NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY
Monday 5 November 2001 (continued)
Mr S Wilson:
Anyone looking at what is happening in the Assembly could view it as Mr McCartney has described it as political farce at which Members should be laughing. Those who value democracy here ought to be asking "Does the Assembly have to go through these contortions and tear up the rule book to keep a party in power which no longer represents the Unionist community?" Members are hearing a party admit that it no longer commands the respect of the community that it claims to represent. The Ulster Unionist Party has resorted to sordid tactics - tactics which, as Peter Robinson pointed out, it cannot even defend. The Ulster Unionist Party cannot give even two sentences of defence for those tactics.
Instead, the Ulster Unionist Party is relying upon the Alliance Party to ride to its rescue - not on a white charger but on a pantomime horse, with the leader of the party at the back end. Members must look at what has happened today and at Mr Ford's arguments. He says that Members from the Alliance Party are redesignating because the stability of the institutions is at risk, and he will not allow a small minority to hold this place to ransom.
11.45 am
That is what has changed his mind. However, those arguments pertained on Friday when he said that he would not engage in this charade and he would not help out the Ulster Unionists. Nothing has changed. The only difference is that between Friday and today the back end of the horse has engaged in horse-trading. It will soon be seen what kind of bribe has been offered to him. Some of his little friends have come along with him. Mr McCartney said that the leader of the Alliance Party is leading from behind - and he is leading from behind. He did not become a Unionist. Eileen Bell is now a Unionist. On Friday in this pantomime Alliance Members were all crying in unison "We are not Unionists. Oh no, we are not". However, today they are saying "Oh yes, we are". I hear Seamus Close bleating from outside "Oh no, I am not". Kieran McCarthy is probably saying through clenched teeth "Oh yes, I am". We have a Kieran and a Sean saying it through clenched teeth.
In order to perpetuate the charade, the leader of the Alliance Party admitted to being a "political ass" this morning, the first time I have ever heard a party leader do so. Some would say that with his beard and his political foolishness, a "political goat" is a more appropriate comparison.
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Member ought to be somewhat careful about Members who have beards.
Mr S Wilson:
There is the wise old goat, and there is the foolish goat. If we must have an Assembly that is sustained by skulduggery, chicanery, trickery and every other kind of underhandedness that we have seen today, we must question the long-term future and sustainability of the Assembly.
Sinn Féin accuses the DUP of being wreckers. We are not wreckers. We are not the people who have made the Assembly lose all credibility. Those who wrote the rules found that they did not work, so they rewrote them - and they still did not work. Those people are in the process of rewriting the rules again. They are the people who are wrecking the Assembly. They are bringing it into disrepute. They are turning it into an institution without credibility.
Mr C Wilson:
The implementation of the Belfast Agreement is a corruption of the democratic practice and the rule of law that is without precedent in any democratic and law-governed state. That position was taken by those who read the Belfast Agreement correctly and advised Mr Trimble and his Colleagues during the fateful weeks leading up to the signing of the agreement. Mr Trimble and his Colleagues have undermined the position of the Unionist community and endangered the Union itself. They have undermined the process of democracy and the rule of law.
Today we are witnessing the outworking of the corruption that lies at the heart of the Belfast Agreement. I do not believe that anyone looking objectively and fairly from the outside at what is happening in the House today believes that it has anything remotely to do with democracy. Unionists who were elected to the Assembly to further the cause of the Union do not believe it either.
I remind Mr John Taylor - although I cannot see him in the Chamber - that when he left the negotiations at Castle Buildings a short time before the Belfast Agreement was signed, he stated that he would not touch the agreement with a 40-foot bargepole because it would bring about the destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. However, he re-engaged. In the last election he told the electorate, just as the Ulster Unionist Party did, that he endorsed the Belfast Agreement because the UUP had saved the RUC.
Mr Trimble and his deputy, Mr Taylor, should hang their heads. I hope that they experienced some feelings of guilt yesterday as we witnessed the final destruction of a gallant force that stood between the ordinary decent Roman Catholic, Protestant, Nationalist and Unionist, and the men of terror whom Sinn Féin/IRA represent here.
