Mr Speaker, you spoke in a fitting and effective way, on behalf of the House, in paying tribute to the enormous contribution that Sir John Gorman has made to the Assembly. It is just one further instalment in his distinguished contribution to public life, both to the Assembly and to the people of Northern Ireland. Sir John brought colour and humour to the Chair. He is a man with no sides to him - he deals with everyone in a straightforward manner. He is a man of honour in his dealings with all parties and with all Members of the House.

I shall miss him in the Chair. I have missed him in the Chair in the past, especially when he has been asking me questions from the Floor. He will be missed in the future. Members understand and appreciate the circumstances that force him to concentrate more on looking after himself and his constituents than on looking after all of us in the Chamber. We appreciate Sir John's distinctive contribution. We look forward to continuing to work with him and to enjoying his full membership of the House.

I wish to associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, and those of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It is a long time since I first met Sir John in the famous town of Ballymena, which he knew very well. He was a distinguished police officer there. However, he never had the privilege of arresting me.

I knew him well. I remember when he was chairman of the Housing Executive. He visited a certain housing estate. Many of his co-religionists lived on that housing estate. We had an interesting time. Many times, we have exchanged some of the wonderful things that were said to him as chairman of the Housing Executive and some of the more wonderful things that were said about me as Member of Parliament for the area. That was an interesting time.

I sat under his chairmanship of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue with great pleasure. I remember the day when he told us that, in his time as a police officer, he always liked to have the sun shining into the eyes of those whom he was questioning. He looked down at the DUP side of the House and said that the sun is shining in the eyes of those men today. I never forgot that.

Sir John did extremely well as Chairman of the Forum. The DUP had its differences with him, as it has had in his time as a Deputy Speaker of the Assembly. However, there has never been any personal friction between us. We have had a warm, personal relationship. The House will be thinking of him and praying for him in the near future. I hope that, as Father of the House, he will be in the Chamber in the coming days to speak a fatherly word to us. The scriptures say that the Father chasteneth thee. Sir John did not chasten us too often. We respected the hand that wielded the cane.

I endorse the comments that have been expressed to Sir John and wish him well on behalf of Sinn Féin. The party expresses its gratitude for the sense of duty with which Sir John Gorman has carried out his work in the Chamber and in the Assembly since its inception. I agree with the Speaker's comments that when Sir John Gorman has met people from outside the Building, such as visitors from overseas, he has always represented the entire Assembly with aplomb, dignity, balance and not without a little style of his own. I share in the sentiments that wish him well in the near future. We are disappointed that he is unable to finish this session as Deputy Speaker. He has done the job to the very best of his ability and has treated everyone here with the respect that they all deserve as elected representatives. I hope that he will be able to spend a little more time as an elected representative and, of course, with his family.

I also associate my party and myself with the sentiments expressed by you, Mr Speaker, and by other Members. It is unnecessary to repeat all that has been said about Sir John to endorse the tributes that others have paid. His work as a Deputy Speaker of the Assembly, which follows on from his work in the Forum, was a cap to a distinguished career of public service, a career that has been outlined in considerable detail.

Members of the Alliance Party opposition awkward squad on these Benches created certain difficulties for Sir John, as indeed they did for others in the Chair at times. Unfailingly, he responded to us with the courtesy, good humour and good manners that we know to be Sir John. I trust that he never took it personally - he certainly never gave the impression that he did. He always gave the impression that he could deal with whatever brickbats were thrown at him in a way utterly befitting of any Deputy Speaker of any body.

On behalf of the Alliance Party, I add our good wishes to Sir John for the future. We shall miss him in the Chair, but we shall enjoy his contributions from the Back Benches.

On behalf of the Northern Ireland Unionist Party, I identify with the comments that have been made about Sir John on his retirement as Deputy Speaker. I got to know Sir John at the Forum. Indeed, my lasting memory of him was on a visit to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. We had the pleasure of accompanying him on the coach from the airport to Strasbourg. Sir John gave a running commentary about his wartime exploits, when the Germans were routed from the city of Strasbourg during the second world war, to which he made an amazing contribution. It was a memorable trip and coloured my view of the calibre and stature of Sir John Gorman. I wish him a quiet time on the Back Benches and all the very best for his future in the Assembly.

