On a point of order, A LeasCheann Comhairle. I ask the Member to withdraw the allegation that he has made against me.

Mr Boyd, you should look at some of the decisions taken by the Speaker in the Chamber. Rulings were given on 18 December 2000 and 24 April 2001 for cases where one Member is named by another and allegations are made. Guidance is also given on page 312 of 'Erskine May', and the Member may wish to see that. Members must seek the leave of, and submit a proposed statement to, the Speaker in relation to their intention to name a Member. Therefore, I rule that such statements are out of order unless the person named has an opportunity to make reply. A right of reply must be cleared with the Speaker beforehand.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, further to the point of order, I want the record to show that the allegation is completely untrue. It is a scurrilous allegation, which is dangerous to me and others, and I want it withdrawn.

In October 2001, a criminal was sentenced to only three years for a violent armed robbery, despite the police opposing bail at his trial. He was given Christmas leave - [Interruption].

A LeasCheann Comhairle, on a point of order.

I have already described what the action must be by the Member naming.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, I am requiring that the Member withdraw his remarks. Unless he has proof, I want them withdrawn. It is as simple as that.

Mr Boyd, I read out what the procedure is, and you heard it too. If someone is named, that person has the right of reply, and that can be given only by reference to the Speaker, so be careful.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, on a further point of order, a serious allegation has been made about my Colleague, Gerry McHugh, which endangers his life and that of his family. A Member has made the allegation in the Chamber that he was convicted and sentenced for the murder of a postal worker. That is fundamentally and patently untrue, and he is asking that that Member withdraw it. That is a fair request.

For the third time, I remind you, Mr Boyd of the procedure. Having been warned once you have continued. Do not continue naming Members of the House. Is that clear? Do not continue; otherwise I will have to name you.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, as the Speaker of the House are you going to ask Mr Norman Boyd to withdraw his comments about Gerry McHugh?

Will you withdraw that comment, Mr Boyd?

Absolutely not, Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand by my comments.

In that case I will have to name the Member. I have made an order, and you, Mr Boyd, have not obeyed it. I name you, and you may leave the Chamber.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not think that this is the correct way to proceed. I ask that you do not take the course of action that you have suggested. I do not think that procedurally this is correct. Mr McHugh or the Sinn Féin Members may wish to challenge the comments made by my Colleague, but this is neither the time nor the place for that matter to be dealt with. Mr Boyd is addressing the motion, and I do not see any reason why he should be named or expelled from the Chamber. I ask you to reconsider.

I have made my decision, and I stand by it.

I support the motion - with the caveat that it has left out one section of our society which has suffered a lot. In recent years there have been many statistics to prove how difficult it is for the Northern Ireland Fire Service to do its job. I imagine that it is by accident that it did not achieve some prominence in the motion, and that is regrettable.

Nevertheless, we have had interesting moments, such as the Sinn Féin assertion that the people who are named in the motion should never be protected until such times that there is a police service to their specific liking. In other words, what is happening is perfectly all right until there is a police service that they like.

If I were serving the public I would have some sense of grievance about that, especially at a time when phone calls to the Police Service of Northern Ireland from the Nationalist community are mounting because callers feel they are under threat. They are, and have been making calls to the RUC, and they have been looking for help from whatever source they can get it at a time when lawlessness is rife in this society.

Sinn Féin's position is pathetic, almost childish. We, as Members of the Assembly, face an onerous task. We are discussing a matter, for which the responsibility rests with Westminster. We shall take on the issues of policing and justice on the day that our Assembly comes of age. Then we shall be accountable and able to face the public in the knowledge that we shall be making the decisions on how they are protected in their homes, on the streets and in the schools.

