The choice is very simple we either make politics work and offer a model for dialogue and ways to resolve our difficulties, or we do not. I suppose some will be happy playing 'Jingle Bells' as they go up the garden path, rapping on doors and asking people to vote for them. However, I see the debilitating circumstances in the streets and the dangers and difficulties that people face. I wonder - [Interruption]. This is not a threat, or a suggestion that tries to play a violin to make everyone sad. It is a stark fact that the stinking evil of sectarianism and the brutality of violence are directly connected to the pathetic state of our politics. Some have guffawed and enjoyed this. Hansard and videotapes show that there are those who take delight in every crisis. I hope that none of my constituents suffer because of such people's delight.

Any institution that wishes to do something for posterity must be based on integrity and reason. Any institution that turns itself into an object of ridicule and contempt is almost bound to fail. There is no doubt that the motion tabled by the Women's Coalition is a way of destroying the Assembly, and that it will make the Assembly an object of ridicule and contempt. Will people be Unionists or Nationalists for a day? Ah behold, the unfaithful stewards fleeth - [Interruption].

Order.

There is no doubt that there have been considerable questions about the political orientation of the Women's Coalition for a long time. Some people might describe them as political hermaphrodites, while others might describe them as chameleons because they change colour in accordance with the issue under debate at any given time.

I wonder if there is any democratic integrity left in the parties opposite. I am well aware that some whom I respect within the SDLP must have grave misgivings about Mr Alban Maginness pledging his party's support for this completely undemocratic motion. I have no doubt that those who have experience of Westminster and have some knowledge of the traditions of democratic procedure will be made unhappy by the suggestion that, by a simple vote, the orientation, description and designation of any Member can be changed to enable a certain vote and result to be obtained.

In the past, I have mentioned in the Assembly the example of the saint, Sir Thomas More. It was suggested to him that, because of the Act of Supremacy 1534 and the fact that Parliament was sovereign, he should give up what he believed and knew within himself to be true. In response to that proposition he said, "Tell me, Master Rich, can Parliament make of man a woman?" That was the essential issue - the thing was farcical because it flew in the face of reason. [Interruption].

Order.

In a rather more humorous address, Mr Weir made it evident just how daft, ridiculous and contemptible the motion is. To suggest that Jane Morrice can be a Unionist or Monica McWilliams a Nationalist at the flick of a switch creates all sorts of difficulties and problems for the future.

We are a cross-community party.

You are a cross-dressing party. You do not know who you are - [Interruption].

Order.

If the motion is successful, it will do more permanent damage to the Assembly institutions - for those who believe in them - than anything else. It will demonstrate beyond doubt the completely farcical nature of the provisions alleged to be democratic. It will store up infinite trouble for the future, and the Assembly will live to regret it. [Interruption].

Mr Durkan can mutter from a sedentary position. Yes, it might even cost him his job in the Assembly, so I can understand why he is muttering. The truth is that his job, and the jobs of others, will be saved at the expense of democratic principle, respect and integrity.

Order. The Member's time is up.

I have listened to what are intended to be the reasons for supporting the motion. They can all be summed up in one sentence: anything is permissible to save the agreement. That is their argument, and it is the only one that they have. It has nothing to do with the fact that this provision is intended to be a safeguard. They are happy to sweep it to the side when they choose.

In my earlier remarks, I tried to alert people to what they are walking into. The SDLP and Sinn Féin have said that they support this easy switch that has been proposed by the Women's Coalition. They support the idea that people can re-designate on a whim. To us it is an abuse of Standing Orders. However, they want it to be permissible for a Standing Order to allow Unionists or Nationalists to move from one side to the other in order to pass a provision through the Assembly.

The purpose of the safeguard was to ensure that Unionists and Nationalists would be content. When Members walk through the "Ayes" Lobby they will be sweeping away that safeguard. A lawyer has suggested the nonsense - and I can only guess as to whom his lecturer at law school might have been, but they are not in the Chamber to confirm it - that the safeguard lies in the requirement for cross-community support to change Standing Orders. The very thing they are undermining and tearing down is to be the safeguard that it will not happen. That seems to be a conundrum with no solution.

