the agreement and who are prepared to make giant strides to save them. There are others, some of whom are in the Chamber today, who are bent on ensuring that the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process go down. Those people will be able to wallow in their anti-agreement, exclusive politics of the past. Whether or not an election is forced is not a matter for this debate. If there is an election, then so be it. The electorate will decide that the negative Members in the Chamber who base their lives on exclusion are from the DUP with, perhaps, Rag, Tag and Bobtail alongside them.

It is well established that the concept of designation has caused great problems for my Colleagues and me ever since it was introduced in the discussions that led to the agreement.

We made some of those concerns known when Standing Orders were discussed in autumn 1998. We did not accept an easy change of designation. Designations do not solve the problems of our divided society. The concept of designations as it exists must be removed, and tinkering with 30 days or 45 days or one minute does nothing to address the problem. We should examine why designations are problematic. We should ask those people who devised the system whether it is what is needed. We should ask those who supported the minute whether they are proud that what they agreed in March 1998 was incorporated into the Belfast Agreement on 10 April.

The motion — however well intentioned — does not address the fundamental issue. Peter Robinson referred to the South African experience and the need for sufficient consent. Clearly that is important. However, we must ask whether tinkering with Standing Orders addresses appropriately the problem of sufficient consent and whether having a very narrow majority in Unionism or Nationalism is an appropriate way to stop proceedings that are supported elsewhere in the House.

If Peter Weir were to go on record as supporting the agreement, I would be prepared to go on record as supporting him — at least in a sentence or two. He made an interesting point when he referred to the Unionist concern that designations entrench sectarianism and divisions. My party will not support designations and it will seek a more fundamental review. According to the current rules, there must be a majority of Unionists and of Nationalists to elect a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister. The candidate for First Minister wishes that to be a majority of "genuine" Unionists, and he can rest assured that we will not disrupt his concerns in that regard. We will not "dress up for Hallowe’en" as one Member described it. We will allow him to seek his majority among genuine Unionists, because the rule stating that our votes count for considerably less than those of others is fundamentally sick and wrong. Not only is that an insult to the five Alliance Members, it is also an insult to the many thousands who voted in May 1998 for non-sectarian politics. On their behalf, we will take no part in this charade of tinkering with Standing Orders. We will continue to work for proper change, to lobby Government and to make it clear that we do not accept that our society is divided into two tribes and that there is no coming and going between them. We do not accept that those who wish to stand outside the "two tribes" mentality do not have rights. Those who support us have exactly the same right as everyone else to have their voice heard in the Chamber.

The attempt by the Women’s Coalition to change Standing Orders to permit instant re-designation by any Member is no more than a cynical exploitation and abuse of the procedures of the House. It is an attempt to subvert and thwart the will of the majority of the Unionist community as represented by this side of the House.

The Women’s Coalition has revealed that the true purpose of the motion is to secure the reappointment of Mr David Trimble as First Minister.

It is worth reiterating several points on which the opposition of the wider Unionist community is based. If the Assembly falls today, Mr Martin McGuinness would like it portrayed internationally that the message from Unionists and from those he calls "rejectionist" is that they do not want a Roman Catholic about the place. That is not the case.

There is opposition in the community to Mr Trimble’s reappointment and the consequent establishment of an Executive. He and his Colleagues are well aware of that opposition. Mr Trimble knows that he does not have a broad base of support within his own party. He knows that the Unionist community has the mandate to state clearly what it rejects and opposes in today’s motion and Mr Trimble’s reappointment. The majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland say that they are opposed to the release of unrepentant terrorists; they are opposed to gunmen who front parties that are inextricably linked to terrorist organisations being placed in Government; and they are opposed to the destruction of the RUC.

Order. We must have silence. I am having difficulty hearing the Member speak.

It is well known that the Unionist community is unhappy with the prospect of Mr Trimble resuming his post of First Minister, thus parachuting back into position those who continue to front terrorism in Northern Ireland. Members such as Mr McGuinness wish to portray themselves as representatives of the Catholic community. Many Roman Catholics and Nationalists have as much difficulty as I do with Sinn Féin representatives masquerading as democrats who are supposed to subscribe completely to the democratic process. Thinking of people such as Patsy Gillespie, Mrs Jean McConville, and the other missing victims, I throw back in the Sinn Féin/IRA representatives’ faces their assumptions that they represent the decent Catholic community, or the law-abiding members of the Nationalist community.

When Unionists, I hope, reject the Women’s Coalition’s motion and, therefore, deprive Mr Trimble of his reappointment, let us be clear that it is not petty, vindictive score-settling against Mr Trimble; it is not an attempt to prevent people who genuinely want to re-designate from doing so. I make no apology for the message that my party will send out in opposing the Women’s Coalition’s motion and Mr Trimble’s reappointment — we remain adamantly and vehemently opposed to those who front terrorist organisations being in Government.

I remind Mr Trimble, as I told him that I would, that, in the Chamber three weeks ago, he said that even if the IRA were to hand in a small quantity of weapons for decommissioning, that would neither be a demonstration nor a guarantee that Sinn Féin was totally committed to the democratic process. That is absolutely correct; on behalf of my party, I would take the same position if the actions proposed by the Women’s Coalition were to put Mr Ervine, and those who front the Protestant terrorist organisations, into power. The House should send out a clear message today that it will not have people in Government who are linked to terrorists.

Order.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has Cedric Wilson mentioned the motion? I have heard him talk only about terrorism. You should rule that he should stick to the motion under consideration.

Given that there is not too much time left, I ask Mr Wilson to continue.

It is clear that I hit the target when I mentioned Mr Ervine and his party’s association and affiliation with the Loyalist paramilitary groups that still terrorise innocent, decent members of both sides of the community.

You’ll never find me hiding behind anyone, you eejit, shut up.

Order. I cannot hear comments that I wish to hear, and I can hear comments that I do not wish to hear.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to look at the Hansard record of the debate and take some action based on remarks that you may not have heard from the Chair, but that are clearly audible to all in the Chamber.

I shall certainly read Hansard.

Members who speak should always remember that someone else will follow them. There has been a lot of fun and laughter at every political crisis in the Chamber. There is entertainment and delight for those who celebrate crisis. I do not know how the rest of the Members feel, and I am not sure what is going on in people’s living rooms in this society, but I bet that people are terribly dismayed. People who have buried loved ones will wonder whether the end to instability will ever come. Instability and political violence are connected.

There is a clash between superiority and inferiority in the House. There are those who are superior and those who are inferior and, before we let people pick on the poor terrorists again, I am just talking about Unionism. There are those who take superior and laudable attitudes that are founded in morality. However, there are people who take a legalistic attitude, who say that they need absolute proof and that they must be absolutely certain. Such people say that certain other people could not be honest or reasonable because in 1902 those people were bad people or their granddads were bad people.

It was 1984.

It was 1974, "Lord Barrister".

We talk about, or say "Hear, hear" to sufficiency of consensus, and Mr Peter Robinson is correct that there was sufficiency of consensus in South Africa. However, I bet that he could not define it because the South Africans themselves could not define it. It was a process of negotiation and debate, and only when people felt they could move forward did they move forward. There was no defined mathematical formula for sufficiency of consensus.

There was — the African National Congress.

There was not.

There was. Go and ask — [Interruption].

We hear of the nonsense that the Women’s Coalition is trying to save the agreement — perhaps it is just trying to save lives.

That is sick.

It seems sick to me that the rotating Ministers are making a fool of the Executive. One Member has been in three different parties since he entered the Chamber, and we talk about commitment and determination and belief. The choice is very simple — [Interruption].

Order.

TOP

Next >>