My constituency office can identify a footfall of 40% of those who seek assistance with lawlessness. Members have referred to armed robbery, and to the shameful and terrible acts in which there is undoubtedly paramilitary involvement. In the housing estates of the working-class areas of my constituency, people are suffering more acutely from the actions of young children - adolescents who are terrorising people day and night. The police are unable to do much about that. It seems like a game - the children attack the elderly, who seek assistance, but when that help eventually comes, the children run away. It is all about having a chase and watching a big burly policeman chase a 10-year-old up the street.

Perhaps we need to become more radical - does someone else need to deal with the job? When we can make legislation, should we enact legislation that will make parents responsible for the behaviour of their children? Do we need a specially designated group of people - not the police - who, on behalf of society, will pluck those children off the streets and follow through, fairly ruthlessly, the requirement that parents stop neglecting them. Undoubtedly, children are allowed to behave badly because of parental neglect, and society has a responsibility to ensure that parents accept that they are responsible and accountable for their children.

I agree entirely with Mr Ervine's sentiments about parental responsibility. However, what sanctions should parents be allowed to use, given that a proposal is being put forward that the Northern Ireland Assembly should follow the example of the Scottish Executive and ban "reasonable chastisement" on the parents' part, although Westminster has not done so?

The Member is taking me up an avenue that I had not anticipated travelling. It is, however, a worthy point. Whether we like it or not, any violent action, legal or otherwise, affects the generation that experiences the violence. The state should have a non- violent approach to children. Neither parents nor any other lawful authority should have the right to beat children. I have heard it said that "A beating wouldn't do you a button of harm - it never did me any". That is when a trustworthy person is administering the beating. What happens when someone who cannot be trusted beats his child half to death? Then the state needs to deal with the problem.

There are many role models in society for anti- authority attitudes. There are many such people in the Chamber, including myself, all the paramilitarists and all the protestors against one sort of authority or another. We need to wake up and recognise that we have effectively shown the generation causing our nightmares that it is perfectly all right to rail against authority. We are trying to inch towards a democratic and political solution, and that violent backdrop is part of the problem.

However, we must all take responsibility. Some people simply luxuriate in the fact that their constituents suffer pain and sorrow. They climb all over the issue to gain votes, and that is tragic. They indulge in point scoring and playing games, rather than offering practical solutions to a problem that is a nightmare to those on the receiving end.

I live on a housing estate that is situated close to Parliament Buildings. Three quarters of that estate is a fine and decent place in which to live. One quarter of it is like Beirut - no one wants to go there, and everyone wants to get out. It is extremely moving to hear about older people who have lived there for a long time while the shifting sands of bad behaviour have surrounded them. It is debilitating for them, and it is shameful that they should have to live in such circumstances.

We must find the resources to ensure that our police officers can respond to crime. The issue must be given serious political support. Perhaps it is time to think about the creation of a policy of zero tolerance.

I find it difficult to speak on the motion. Perhaps it would have been better had there been two separate motions, because too many issues have been listed in the motion. I have split my speech into two areas: what can be done for the elderly and what can be done for service providers.

The elderly are citizens of our community, and they deserve to be protected from further attacks. If we are to respond to the problem by providing more resources, we must identify our areas of responsibility and what the Assembly should ask of the Executive.

I represent the constituency of South Belfast, which, according to last year's crime statistics, has the highest crime rate in Northern Ireland. However, I wish to put those figures into perspective. I have examined the crime statistics for the UK. It still seems to be the case that, although our crime figures are increasing relative to a baseline, our figures for theft, burglary, violence against the person and criminal damage are lower than those elsewhere in the UK. Let us keep that in perspective.

If the crime figures are rising, we must ask why that is the case. Different political arguments have been voiced today. Some Members have associated rising crime with events resulting from the Belfast Agreement. However, it may also be the case that societies that are in post-conflict or transitional situations are very different to those at the height of conflict. Undoubtedly, at the height of the conflict, crime in communities was heavily contained, and there was a high level of surveillance. People did not have the same permission that they currently have now that that surveillance has been lifted, whether by the police or by the paramilitaries.