Our stance is honourable. Unfortunately, the Alliance Party has shifted from the position of honour that it held on Friday when it resisted moves to re-designate. On Friday, the Alliance Party opposed what was taking place, not as a pro-agreement or an anti-agreement Unionist party, but as a party that has assessed the situation and had realised that its electorate would not be well represented through use of trickery and sleight of hand in order to elect Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan.
The electorate should not lack heart because of today's events. As has been pointed out, Mr Trimble can run but he cannot hide, even should, in the next day or two, the House move to re-establish an Executive that will include two members of a party that is inextricably linked to and that fronts a terrorist organisation. Mr Trimble has said since the signing of the agreement and the formation of the Executive that it is wrong to be in Government with a party that fronts a fully-armed terrorist organisation. Therefore, is it not equally wrong to be sit in an Executive with those who represent a partially, yet still well-equipped, terrorist organisation? As Mr Roche stated, Mr Blair and Mr Bush make lofty comments about taking a stand against terrorism across the globe. However, up close, it looks like it will be the people on this side of the House who will be denigrated by the press, by the church leaders and by the captains of industry who endorsed the agreement. I have no doubt that we shall be seen as the villains of the piece and presented as the wreckers - those who do not want the people of Northern Ireland to have peace, stability and reconciliation. I throw that allegation back in their faces. We are not playing some petty game in order to deprive Mr Trimble of his ministerial car and his office. Rather, we are determined not to have in the Northern Ireland Government those who front a organisation that terrorised the ordinary decent citizens of Northern Ireland for 30 long years. That is obscene and disgusting, and my party will do all that it can to prevent it. We may win or lose this round of the battle for democracy, but the battle will go on and on.
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Member's time is up.
Mr P Robinson:
The normal format for a winding-up speech is that the arguments advanced on the opposite side of the House during the debate are demolished. I had no difficulty in demolishing the mover of the motion's argument, because he did not provide any argument. There followed an argument from IRA/Sinn Féin, the close friends of the Marxist drug dealers of Colombia. That party referred to anyone who wished to uphold Standing Orders and the law as wreckers. Of course, IRA/Sinn Féin has the Belfast Agreement wrapped around it as some form of purity that wipes away all its sins, whether those be the murders committed by its terrorist colleagues or the political chicanery in which it is involved.
We had the embarrassing spectacle of the leader of the Alliance Party. He is not having much of a time since he assumed that role. I see that he is experiencing great difficulty; he squirms as he swallows large chunks of his own words only days after he uttered them. However, he had the audacity to argue that the Assembly cannot have a small minority frustrating the will of the rest. That "small minority" happens to represent the majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland. That is the "small minority" that he seeks to sweep aside.
He also referred to a "tiny minority". That "tiny minority" is six times the size of his party. He is so puffed up with his own importance, and the belief that the Alliance Party has a pivotal role in the proceedings, that he refers to a group which is six times the size of his own organisation as being "tiny". That shows the degree of importance that he attaches to his own position.
Returning to the original proposition, what was the intention of the law, of the Belfast Agreement and of our Standing Orders in relation to designation? The purpose is clear - designation was to be a safeguard for both communities. If key decisions were taken, both communities had to be satisfied. The Belfast Agreement identified some key decisions where it was not enough to have 40% of Unionist or Nationalist support, but which required a majority of Unionist or Nationalist support. One of those key decisions was the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Alliance Party, the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists and their friends in Sinn Féin regarded that as being of such importance that - [Interruption].
I see that the leader of the Alliance Party is shaking his head. He is telling us that he does not agree with the Belfast Agreement, because that is what the Belfast Agreement says. Now he is saying that he does not agree with the Belfast Agreement. That shows how quickly he can change his position and that of his party.
They all signed up to the Belfast Agreement. They all believed in that aspect and accepted it. When it is put into form in the Standing Orders, they want a way to wriggle out of it. They no longer want it to require a majority of Unionists. Everybody knows the designation of individuals because of what they stand for at elections. That is a principled designation. If a Member stands as a Unionist, that is recognised as his designation. However, these people are not Unionist. The leader of the Alliance Party went on record at the weekend saying that he could not stomach being a Unionist or a Nationalist for more than 24 hours. That is the sheer hypocrisy of such a designation. Alliance Party Members are so sick of the whole process that they are prepared to tell the world "We could not bear to be Unionists for more than 24 hours, but we will do it for this purpose." That is the Alliance Party's principled stand.