The second thing we are being told by the supporters of the motion is that there is no difference in outcome in allowing someone to change designation within 30 days or within a day. The clear message is that the Women's Coalition wants to do this for a particular purpose. The reason they advocate stopping the period from being the "life of the Assembly" is that they intend to switch back before an election. They want to be designated as "Other" rather than as "Unionist", or "Nationalist" when they face the electorate. That is the reality of the situation.

My amendment seeks to cement the original and proper intention of the Standing Order, which is to ensure that the threshold is raised. The amendment will make it less attractive to use the provision for corrupt purposes by people wanting to change designation - falsely claiming that they are Unionist or Nationalist - in order to affect the outcome of a vote. My amendment takes temptation out of their hands by raising the threshold.

The sad reality is that once again there is an attempt - this time for the prospective First Minister - to hang on to the apron strings of the Women's Coalition in order to get himself returned to office. What credibility can that have? It can have none. Mr Trimble says there can be none. On 'Inside Politics' last Saturday he said that re-designation by the Women's Coalition simply would not be credible; nor would it be credible on the streets of Northern Ireland.

Effectively, the agreement is on a life support system, kept alive by dishonesty and sleight of hand. We have already seen some Unionists being prepared to abandon their manifesto commitments and go back on their commitments to the electorate in order to keep it going. During the past few years we have seen the Deputy First Minister resigning, with all the emoluments of office being swept away from him, and then suddenly heard that the resignation did not take place. This was all done to save the Belfast Agreement and keep it alive.

We have watched the Secretary of State trigger suspensions to restart the clock - again to keep the Belfast Agreement alive. Now we have deceitful re-designations when there is no change of heart on the part of those who wish to re-designate.

The truth, which is obvious to everyone who has not been hypnotised by this Provo-bolstering process, is that the agreement cannot exist without deceit, cheating, dishonesty and lies. It is a fraud, and is unacceptable in its existing form. That is why the electorate should have the opportunity to have its say and the opportunity to see it renegotiated.

What we have heard from the parties supporting the motion and, interestingly, the party opposing the motion, is that they do not have a problem with the Standing Order allowing re-designation. Had we not proposed our motion, they would never have proposed their amendment. It is the time period they have a problem with not the principle.

If it is the time period that they have a problem with, I have to remind Mr Morrow, the former Minister for Social Development, that he had a problem with the time period contained in a Standing Order. If he had not had such a problem, on 15 October he would not have asked the Assembly to suspend Standing Order 40(1) in respect of the Final Stage of the Social Security Fraud Bill.

Sometimes the DUP has a problem with timing, and at others it does not. [Interruption].

Order. It is impossible to hear what the Member is saying, and therefore to be clear whether matters are happening in order. I ask all Members to restrain themselves during the speech, and I call Ms McWilliams to continue.

On 15 October the DUP did not have a problem with the timing when we changed that Standing Order. We have amended Standing Orders 12, 31, 41, 59 and 40, which allows a Budget Bill to proceed under accelerated passage. That was a major amendment to a Standing Order. If there is a problem with amending Standing Orders, let that be put to rest now. This is not a precedent.

Psychics try to read the minds of members of the Women's Coalition and the party's make-up, but we are Nationalists, Unionists and "Others", because of our party's membership and its title, and because we appeal to a cross-community electorate. That has been on record since the first Assembly sitting.

Let us remind ourselves of who changed the Standing Order - none other than Mr Weir, the same Mr Weir who supports parts of the agreement. He supported the part that allows amendments to be made, and he wanted to change from seven days to 30 days. He does not have a problem with re-designation; he simply had a problem with the 30 days and wanted to change it to seven days. Today he has a problem with changing it from seven days to "an Assembly session".

John F Kennedy said "Ich bin ein Berliner" when he visited Berlin. He was very confident about his identity, as all Americans seem to be, and he had no problem on that day, in that crisis, with standing alongside the Berliners. His statement meant "I am with you", and we are saying today "We are with you". We are with the majority of the Assembly. If today's vote were counted on a majority basis, it would go through, and the Assembly would have a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister in place by the end of the day.