There is now a higher level of mobility, because, in the past, every stolen car was a potential bomb threat. With such permission, individuals think that they have the right to indulge in crime. We may need to consider the type of measures that we put in place.

I have spoken to many police officers who tell me that they cannot walk that road alone. There is one police officer for every 153 persons in Northern Ireland; by contrast, there is one police officer for every 431 persons in England and every 443 persons in Wales. It is clear that Northern Ireland has a higher proportion of police than elsewhere, and to call for additional resources may not go down well in devolved Administration. Therefore, ways of policing our community must be examined. I want to put that issue on the table; communities should look at policing differently.

As political representatives - working with residents associations and agencies - we are capable of reorienting our thinking about policing. It is not simply about catching offenders or about prosecutions. The recidivism rates do not point to success in tackling the problems. A different approach must be taken. The way forward is contained in many of the police's proposals on community safety and community policing.

I want to take up the debate about finding ways to tackle aggressive behaviour, especially among young people. The current 'Children are Unbeatable' campaign speaks of alternative ways of discipline. If we teach our children unacceptable ways of discipline they will reciprocate. If they are taught that other ways exist to deal with aggression, it is to be hoped that we shall raise children who are different and we shall create a different type of community. The forthcoming legislation will make us think differently and change our attitudes.

The Assembly can do something about service providers. The Executive have told the House that they have an interdepartmental strategy to tackle problems. Perhaps the Victims Unit should deal not only with the victims of the troubles but lend some of its expertise to dealing with the victims among personnel in the Executive's Departments. I propose that the Executive set up a task force immediately to deal with violence against the service providers for whom they are responsible. They must state their definition of violence against those people, who are subject to intimidation, harassment and the everyday swearing and shouting that eventually leads to abuse and assaults.

There should, by now, be an accurate baseline of the number of attacks. Why should it be left to journalists to produce that? The background papers for today's debate show the huge number of attacks. There were 410 cases in Belfast City Hospital alone. That is more than one attack for every day of the year. The Assembly should set a target that, by December 2002, it will know what the baseline is and that, by December 2005, it will have reduced that baseline by 25%. Those messages must be taken responsibly out of the Assembly and into the community. The Assembly should publish a protocol for the sharing of information among the Fire Service, ambulance staff and social care providers. Are there examples of good practice that they could lend to one another? Is Northern Ireland different to elsewhere, and, if so, why?

There is a gender perspective to crime statistics for violence against the person. The highest incidence of violence against the person is carried out by people known to the victims. The victim often lives with the offender, who may be a family member. Strangers perpetrate the lowest incidence of violence against the person. The crazy legislation - the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - is not sophisticated enough to break down crime, which has moved on since that legislation was enacted. It is good to see that, in the new language, joyriders are now referred to as "boy racers". Let the House name the problem as it is. Let the House also recognise that the vast majority of violence towards members of the community is perpetrated by aggressive males on vulnerable females. That is something that must be tackled in Northern Ireland now.

The Assembly must also remedy the significant gaps in crime prevention. It is encouraging to note that Translink has identified good practice elsewhere in the UK. For example, cash safety boxes can deter members of the public from attacking bus drivers, but why were they not introduced before? That is one small example of the type of measures that must be introduced. All public services should be reviewing their procedures. Let the Executive establish that task force as a result of today's debate.

Several contributors have given detailed, anecdotal accounts of the sort of violence that is perpetrated in this society. We all accept that there has been a significant and serious rise in crime throughout Northern Ireland. However, I am disturbed by the nature of some of the contributions.

For example, Ulster Unionist Dr Birnie offered a sort of apologia for the violence, suggesting that it is not perhaps as bad as it is. He then told us that Northern Ireland is rather well served with regard to police/public ratios. That is simplistic in itself. It has already been pointed out that the nature of the topography and the dispersed communities in Northern Ireland, and the nature of the violence that emanates from sectarian and paramilitary sources are entirely different from what is experienced by other police forces throughout the United Kingdom. His comparisons and the suggestion that we are well served, given the number of police, are absolutely unfounded, and absurd to the point of being ludicrous.