I will give it one warning. If it has not learnt by now - [Interruption].
Just listen to the warning; it is simple. The Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP are the people that the leader of the Alliance Party is relying on. They are the people whom he expects to ante up in any review. That is the position that they are adopting.
What did they say in this debate? Where were the words of reassurance from the Ulster Unionist Benches or from the SDLP? Does he think that their silence is accidental? Can he trust them to fulfil their obligations in any review? They will have already delivered by the time that that review comes around. The leader of the Alliance Party should know from experience -
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Member's time is up.
I have a problem at this point, because one of the Members who spoke named another Member, and that Member has appealed for an opportunity to reply to what was said. Mr Cedric Wilson named Lord Kilclooney. Lord Kilclooney has requested the opportunity to reply. I think that it is only fair that he be given the opportunity to reply to the remarks made by Mr Wilson.
Lord Kilclooney:
First, I can confirm that the DUP's legal action was dismissed in the Belfast High Court today. Can I refer - [Interruption].
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it right for Mr Taylor to again mislead an elected Assembly? What happened at the court was that the Secretary of State said that he would be calling an election.
Mr Speaker:
Order. We should remain within the Chamber for the present, particularly to give Lord Kilclooney, an opportunity to respond to being named by Mr Cedric Wilson.
Lord Kilclooney:
I want, briefly, to - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order. Point of order, Mr Wilson.
12.00
Mr C Wilson:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understood that you had given leave to Lord Kilclooney to address the comments made. He abused the Chair of the Assembly by taking the opportunity to speak about something completely different.
Mr Speaker:
The Chair is used to being abused.
Lord Kilclooney:
I will be brief, Mr Speaker. Of course there will be an election - the question is when.
Mr Cedric Wilson referred to me by name. It is a normal courtesy in parliamentary affairs that when a Member refers to another Member, the former gives advance notice. I regret very much that Mr Wilson misbehaved in this manner. I hope that the next time he mentions a Member by name, he will at least have the courtesy to so advise him.
The Member said that the Ulster Unionist Party had not fought to retain the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Let us get the facts right. Well - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Lord Kilclooney:
It was the Ulster Unionist Party that tabled 200 amendments in Parliament to benefit the Royal Ulster Constabulary - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order. I cannot hear what the Member is saying. I ask the House to give the Member a hearing.
Lord Kilclooney:
And, of course, the DUP - [Interruption].
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understood that the hon Member was making a personal statement because of a personal attack.
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Member is mistaken. Lord Kilclooney is not making a personal statement. A personal statement would require the Member to give me a written note of precisely what was to be said. What I gave the Member - and I explained this to the House - was an opportunity to respond to the fact that he had been named by Mr Cedric Wilson in a particular regard.
Mr P Robinson:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you draw our attention to the Standing Order that allows someone to make personal remarks after the winding-up speech on an amendment?
Mr Speaker:
Perhaps the Member can draw my attention to the Standing Order that forbids it?
Mr P Robinson:
The Standing Orders do not allow it.
Mr Speaker:
The whole question of personal statements, in case the Member is not aware, is dealt with in 'Erskine May', not in Standing Orders. The Speaker is entitled to call whomever he wishes, at whatever point he wishes.
Mr P Robinson:
Not after a winding-up speech.
Mr Speaker:
I am afraid that the Member is, yet again, wrong. I am not taking any further points of order. This is a piece of silly nonsense. Frankly, it feels less like a pantomime than a circus, with me as the ringmaster.
Lord Kilclooney:
As you say, Mr Speaker, this is not a personal statement. It is part of a normal debate responding to allegations made by Mr Cedric Wilson. As I pointed out, we in the Ulster Unionist Party tabled 200 amendments in Parliament to the most recent Police Bill. The DUP did not table one amendment - not one. That shows that party's lack of support for the RUC - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Lord Kilclooney:
I can hear some ignorant comments from some of the DUP Members.