Let me also remind Peter Robinson that I, too, visited South Africa while he was on his second visit there, along with Sinn Féin, before any ceasefire and before decommissioning. He was trying to understand the concept of sufficiency of consensus at a time when the DUP did not attend any meetings. The DUP changed the rules on that occasion, and he went on that visit.

We brought sufficiency of consensus to the Assembly, and the sufficiency of consensus referred to during the talks was different from that which exists in the Assembly today. From the talks came the triple-lock mechanism - majority of parties, cross-community consensus and majority of the entire number around the table. [Interruption].

Order. Please continue.

Thank you for calling order, Mr Speaker. The points have already been well made, and I have no intention of being politically offensive. Another party has that prerogative. I intend to make the points as they stand. We refer to politics as the art of the possible, and we have seen that to be the case with the rotation of the Ministers, as Mr Ervine has pointed out.

I must say that Mr Robinson's little lime green jacket last night, on loan from the Department of the Environment, was a very fetching little number. No doubt it will have to go back to the Department of the Environment - or is it the Department for Regional Development?

We do not have a problem with our designation. It is integral to our party; it is legitimate; and it is legal.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

In Standing Order 3(8), line 2, delete all after "during" and insert

Re-Designation Letters

I have received two letters to be opened immediately if the motion to amend Standing Orders is passed by cross-community consent. As instructed, I will open the letters. [Interruption].

Order. I am not a Brad Pitt, nor is this any similar competition.

The first letter reads:

The second letter reads:

Under Standing Order 3(8), Members wishing to change their designation have to do so in writing, as is the case when choosing their designation in the first place. These two requests for change are in writing, and under the change in Standing Orders, they are operative immediately.

Election of First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Before we commence, I wish to explain how I propose to conduct proceedings. As Members will know, there is no procedure set down in Standing Orders, although a procedure was set down in the Initial Standing Orders. I discussed the matter through the usual channels, and it was agreed that we would follow that same procedure.

I will begin by asking for nominations. Members are reminded that under section 16(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, for a proposal to be valid, it must include nominations for both First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I will then ask for the proposal to be seconded, as required by Standing Order 14. Each nominee will then be asked if he or she is prepared to accept the nomination. I will then proceed to seek further nominations. If further proposals are made, the process will be repeated until there are no further nominations. At that point the House may, if it chooses, debate the proposals. I propose to conduct one debate on any and all proposals that are made, and no Member will be permitted to speak more than once, as the Initial Standing Orders provide.

I shall then put the question that the first pair of nominees be the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of the Assembly. Under section 16(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the vote will require the support of a majority of the Members voting in the election, a majority of the designated Nationalists voting and a majority of the designated Unionists voting.

Should the proposal be carried, I will ask those Members chosen to be First Minister and Deputy First Minister to affirm to the Assembly the Pledge of Office. As mentioned earlier, the Pledge of Office will be placed on the Table, and I will ask those voted through to come forward. If the motion is carried and both Members affirm the Pledge of Office, I will deem the other proposals to have fallen, irrespective of whether they have been put to the Assembly for decision. If the proposal is not carried, I shall put the question in relation to the next pair of nominees and so on as necessary until all nominations are exhausted.

The following times for the debate will apply. The debate will last no longer than one hour. Each proposer and seconder will be permitted to speak for up to seven minutes and other Members will have a maximum of five minutes.

Do we have any proposals?

I propose that the Rt Hon David Trimble, MP, MLA be First Minister and that Mr Mark Durkan, MLA be Deputy First Minister of the Assembly.

Do we have a seconder?

I wish to second David Trimble for the post of First Minister and Mark Durkan for the post of Deputy First Minister.

Mr Trimble, do you accept the nomination for First Minister?

I accept the nomination.

Mr Durkan, do you accept the nomination for Deputy First Minister?

I accept the nomination.

Are there any further proposals?

As there are no further proposals, the time for proposals has passed. Several Members have indicated that they wish to speak, and I remind them that they may speak only once in the debate.

Normally, we would have expected this debate to be of a more technical nature. However, the Assembly has become a crucible for the political frustrations of many Members, representing their communities' frustration at the inability to advance the process at the speed that we would have liked.