Mr Ervine's contribution suggested, in scarcely veiled terms, that male adolescent criminals should be dealt with more ruthlessly. He told us of the number of his constituents who complain to him. In many areas of Belfast, because of the breakdown in police morale, because of their lack of numbers and resources, and because they are not welcome in certain areas, the police are being ruthlessly supplanted by the sort of people who present themselves at Mr Ervine's constituency office.

We all know the tales of people who come to the UDA and the UVF or their political representatives, or to the IRA to talk about anti-social behaviour. That is dealt with in a much more ruthless way than any police force could administer. People who behave in an anti- social manner are taken out, warned and then brutally beaten. If they persist, they are shot in the ankles or the elbows. Those are fundamental joints, and such injuries destroy a person's capacity to make any useful employment contribution to the community in the future.

There is a suggestion that the police should not be doing that job; that other groups, unspecified by Mr Ervine, should take on community policing. No doubt such groups would espouse methods that would be condemned in any civilised society. No doubt they would be effective. Their methods were effective in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Gulags, where thugs administered what passed for justice.

Mr Gerry Kelly is a man not unversed in very serious violence. In a speech that varied between the unintelligible and the incomprehensible, he produced the usual Republican rant. It was the usual old record that the problem is all down to a police force that even in its revised form of the Police Service of Northern Ireland - the RUC having been denigrated, its numbers and morale decimated - is not delivering and ought not to be supported, resourced or funded. Everyone knows that Republicans, and Sinn Féin in particular, have turned wound licking into an art form. They continue to demonstrate their capacity in this form of complaint.

One can understand Monica McWilliams's attitude towards domestic male on female violence. However, much of that is the result of drugs and drink, broken- down relationships, common-law arrangements and having children in the one household with different fathers who are knocked about by drunken males.

I have a great deal of sympathy for what she says, but much of that stems from an unstable political society, rendered more unstable by the effects - contrary to what Dr Birnie said - of the Belfast Agreement.

Will the Member give way?

No, I will not give way. Where we have a police force whose morale has been destroyed, whose sacrifice and service to the public at large have been demeaned, there is a breakdown in morale. The police say: "Why should I go into the lion's den, when I am likely to be attacked on all sides by people now declared to be good and whose only claim to be currently good is that they were once positively and recognisably utterly vile?" However, people speak in a debate like this as if they were a combination of Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King and the local probation officer, and tell us what we all should be doing. They, of course, speak from great knowledge. Many of them were active in the deeds in the past that they currently condemn.

As far as resources are concerned, of course the police need more. Resources will not be the answer to the National Health Service problems in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland, although they will contribute to the answer. They will not be a total answer because reform is a necessity. There is a necessity for acceptance that the basis - and the most fundamental requirement - of any civilised society is the restoration of order. That has been abandoned in Northern Ireland in pursuit of the fruits of the Belfast Agreement. The Belfast Agreement was not a political settlement for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. It was conflict resolution between the British Government and violent Republicanism. That was the reason why paramilitaries on both sides were allowed to do what they were doing and why they continue to do. They had to be kept on board for political reasons, and we are now reaping the whirlwind that the Belfast Agreement and its terms sowed in this community. Until we look fundamentally at the terms of that agreement and what it has produced, we can throw all the resources we like at the problem, but we shall not solve it.

TOP

I largely support the motion as it stands, although I admit that the way in which it is phrased makes that somewhat difficult. Although there is no denying that there has been an extremely serious increase in crime in the past five years in Northern Ireland, in a sense I agree with my party Colleague that to characterise that as an entire breakdown in law and order is perhaps to exaggerate to a degree.