I will explain the name of the RUC. The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 says that
"The body of constables known as the Royal Ulster Constabulary shall continue in being as the Police Service of Northern Ireland (incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary)."
Mr Speaker:
Order. This is going wholly wide of the debate.
Mr McGrady:
In this debate, and indeed on Friday, much comment has been made about principles and democracy. It has been implied that principles and democracy can be protected only by the immutability of the Standing Orders of this Chamber. Those who used that argument ignored the fact that Standing Orders were created and enforced by the Assembly itself, conforming where required to the statute that set up the Assembly and reflecting the good sense and intent of all Members. Correctly, Standing Orders also embody special safeguard provisions with regard to parallel consent and weighted majorities.
Those safeguards are there. They have not been tampered with, and they cannot be tampered with, denied or amended without the work of others outside the Chamber. The motion makes no attempt to change those safeguards, which are there for Unionists and Nationalists alike. No debate or motion today changes that fact. I hope that the safeguard of parallel consent will apply eventually to the motion we are debating. The DUP, by its amendment, has indicated its clear understanding of how Standing Orders can be used. That is its entitlement.
The motion concerns designation, not Standing Orders. Designation does not enjoy the same immutability - indeed, it would be odd if it did, because development and change could not be accommodated. Members would not be able to express their designation more fully or more precisely. The right to choose should not, and cannot, be expunged.
Designation as Unionist or Nationalist has a relatively clear meaning. The designation "Other" is less clear. Those who freely choose to use that designation feel that their votes are less valuable than those of people who are designated Unionist or Nationalist. They feel that their votes are not equally counted and that their mandate is not equal to that of other Members. Their votes are not counted in cross-community votes in relation to the Nationalist or Unionist community, even on crucial issues that affect the very existence of this devolved institution.
The motion enables that deficiency to be resolved temporarily until the matter can be examined more fully in the light of current experience. This can be achieved through a review of strand one of the Good Friday Agreement as provided for by paragraph 36. The Secretary of State has announced that such a review will commence on 19 November 2001. Until that review happens, I urge Members to accept that basic justice must be done to reflect democracy in the House, as expressed through the ballot box, and that the motion be carried.
There has been much abuse bandied about the House today concerning pantomimes and circuses. The DUP engaged in a series of vitriolic attacks on Members. Perhaps its wonderful circus act of riding two horses at once is competing with what it alleges is a pantomime. It takes the advantages of the Assembly and the benefits of office while trying to bring it down. Its other act is wearing a bit thin for public consumption - the mystery of the disappearing and reappearing Ministers. Watch that cabinet very closely - a new face might come out of it before we finish today.
Let us not talk about circuses and pantomimes. Let us talk about the reality of our purpose today. The DUP has consistently tried all types of manipulations in the House and elsewhere to frustrate the will of the people of Northern Ireland. That will not happen, because the expressed wish of those people is that the Assembly should continue.
Mr Speaker:
In the normal course of events, two Questions would be before the House at this point - the amendment standing on the Marshalled List and the motion to amend Standing Orders. As a petition of concern has been received in respect of the motion, I propose to leave both votes until a later time. The Business Committee will meet at lunchtime today to consider the matter.
Election of First Minister and Deputy First Minister
Mr McCartney:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My information - and, of course, it is subject to confirmation - is that the Secretary of State's counsel has declared that the Secretary of State intends to propose a date for an election after consultation with the parties. There are only two ways in which an election can be called. First, after the natural efflux of our term - four years, or whatever it may be - and, secondly, following the failure to elect a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister within the six-week deadline.
If the Secretary of State accepts that he is now under an obligation to propose a date for an election, it can be based only on an acknowledgement that the time for the election of a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister expired at midnight on Saturday. That being the case, to go through the pantomime of electing a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister, in circumstances where it cannot be valid, should at least prompt you, Mr Speaker, I suggest, before proceeding further, to seek some information as to the exact circumstances of this morning's court proceedings.