Since the beginning of the process, those of us on these Benches have sought the full implementation of all parts of the agreement. That was what we were promised after the agreement was made in 1998. The then Secretary of State, Marjorie Mowlam, indicated that all parts of the agreement should proceed in parallel. Hitherto, that has not been the case. However, as a result of activity on the part of the Republican movement last week, this is the first time since April 1998 that all parts of the agreement have been implemented. It is important to state clearly on the record that this is the first time that all aspects of the agreement have proceeded according to plan.

With the stability that we believe should be afforded to the Assembly and to the political process, we want to proceed towards the elections due in May 2003. In the next 18 months we want the opportunity to show that the Assembly can deliver for the people that it represents. We believe that stability can be spread out into the community, and we want it to be given the opportunity to flourish.

Instability damages Northern Ireland; it damages our economy. After the events in the United States in September, the economy of Northern Ireland needs the stability, direction and leadership that can be provided in the Chamber. I do not believe that our economy and businesses and the jobs of the people that we represent will be better served by a direct rule Minister - no matter how well intentioned that person might be. It requires local knowledge, local effort and attention, and, in the relatively short time that the Administration has existed, we have proved that we are capable of delivering those things.

I return to the frustrations that are felt by some Members and by a large section of the Unionist community. Last week, we had good news from the de Chastelain commission. However, the contrast between the way in which that news was imparted and the way in which other parts of the arrangements that were entered into last week were revealed caused much anger.

For example, the de Chastelain commission, for reasons that I understand, decided - in the interests of securing the implementation of its mandate - that it was best to confirm that the process of decommissioning had commenced without giving the details that we all crave. That was its judgement. On the other hand, a film set was created in south Armagh. One almost expected Francis Ford Coppola or Steven Spielberg to appear behind the towers shouting "Action" when members of the press were flown into the area to witness the angle-grinding scene. The purpose of that exercise was to reinforce the confidence of a particular part of the community. However, the emphasis on that, against the relative obscurity of the decommissioning process, created a tension - [Interruption].

Total obscurity.

It was not total. That tension caused frustrations. However, my party and I believe that decommissioning has commenced. That is to be welcomed. It is a breakthrough and something that many Members, not far from where I am standing, never believed would be possible. We want to proceed now and get it completed, and we also want to get other people to start doing what they should have done three and a half years ago.

We should not allow our scepticism to plunge our Province into another political crisis that will have a significant impact. I do not believe that events on the streets are totally unrelated to events in the Assembly. We are supposed to be setting an example. From time to time, that has clearly not been happening.

After three and a half years of very hard work, we have achieved the set objectives of devolution and the commencement of decommissioning. We must bear in mind what our fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom will think if, after reaching those objectives, we suddenly decide to plunge ourselves into a crisis. It does not profit any Unionist to make Northern Ireland appear ungovernable - that only benefits Republicanism, and it has been clear for some time that Republicans have already anticipated that opportunity.

However frustrated one may be about the lack of progress hitherto or the fact that the process is not as open as one would like it to be, that is not sufficient justification for creating a crisis and plunging us into a further period of uncertainty and instability. It is my contention that this motion should be allowed to proceed. The election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would provide stability and be the centre of our Administration. It would give the Assembly the opportunity to fulfil its mandate. We will then all answer to the people for the work that we have done. At this stage - at the very point where we are making a breakthrough - it would be very foolhardy to shy away from that. I commend the motion to the House.

It is my very real pleasure to second the nomination of David Trimble as First Minister and Mark Durkan as Deputy First Minister. They each have personal strengths that will serve them well in the joint office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

I particularly welcome the fact that David Trimble is seeking re-election to the post of First Minister at a time when all the institutions provided for in the agreement can work to their full potential. I thank him for his courtesy and diligence during the time we worked together. He has not had an easy time politically. I wish him well, both as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and as First Minister.

I have known Mark Durkan for a number of years - I will not specify how many. He has gained respect from all parts of the Chamber as Minister of Finance and Personnel. The Assembly can have every confidence in his ability, his personal integrity and his capacity to perform with distinction as Deputy First Minister. In many ways, he is the standard-bearer for a new younger generation in the Assembly and the community.