Concerning the contributions made by Ian Paisley Jnr and Robert McCartney, it would be absurd to suggest that the entire problem comes from the Belfast Agreement. Before the Belfast Agreement, Northern Ireland was a lovely place. No one's house was burgled, no one suffered any violence, and there was no crime. It is all the fault of the Belfast Agreement, and the weather has also got worse since 1998. Everything that goes wrong in this society is the fault of the Belfast Agreement. If we had not signed the Belfast Agreement, this would never have happened. That is absurd.

Will the Member give way?

No, not at this point. Try me again. This society endured serious conflict for 30 years. We have moved on from that situation. At any point of resolution of the political situation, it was inevitable that some of those involved in paramilitarism would move towards ordinary crime. Anyone who thinks that any possibility of a resolution of the political problem would not have led to an increase in crime is kidding himself. One followed the other inevitably.

Several paramilitary groups, such as the IRA, the UDA, the UVF and others, continue to be involved in serious crime - there is no doubt about that. There is also a large increase in the involvement of non-paramilitary groups in serious, organised crime in Northern Ireland, and that fact is borne out by senior police officers.

If we are to deal with the subject of the motion, we must agree that it is not simply a matter of allocating resources. Dr Birnie and others made the point that there are more police officers in Northern Ireland than in comparative areas of the UK. For people to suggest that Northern Ireland has a rural spread and, therefore, needs more police officers is ludicrous. Try to explain that to people who live in rural areas of Scotland or England. What - [Interruption].

They were talking about paramilitaries.

There is organised crime in Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, Birmingham
- [Interruption].

Members should address their remarks through the Chair.

It is clear that all areas of the UK have problems with organised crime. It is something that afflicts societies throughout Europe and the United States.

I ask the Member to address the Chair, rather than engage in arguments with other Members.

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Member indicated that he believes that crime has increased in Western Europe. Why, last week in the 'Belfast Telegraph', did he write that, because the situation in Northern Ireland has got so bad, he could no longer advise young people to stay here?

My advice was not based on an increase in crime. It related to the sense that young people have about feeling part of a society in which they are valued, and in which we do not constantly spend our days debating and arguing about petty sectarian squabbles that go back almost 900 years. Frankly, Members such as the Member who just interjected have perpetuated that squabble and continue to perpetuate it. Members such as him will drive young people away from Northern Ireland for many years to come.

I will drive you to the airport, Duncan.

You would need to get a better car.

Dr Birnie made the point that there are a significant number of extra police officers in Northern Ireland. However, the key issue is about how those resources are deployed. One of the faults with policing here is that no attempt has been made to move towards new ideas, such as increasing civilianisation.

In 1995, when I was working for the Police Authority, civilianisation was being tested. Since then, little progress has been made. It must be developed. It is clear that available police officers must be deployed on the ground. They should not be answering phones in inquiry offices, or sitting in collator's offices or process rooms filling in summons forms. Civilians could do those jobs at lesser cost, leaving police officers available for direct policing tasks.

It is important that the Chief Constable and the Northern Ireland Policing Board use the opportunity to persuade the Police Service of Northern Ireland to increase civilianisation and the use of resources.

I accept the valid point that the Member has made. However, would his suggestion include a substantial reduction in the number of police officers who are on duty guarding people, who, if we have a peace process, no longer require to be guarded? An example is the former Chief Constable, Sir John Herman who, I understand, has more officers guarding him than are guarding the entire population between Holywood and Donaghadee.

I could not comment on the exact number of police officers available there. Police officers are still used in static duties, which is concerning. Many senior officers would say that their resources are often severely depleted by the fact that they must assign officers to static tasks such as guarding sangars and looking after VIPs. That is unfortunate. However, in a more stable political society one would hope that that would no longer be necessary.

However, we do not yet live in an entirely stable political society. We are moving towards that, but it will take a long time. I suspect that I will be drawing a pension before we get there.

That is encouraging.