Mr Speaker:
The House is always impressed by the Member's presentations. However, having considered the matter in advance, having heard what the Member said and having received a note about what happened in court, I find myself quite unconvinced by the Member's arguments.
Mr McCartney:
That is a shock.
Mr Speaker:
I mean the Member no harm, but his arguments do not convince me, and, therefore, we must continue.
Mr McCartney:
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am always willing to be persuaded, as are other Members. Therefore, perhaps you will indicate the nature of the information that you received that would demolish my argument. I am always willing to listen.
Mr Speaker:
There is no need for us to go through that. The situation is clear. The Secretary of State has said that he will propose a time. The Member may be trusting entirely in whether the Secretary of State will carry through on what he said; I do not place myself in any position in that regard. It will depend on whether there is a successful outcome to today's proceedings. However, the Member's remarks about the six-week deadline are manifestly wrong.
Mr McCartney:
I do not think so.
Mr Speaker:
The Member may think not, but in that case, perhaps he should have gone to the court - perhaps he would have got a different outcome. The outcome of the court proceedings is quite clear: there is no injunction against our proceeding, it is perfectly legitimate for us to do so, and, therefore, we ought to proceed.
Mr P Robinson:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Democratic Unionist Party asked the court to consider, under section 32(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, whether the Secretary of State had a duty to call, or to propose a date for, an election. The idea behind that was clear - it was to force the hand of the Secretary of State to do what he is legally required to do. The Secretary of State's counsel put on the court's record that the Secretary of State recognises that he has a duty to propose a date for elections and that he will consult the parties about that. That makes it clear that the Secretary of State recognises that his legal responsibility comes after the six-week deadline has expired. If the six-week deadline, within which the Assembly had the opportunity to elect a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister, has passed, how can we possibly consider that item on the agenda?
Mr Speaker:
I have tried to explain the matter, in as much detail as I think reasonable, to the House. While I hear the Members' arguments, I think that they are mistaken. It is entirely for them, if they wish to challenge any outcome, to take it to court, and, if the court strikes it down, it strikes it down.
However, I am not persuaded by the argument. I have received a note from my own counsel that it is perfectly appropriate -
A Member:
Change your lawyers.
12.15 pm
Mr Speaker:
The Member may be happy to dismiss not only those who are not lawyers, but even those who are. However, I will stick with the counsel that I have.
Mr McCartney:
That is clear.
Mr Speaker:
I should think that it should be clear. In my profession, one generally does not deprecate the work of other professionals, but it may be different in the legal profession. However, for the moment - [Interruption].
Order. For the moment we shall proceed with the election of the First and Deputy First Ministers. I propose to conduct the proceedings on the same basis as on the previous occasion, which was as long ago as Friday 2 November. I will begin by asking for nominations. A proposal must include nominations for both First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I will then ask for the proposal to be seconded - [Interruption].
Order. I think it would be unwise to miss any of this - you might get it wrong.
I will then proceed to ask for further nominations. If further proposals are made, the process will be repeated until there are no further nominations. At that point Members may, if they choose, debate the proposals. I propose -[Interruption].
Order. The Member may be setting aside her opportunity to be proposed.
I propose to conduct one debate on all the proposals, and no Member will be permitted to speak more than once. I shall then put the question that the first pair of nominees be the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of the Assembly. However, that cannot be done until the time set out in the petition of concern has passed. So, today, after any nominations are made, there will only be the debate. I trust that that is clear, so we will proceed.
Do we have any proposals?
Sir Reg Empey:
I beg to move that the Re Hon David Timble MP MLA be First Minister and that Mr Mark Durkan MLA be Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly. [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order. Is there a Member to second the proposal?
Mr Mallon:
It is still my pleasure to propose David Trimble as First Minister and Mark -
A Member:
Durkan.
Mr Mallon:
Mark Durkan. I thank the Member - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order. This degree of cross-community co-operation is not required.
Mr Mallon:
I thank the Member for his assistance - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Mr Mallon:
There are so many marks of Cain about this place at the moment that it is difficult to remember.