I concur with everything that has been said. It seems to me that Sir John Gorman's heart is good. It is not that long ago that I met him in politics. His dignity and integrity are absolute. I consider him, if he will allow me the luxury, not only to be a Colleague, but a friend. In many of the comments that I have heard, whether in public or in private, he is eminently a man of reconciliation.

I am not about to commiserate his passing from the Deputy Speaker's Chair, other than to celebrate that I have known him as a Colleague, and I know that he will be on the Back Benches. As the Father of the House, he may have some advice for us all.

On behalf of the Women's Coalition, I voice our appreciation for Sir John's role as Deputy Speaker. He brought dignity and honour to the Chair, and he will be sorely missed. While we appreciate him for his work, we welcome him to the Back Benches, both as Father of the House and as a friend. The most fitting tribute to him is that there are absolutely no back doors in Sir John.

I join with others who have expressed good wishes for Sir John. I first made his acquaintance many years ago, perhaps as many as 55 years ago - when I did not know really who Sir John was - as a reader of a boys' magazine called 'The Champion'. The magazine had little vignettes of people who had done very special things in the war, and one of them featured John Gorman. I am not sure whether he was Captain or Lieutenant John Gorman, but he was certainly in charge of a tank. He came to the conclusion that his tank was not quite as well armed as the German Tiger tank and if he stood off he would not have been here in any other form. So, according to the account in 'The Champion', he ran his tank forward, jammed the gun of the much heavier tank so that it could not revolve and blow him to smithereens, and thus escaped to enjoy longevity and a period as Deputy Speaker of this House.

Having escaped from the Axis powers into another - some people might say - nest of vipers - [Interruption].

Speak for yourself.

Well, some people are more viperous than others. [Laughter].

Having survived all that, he has entertained us with his companionship and, I have to say, a certain degree of eccentricity from time to time, but all of it has been in good part, and we shall certainly miss him in his role as Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt, however, that he will continue to puzzle many of us from the Back Benches, and we wish him everything of good fortune in the future.

Mr Speaker and leaders of all the parties here, I cannot tell you how much all this means to me. I sometimes wonder, when I listen to all these things, who it is that you are talking about. Some of you have used a little more hyperbole than I deserve.

I am particularly pleased today that I have my dear wife with me - she is up in the Gallery - because she has had to suffer an awful lot of inconvenience, irritation and possibly boredom in listening to my tales of all of you when I got home. I promise you that, generally speaking, you all came out of it pretty well, and I am sure that she will think of you all now as the rather backward, bashful but affectionate crowd that you really are - and you really are, as far as I am concerned.

I think that you should know that today I met the surgeon who is going to do the great job on me, and - could you believe it - he has the splendid name of Gladstone. I asked him about home rule, and he looked a bit abashed because he is an Englishman - but he was pretty bullish about my chances, and I hope that I will be able to be back with you all in a matter of possibly eight or nine weeks.

I really feel that nothing that I could say would be appropriate at all to end my little thank you to you, other than to say how very happy I have been in the Ulster Unionist Party and how much I have been given support and attention by all its members, in particular by its leader, and to say also of the Speaker that we are very lucky indeed to have such a man at our head in conducting our affairs. Every one of you has been a friend as well as a Colleague to me, and I thank you. As Betty Boothroyd said a little time ago - and I am not going to quite say it - "time is up". Thank you. [Applause].

To Sir John and Lady Gorman, our very best wishes, and our prayers for Mr Gladstone and the deftness of his hands.

TOP

General Amnesty for Offences for Those "On The Run"

I wish to advise the House that, as three amendments have been selected and published on the Marshalled List, we shall have to address the question of the amendments, how to handle them appropriately and the time limits.

There are three amendments; the first is in the name of members of the SDLP; the second is in the name of members of the DUP; and the third is in the name of members of the Ulster Unionist Party. They are in that order because that is the order in which they come in the motion. If amendment No 1 is moved, debated, voted upon and passed, it will amend the motion as outlined. Amendment No 2 can then be taken and if it were passed would amend the motion as amended by amendment No 1. If amendment No 2 is passed, amendment No 3 falls because the part of the motion to which it refers will no longer be in place. I remind Members of that so that, when they are considering how to vote, they will understand those facts.