The Member may be drawing an Assembly pension.

That is unlikely. The problems with law and order are not just matters for the police. Other parts of the criminal justice system must take follow-up action. It is important that the courts take a more proactive role. In large measure they have not been as robust as they could have been in sentencing offenders. The police are demoralised and do not want to bother chasing joyriders, because when they are taken to court the magistrates simply slap them on the wrists and tell them not to do it again and that they will see them in six months' time. Such work is pointless for those officers - it demoralises them and renders the entire system a farce. This matter must be examined and raised at Westminster, unfortunately.

Citizens also have an extensive role to play in improving safety and security in society. It is vital that we all play our part.

The Member will draw his remarks to a close.

We can be the eyes of the police service, and we can use community organisations, neighbourhood watch organisations and other legal organisations to ensure that the police are given all the help that they can get.

My party condemns the all-too-evident increase in violent attacks in our community recently. We all know that violence achieves nothing but destruction and that it incites fear, hatred and more violence. I do not need to preach to anyone here about the impact of violence. Unfortunately, we know only too well about that.

In my constituency of South Down it seems that the level of crime and vandalism is increasing and that incidents are standard occurrences at weekends in one or several of the major towns. Almost weekly I receive reports from constituents who have experience of such crime. Young, innocent people are beaten when out for the night; shopkeepers' premises are vandalised; elderly people are robbed and attacked in their homes; and gangs cause disruption and destruction.

On the night of Thursday 17 January, there was a punishment shooting in Rostrevor. One of my party colleagues was attacked on Friday night - the issue was well publicised. On Sunday, the premises of another of my party colleagues were vandalised in Warrenpoint, and on Sunday night, there was an incident involving hooded men and a gun in Ardglass. These incidents are happening in South Down, which has a distinguished record of low figures for such crime. We are not used to such incidents in South Down, and I mention it as an indication of how things are developing, even in an area renowned for its peaceful stability.

I echo the call for resources to enable the PSNI to address effectively this escalating problem. It is no secret that adequate resources and commitment have not been available in recent months. It is also no secret that the level of sickness in the police force has been exceptionally high. In some areas it has caused a 50% reduction in manpower. In my constituency of South Down there is only one police car to cover the distance between the Castlewellan area and Kilkeel. How could one car effectively cover this zone, which is 30 miles wide and stretches some 15 miles either side of Newcastle?

Following the establishment of a fully accountable police service, I expect more resources to be available in areas that require them. Perhaps some thought should be given to an argument that has already been mentioned - the closure of police stations. There has been much debate about that. Surely in modern policing terms we should be looking at the role of police stations very differently. We should not look at them, as they are often viewed, as the last fortified outposts of the empire.

Modern policing demands greater policing involvement with the community and greater flexibility. This could be achieved by, for example, having police desks where people often congregate - in places such as shopping complexes. It will take time to consider the manpower consequences - for example, what it costs to put one police car out on patrol. Manpower should surely be on the streets rather than in police stations dealing with paperwork.

Does the Member agree that a great many resources could be saved if the Government stopped wasting money? For example, £4 million is wasted on recruitment procedures that involve £12,500 being spent on each recruit. Does he accept that this is a waste of money that could be better used in his constituency or mine?

I thank the Member for the interjection. I agree that money should be used to a good end, and money spent on recruitment is being put to a good end because it will produce an acceptable and accountable police service for the whole community. What I am talking about is looking at policing in modern terms, and much could be done by examining the areas I have just mentioned.

Many Members mentioned the breakdown of society. Members should widen their vision and see what is happening. We are moving from a hierarchical social structure into a more modern democratic one, and this has been taking place over several generations.