On Friday, I placed on record my views about the proposal that I am seconding. I do not wish to repeat them. Suffice it to say that I am confident that the two nominees will be able to bring some dignity and decorum to the proceedings - which, I regret to say, is very badly needed.
Mr Speaker:
Does the first nominee, the Rt Hon Mr David Trimble MP, accept the nomination for First Minister?
Mr Trimble:
I accept the nomination. [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order. Members may not have heard clearly, but the Member accepted.
Mr Mark Durkan, do you accept the nomination for Deputy First Minister?
Mr Durkan:
I accept the nomination, with assistance from the Benches.
Mr Speaker:
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 Members that they may speak only once.
Sir Reg Empey:
I reiterate many of the points that I made last week. However, I wish to add other points. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland want devolved Government to be given the opportunity to prove itself. At the beginning of the process we set out with two objectives in mind: to ensure that devolution was established and maintained; and, in order to sustain devolution, to ensure that all parts of the Belfast Agreement were operational. That meant that the decommissioning process would commence.
Many issues that were raised in the previous debate are again relevant. Cedric Wilson's remarks drew attention to the fact that there are a variety of opinions on the fundamentals of the agreement. Both sides' views are legitimate. I believe, and have maintained the belief within my own party, that one should not be demonised because one does not agree with the agreement any more than one should be demonised for supporting it. Those people who are morally indignant about certain things that are happening here should perhaps examine their own behaviour in the past three and a half years.
First, Democratic Unionists and others decided to abandon the talks that led to the Belfast Agreement. That was their decision. If a party walks out of a process before serious negotiations take place, it is inevitable that those negotiations will not bear that party's stamp, nor will they include the, perhaps valuable, contributions of that party, which might have helped mould the debate. It comes as little or no surprise that it does not like the outcome of the talks - it does not like it because it was not present and was unable to influence it.
Rev Dr William McCrea:
We did not have to buckle.
Sir Reg Empey:
The Member's party did not have the bottle to go in and negotiate, but it has the bottle to sit here - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order. Settle down.
Sir Reg Empey:
The DUP has had the bottle to attend 2,000 Committee meetings. It has had the bottle to stay in office. The party said that it would rotate its Ministers. That rotation mechanism was designed to keep the seats warm for the current occupants of the two ministerial posts. The DUP's tongues were hanging out to return to office. If the DUP is so opposed to what is happening in the Assembly, if it does not like the system, if it believes that the system is tarnished and inappropriate - well, nobody is forcing that party to be here.
Moreover, the DUP talks vividly about the presence of Sinn Féin and about its opposition to that party. Those are perfectly legitimate points of view. However, some of those same people ensured that Sinn Féin represent Fermanagh and South Tyrone in Parliament.
We can shout at one another and guffaw in the Chamber; we can point out the hypocrisies that abound. However, that disguises our main purpose, which is to try and provide good governance for the people of Northern Ireland. We wish to sustain an economy that will provide worthwhile work and a future for our young people, so that they will be able to remain here and avoid the emigration that so many generations have had to endure. We want to provide and improve health, education and housing services, and to address all the other social and economic problems from which our community suffers.
We must ask ourselves whether any of those areas would be improved by the reintroduction of direct rule Ministers to run the Province, or whether they would be better dealt with by this House. The vast majority of people, regardless of their views on the fundamentals of the agreement, believe that devolution is a better solution to our problems than the alternatives that have been in operation for 30 years. Direct rule did not bring peace or the lowest unemployment figures for generations. It did not, and will never, bring about the enforcment of the rule of law that we wish to see.
We can absent ourselves if we like, but I suspect - and the evidence supports my argument - that, since we came here in 1998, no Member has rushed out of this Chamber. Everyone present then - bar the fatality of Mr Benson and the resignation of Mr Hume - is still here, despite the views expressed by some that they were so appalled at the prospects that they could not stomach it. They seem to be able to stomach it, and that is also the case at the end of every month.
We should proceed to put in place the entire Administration. That would give us the opportunity to test and provide good government. It would also allow us to ensure that, against the background of the global economy before and since 11 September, we can compete in a situation where every region of Europe and of the Western World is scrambling for a diminishing supply of inward investment. Some might not be bothered about that - I am, as is the average person in the street.