There is an old saying that two into one do not go, but, as ever, there are exceptions. Those elected to serve as First Minister and Deputy First Minister occupy a joint office. They rely on each other to make progress. They work together or not at all. It is a challenge that must be met if the vision of the Good Friday Agreement is to be fulfilled. I have every confidence that David Trimble and Mark Durkan will be able to fulfil that vision.

I thank Reg Empey, with whom I have worked periodically in certain roles. He is a fine young man. He will soon have served his time and - depending on the outcome today - there may be another period of apprenticeship. I thank Reg again for his courtesy and for the way in which we were able to work together.

Recent weeks have seen welcome progress in the putting of arms beyond use and towards further demilitarisation. I particularly welcome the recent report of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning which represented the removal of a major obstacle to the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Combined with the progress made across all elements of the agreement, that gives rise to the hope, belief and conviction that the better future offered by the agreement will be realised. I have no doubt that the vast majority of people want the new dispensation to work, and it will work whether the next step is taken today or in the future. Society wants to move forward on the basis of partnership, equality and mutual respect. The agreement provides the means to achieve a peaceful society which offers a future for all. As President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, said:

Those words are as relevant today as they were when they were first spoken, and their relevance will grow as this process progresses. However, to grasp that opportunity we need stable and fully operational political institutions. Those institutions need strong, inclusive leadership, but they also need a respect for politics and an end to the game-playing, the foolishness and the ego-tripping. They need an end to the sham approach of taking part, with all its advantages, while at the same time publicly undermining the institutions. That is not leadership.

In many ways, leadership is a dull thing. It is about having the integrity to move on a position based on respect for the political process and for all of those in it. It is my belief that David Trimble and Mark Durkan - different people in many ways - are the right people jointly to lead the institutions and the people of the North of Ireland towards that new peace and stability. I beg to second.

I want to read a statement:

All that has not happened, and those are the words of Mr Trimble, spoken on 26 May 1998. Sir Reg Empey, who proposed him, said on 30 August 1998 that

We are asked to believe the spin doctors and the rigged polls in the 'Belfast Telegraph', and to bow to past pressures and not open our eyes. The people - both Protestant and Roman Catholic - have opened their eyes. They have been told to look at what the Official Unionist Party has brought to them. Mr Trimble boasts of what he has brought to us. What has he brought? He has brought IRA/Sinn Féin to the heart of Government. Today, we heard that the leader of IRA/Sinn Féin is raising money for firemen and their families in America. What about the firemen and families that it murdered, blew up and shot? What hypocrisy.

The deputy leader of that party said that, if someone came to him and said that he or she had information that would lead to people being prosecuted for the Omagh tragedy, he would not tell that person to go to the police. In America, the leader of IRA/Sinn Féin said that the IRA has a different morality to that of the people who blew up the towers.

The people of Northern Ireland are not fools; they will not be fooled any longer. We must remember, "you cannot fool all of the people all of the time". Sooner or later, the matter must come to the country. We were told that cross-border bodies that are not answerable to the Assembly would not be formed - that has happened. We were told that terrorists who were put away by the process of the law could not be released, but killers and others have been. The Prime Minister wrote graffiti on the walls and tried to deceive the people of this country. The RUC has been destroyed. Think about those people who, under the shadow of night, took the badge of the RUC from outside its headquarters before the specified time. What more is there to come?

We have seen the British Government spend thousands of pounds to fly in propagandists to take photographs of the dismantling of security towers. No photographs have been taken of the so-called act of decommissioning. Why not? Surely, if it is an honourable, ground-breaking move, IRA/Sinn Féin should be proud of it. They are not. An amnesty is now proposed for those on the run. Such proposals have nothing to do with the agreement; they are additions to it.

Changes to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 have been suggested. It was unfortunate that, when Mr Mallon spoke about them, he quoted Woodrow Wilson, who, after making that statement, was thrown out of office. That is some comfort for Mr Trimble today. Mr Mandelson told us that the Act would not be changed.

Order. The Member's time is up.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>