People talk about the good old days, but I would like to remind people of the last recorded incident of a four-year-old child dying of cirrhosis of the liver on the streets of London. In 1904, 'The Times' reported that the death occurred as a result of the then common practice of slipping children a sip of gin to keep them quiet. Parental problems are as prevalent now as they were in the good old days. The hierarchical social structure was essentially based on the philosophy that humans were intrinsically evil and must be punished on account of that evil. However, we have moved on since then. We are moving towards a democratic social structure, and as we readily accept the logic and rationale for a democratic system, we must develop ways to make it work and provide new thinking, ideas, support and resources. The Assembly has made its wee mark in the debate concerning the appointment of a children's commissioner, which is about to take place. That is the kind of thinking, resources and support that we should offer to help families who are having difficulties with wayward children and in dealing with parental and responsibility issues. We must bear in mind that we are moving towards a new society.

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

TOP

The new society structure may not fully impact on our generation, but it will impact - that is certain. Things are moving in such a way that we will not be able to prevent that impact taking place.

This motion relates to every constituency in Northern Ireland, including my own area of Strangford. Violence, such as shootings, attempted murders, burglaries and assaults, happens almost weekly in Strangford, as is the case in other areas. The most recent attack, on a 92-year-old woman in Newtownards last night, illustrates the sick, depraved and barbaric mentality of some who are loose in society.

There has always been crime in Northern Ireland, but the crime rate in my constituency and across the Province is on the up. That has been more visible than ever in recent years. We all saw the terrible incidents in North Belfast of recent months, however criminal and paramilitary activity is not exclusive to that constituency - it is everywhere. What can we do to stop it?

Although I welcome the chance to raise the issue in the Assembly, the Alliance Party, which tabled the motion, is either extremely naive or immensely hypocritical to suggest that it is shocked and surprised by such a breakdown in law and order. For example, the police require more resources and manpower, yet Patten is reducing the number of police officers by 700 every year and is recruiting only 300 a year. One does not have to be a mathematician to see the shortcomings of that method. Although 25% to 35% of officers on duty at any given time are full-time reserve staff, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and others want the removal of the full-time reserve, which comprises 3,000 officers. I call on those parties to support the retention of those experienced police officers.

I intend to stick rigidly to the motion, but it is important that we examine the causes of the rise in lawlessness in Northern Ireland. We need to ascertain what is fuelling the anarchy, and how, as elected representatives, we can help to stop it from destroying society. I condemn unreservedly those responsible for the recent terrible murders, shootings, bombings and punishment beatings here. Those who carry out such murderous and evil attacks are not interested in democracy or morality - nor will they ever be. Rather, they enjoy the power that they wield in their communities by terrorising local people.

I ask the Member to keep the link between what she is presenting and the motion.

I am trying to paint a picture, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you will bear with me. Other Members who contributed to the debate strayed considerably from the motion. My points are appropriate.

I must admit, much as it pains me, that the culprits are successful in their evil intentions. The sad reality is that people are frightened. They are afraid to inform the police about the activities of those anti-social scumbags. The parties that supported the Belfast Agreement, and those who voted for them, did so, in some cases, because they genuinely thought that it would achieve peace. Those of us who opposed the process from the beginning - and who have been proven to be accurate in our analysis - believed that the appeasement of terrorists and the pollution of democracy would end only in tears.

I do not claim that everything that goes wrong, or all that is bad in Northern Ireland, is as a result of the Belfast Agreement. However, much of what is wrong in society has been caused by the effect of the Belfast Agreement on our community. Who here today will deny that the release of terrorists from jail, the placing of their representatives in Government and the concession to all their demands is having a negative effect on our community? If violence and terror are rewarded, others will believe that that activity pays. Unfortunately, that is part of the problem.

We must not forget that the deteriorating numbers, morale and effectiveness of the police in Northern Ireland have contributed a good deal to our present position. My party opposed Patten and the planned destruction of the RUC, because those provisions were contained in the Belfast Agreement. Unfortunately, the executioner's axe was held over the RUC for some time, until finally it fell upon the force last year.