Those are the issues that matter to people, and the histrionics of the Chamber are secondary to the question of whether people have a career and an opportunity to live a decent, dignified life in peace, enabling them to get on with their work. Those are the things that, given the opportunity, this Assembly could deliver. People might try to shout me down, but I will ensure that as long as I have the opportunity I will say my piece, and I will not be shouted down. I commend the motion.
Mr Mallon:
On Friday I described Sir Reg Empey as "a fine young man". I have since been taken to task on the grounds that that comment might diminish his standing in the Assembly, his gravitas and his authority. He is a fine young man, and those who wish to define "young" can do so.
I have three serious points to make. The first is that in this Chamber in 1973 I witnessed behaviour that I hoped would never be seen again in any elected Chamber. We had "performances" - and that is the only term that I could use - by many during those debates. I even saw fisticuffs in the Chamber at that time. I would have hoped that in the subsequent 30 years things might have changed. I believe that they have changed, and that underneath the bombast and the sotto voce contributions there is a recognition that what is happening here will last, that the entire community wants to be part of it, and that any ultimate stability will be based on politics. I do not want to see a return to the performances of 1973.
I know there are - and there will be - Members who find it impossible to not make snide remarks, and who regard themselves as the star of the show and a great comic act. However, we are not dealing with a comedy: we are varying between tragedy and farce. Tragedy exists on our streets, in our towns and in our homes, and we are not doing anything to resolve it; we are adding to it with the farce that is created in the House.
My second point is a serious one. Since last week I have heard much debate on Standing Orders, voting methods and procedures contained in the legislation and in the agreement.
However, the procedures are not deficient or at fault. Without intending any offence, I must say that the fault, when it comes to Standing Orders, the legislation and the voting requirements, lies in the number of Unionist parties. I may be wrong, but I have counted five Unionist parties. I may be one out - and I am not taking into account the halves that may well be added before the end of the week. That is what is at fault.
12.30 pm
A fractious, divided Unionism is not capable of, or competent in, maximising the Good Friday Agreement. That is not the business of Nationalists or of others. It is the business of Unionism. There is a concern and a willingness inside and outside the House to help those in the political process who find themselves in that difficult position. There are those who will spurn it and scorn it. However, there comes a day for everyone when help and tolerance is needed, and nobody should forget that.
In many ways we have had an unseemly week and an unseemly weekend. I do not want to see the Assembly, the Executive and the political process being manipulated by anyone - not least by a Secretary of State. Our political process can, and must, stand on its feet without gimmickry, manipulation, and without people's having to pull rabbits out of hats every week.
Mr McCartney:
Was it not a horse?
Mr Mallon:
A rabbit is not a horse; rest assured of that. If we are honest, no amount of reviews will cure the problem, because the problem is not in the procedures. No amount of interventions - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Member's time is up.
Mr Mallon:
I thank the Speaker for his indulgence, but I ask as a final shot - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
It ill becomes the Member to read homilies. I remember the vicious and diabolical attacks he launched against the UDR and the unanimous decision taken by all but two Unionist Members that we would leave when he rose in the House. Two Members would not leave. One of them was Reg Empey, and he is still running true to form.
What is the aim of the motion? The aim is to get IRA/Sinn Féin into Government. I carefully noted what Mr Empey had to say. He said that it was to get all of them into Government, which can only refer to IRA/Sinn Féin. That is what we are asked to do. Then when we use our democratic rights to try to implement our mandate, we are not supposed to respond to how we are treated. Fascism does not want an opposition. Sir Reg Empey does not want an opposition; he certainly does not want Unionist opposition. Sir Reg Empey has gone round the country - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
He has gone round the country telling people about salaries. He has never mentioned the fact that he gets his whole salary, but that the people that he is attacking only get one third of their salaries. He does not think that the public should know that. He does not tell the truth. If the people of Northern Ireland send a party - [Interruption].
Sir Reg Empey:
The Member has stated that I was not telling the truth. I want that remark to be withdrawn.
Mr Speaker:
Dr Paisley, the Member has asserted - and I think that it is true - that you accused him of not telling the truth. He asks that you withdraw the statement.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
I will change it: he has deliberately misled the people. Of course, if he met the truth, he would not recognise it.
Sir Reg Empey:
Is that a withdrawal or not?
Mr Speaker:
The question is whether Dr Paisley has withdrawn the remark. Dr Paisley, have you done so?
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
Yes. I made another remark - a remark that is acceptable in the House of Commons. It is used regularly there, so I am on good ground. Hansard can verify that.
Mr Speaker:
I fear that the Member is right; it has to be used very often in that place, but I trust that it will not be used here.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
There is no rule against saying that a person misleads people. I know the sensitivity of the Member on this matter; I can understand that.
Mr Haughey:
Will the Member give way?
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
No, I will not give way. I would not give way to you in North Antrim when I beat you in the elections, and I will not give way now.
Are people who disagree with the so-called agreement entitled to come to the Assembly? It is interesting to note that all those to whom Mr Mallon referred back the agreement. Those on our streets, causing the mayhem and trouble, all back the agreement. Why then take it out on those who disagree? They continue to do what they told their electorate they would do. In other words, they come here and resist as hard as possible any effort to take us further towards unity with the Irish Republic.
"An IRA arms handover would not be enough to give Sinn Féin seats on the Executive. If punishment beatings are continuing, if training, targeting, if units are still active on the ground, then the purposes of decommissioning would purely be fraudulent."
Those were the words of Sir Reg Empey. Then when I say a hearty "amen" to that, he tells me that I should not say it in the House. He will say that to the electorate, like his friend, Mr Taylor, who has left us; he is Lord "somebody" now - I do not remember the geographical locality that he chose for his lordship. What a misleading statement he made today. What happened not far from here at the headquarters of the police? They took down - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Member's time is up.
Mr M McGuinness:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. When my time ran out on Friday I was about to quote Christopher Logue on Apollinaire:
"Come to the edge.
We might fall.
Come to the edge.
It's too high!
Come to the edge
And they came
and he pushed
and they flew.."
That sums up what is happening in the House today. We have seen the comedians at work this morning, and they have had a laugh at the expense of many Members. However, we shall have the last laugh. Before this week is out we will elect David Trimble as First Minister and Mark Durkan as Deputy First Minister. That will be quite an experience for us on the pro-agreement side. I hope that as a result of our efforts, and for the sake of our people and our children, this peace process will, at long last, fly. It is our duty and our responsibility to ensure that. I look forward to working with those Unionists who do want a Catholic about the place. I do not know them very well, but I have met them over the last 18 months in different situations. I say, without fear of contradiction, that there are decent people on the opposite side of the House who want to see Fenians and Catholics about the place and who are prepared to work with me to bring about the essential change that the Good Friday Agreement promised all of our people.
I look forward to working with the SDLP, the Women's Coalition, the Alliance Party and the PUP. I also hope that at some time in the future the Democratic Unionist Party will recognise the need to be part of that change. The DUP is not there yet, but we can bring it there.
I have listened to people say that Peter Robinson and Nigel Dodds enjoy their Ministries, that they like the place and that they are quite content with everything. I do not believe that to be true. I believe, from witnessing its behaviour that the sectarian wing of the Assembly is dedicated to the total collapse of the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process.
What is the peace process about? It is about people, education, health services, culture, arts and leisure, the environment, finances, the economy, further and higher education and the education of little children. It is about making lives better. We are in this position today because we have made great advances in our process recently. People said that the DUP's main aim was to bring about decommissioning and that nothing else in the process mattered. I believe that the decision taken by the leadership of IRA was the worst nightmare of the DUP and of those opposed to the search for progress and change on this island.
Our job is to ensure that the power-sharing arrangements continue. It is the duty of the pro-agreement parties this week to cross that vital Rubicon together. We have shown that we can work together and that we can create the new future that all our people want. That future includes power-sharing institutions, equality, justice, an end to domination, the demilitarisation of our society and the taking all of the guns - Irish and British - out of Irish politics. It is also about the all-Ireland institutions and moving forward to create the new future that we all crave. Go raibh míle maith agat.