Morale among officers is understandably low today. Can anyone blame them for that? They stood against anarchy for 30 years, to be rewarded only with destruction. That is something that many of us would find hard to cope with. The recommendations of the Patten Report also severely damaged the effectiveness of the police service - reducing numbers and running down the Reserve, and Special Branch - and have played a part in undermining policing in Northern Ireland.

The police are now seriously undermanned, resulting in the force's being overwhelmed by the rise in crime. There simply are not enough police officers to effectively deal with every crime that is happening on our streets. They are stretched to the limit, and we must address that now. How can we, as political representatives, help to stop this criminal and paramilitary activity? We must ensure that the police have the money, the manpower and the will to go after the criminals and the terrorists who plague our community. We must secure the necessary funds from Government to help to put law and order back on the streets and reclaim our cities, towns and villages from criminal elements.

We must stop the closure of our police stations, because that is having a negative effect on ordinary people who look to local stations for help when they experience a crisis on their doorstep. We must also put our own house in order. What kind of example are we setting, when people who still hold on to their weapons are represented in Government? We must show people that democracy is still paramount in Northern Ireland. Only those who are committed to democracy, who reject violence and terrorism and who have no private armies at their beck and call can be in the Government. The sooner we realise that mistakes have been made - and then start to rectify them - the sooner that some normality can be brought about.

I support the motion, but I point out the obvious faults that lie in the proposers' reasoning on it. The breakdown in law and order has happened for numerous reasons - rewarding terrorists, running down the effectiveness of the police force and a polluted political system have all contributed to the current situation. It is up to the people here to decide whether they will set things right or keep the status quo.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. My party will not be supporting the motion, because it has more to do with trying to promote the credibility of the RUC - the PSNI - than addressing the serious problems of the breakdown in our value system. The motion lumps together several different problems, and then fails to make the connections with solutions. The solution is not to throw more finances at the RUC. The solution is to make the Good Friday Agreement work. The motion has more to do with the politics of the Alliance Party than the serious problems that are contained in our society at the moment. If we, and everyone else, are sincere, then we should be about trying to address violent attacks, and we should be trying to understand how a society coming from conflict, and being swept along in the great social experiment called "modern living", with its consumer values, is affecting us.

All the traditional value carriers in our society have gone underground. We have chucked the baby out with the bathwater. The influence that shapes our lives and the lives of our young people is greed, as dictated by market forces. In addition, we are part of a society in which the culture of sectarianism has been reinforced by law and order and paramilitary policing.

The attacks on postal workers, teachers and others in the public sector are sectarian in nature, and the motion does not address that. We must ask ourselves whether Unionist and Loyalist politicians are confident that they are doing enough in their own communities - where these attacks are coming from - or whether they are preoccupied with attempting to blame Republicans for everything that is wrong in our society.

The attacks on our ambulances, bus and train personnel and the fire brigade - who are inexplicably not included in the motion - as well as the elderly are a different matter. The drunkenness and the violence associated with those attacks are mere extensions of a wider catharsis in our society.

There is a sense that these people have become easy targets and that respect for these highly praised services and traditions has broken down.

The answer is not to pour money into a police force that does not have the confidence of our communities. We must examine issues such as the criminal justice system, how it responds and how it did so in the past, when law and order involved the abuse of power. The law was used to discriminate against Catholic Nationalists and to support paramilitary policing. Sinn Féin trusts that the criminal justice review, to which it has made a substantial submission, will recommend profound changes to the legal system to address criminality.

Sinn Féin does not support the police force as it is currently constituted. Our position is clear on the British Government's failure to implement the Good Friday Agreement and the Patten recommendations, which proposed the threshold for a new beginning and a police service based on a human rights ethos.

Special Branch hinders investigations of violent crime and inquiries into the deaths of almost 400 people who were murdered as a result of its collusion with paramilitary organisations. It uses criminals and hoods to further its political agenda, and that concerns us.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>