I propose to allocate 10 minutes to the Member who is moving the motion and six minutes for the winding-up. Each person moving an amendment will have seven minutes to open and five minutes for the winding-up. All other Members will have five minutes in which to speak to ensure that as many Members as possible can speak in the time-limited debate. However, I realise that many Members may wish to speak for longer and that many Members who might like to will not be able to speak.

I beg to move

I speak as a member of the Alliance Party and as someone who once worked with exiles.

The Government's proposals for dealing with so-called "on the runs" constitute a general amnesty for all offences committed by paramilitaries associated with organisations that are recognised as observing a ceasefire before April 1998.

The British and Irish Governments introduced the proposal following the Weston Park talks last year. The stated intention is not to pursue outstanding prosecutions. However, that term has not been defined, nor has a list of those eligible been published. In practice, people who have not yet been prosecuted for an offence are technically on the run, irrespective of whether they are in or outside Northern Ireland or whether the authorities are suspicious of them. Such distinctions will not stand up, even if the Government seek to make them do so. It is a general amnesty.

In a statement to the House of Commons on 24 October 2001, the Secretary of State committed the Government to implementing this package, including the amnesty proposals, in its entirety. He stated that it was the Government's intention to address the issue by March 2002. However, they have not yet published the full details of the proposals.

It is opportune, therefore, that the issue be debated now, and I am happy to note that the other parties have finally wakened up to the issue. I may not agree with their amendments, but, nonetheless, I welcome them. My Colleague David Ford will deal with them later. It is also opportune to be able to make clear how the proposal will cause enormous hurt to the victims of numerous atrocities and undermine both the rule of law and any sense of justice.

In comparison, it is important to note that all prisoners who have been released were convicted in a court of law and thus had their deeds publicly noted. Furthermore, they are released on a licence that can be revoked if further offences are committed. The Alliance Party recognises that the issue of people "on the run" must be addressed. However, the current proposals are not a logical extension of the agreement; they are a quantum leap forward.

No one has been brought to account for a great number of the atrocities of the past 30 years. The interests and views of victims have been neglected during this process, and the failure to seek prosecutions will only increase victims' sense of hurt. However, the most stunning aspect of these proposals is probably their complete failure to address the situation of those exiled from Northern Ireland by paramilitaries from all sides. Those who have been exiled are not facing conviction and imprisonment, but a death sentence.

In addressing this complicated and sensitive subject, I quote the Prime Minister's words from the debate in the House of Commons last week.

There was a general consensus in the debate in Westminster Hall that the issues must be dealt with quickly. In addition, several Members expressed concern about the fact that the issue of exiles had been allowed to drift. As my friend and former peace train colleague Prof Liam Kennedy said

As with the issue of victims, the two Governments have let paramilitary groups and their related political parties off the hook of playing their part to ensure that violence of all kinds ceases. If we all support the democratic peace process, we must work together as colleagues to eradicate all fear and intimidation from society. We must join with organisations such as the Maranatha Community and NIACRO, with its Base2 programme, to encourage Parliament to force concerted action. That would enable families that have been expelled or forced out of their homes and who wish to return to do so safely. I have worked with all those organisations in different ways, and I know the trauma, heartbreak and terror that families and young men have suffered and are suffering still. In the main they were not expelled because a community wanted it, as has been alleged. People were exiled because certain members of a community wanted it. These people see themselves as law enforcers and appoint themselves as such. They make the decisions and carry out the punishments, which, as we know, include horrific beatings followed by exile.

It is not right to say, as a Sinn Feín Member did last week, that if we had an acceptable police force, we would not have this problem. In my experience, paramilitary groups made their decisions about many youths who were already being dealt with by the police and the legal system, decisions made solely to demonstrate their influence and power in the communities.

If Sinn Feín is really concerned about policing, it has the solution in its hands. Its members should join the Policing Board and help to address the wrongs that they perceive, instead of standing outside and complaining.

As Members know, I come from west Belfast. It is only since the Provisional IRA began to exert its illegal influence that the RUC started to be discredited there. The police are not, and were not, perfect. However, they are making strong attempts to deal with the problem, while Sinn Feín and others show no willingness to amend or change their views, work with others or attempt to achieve a balanced and efficient police service to which we can all subscribe.

The Maranatha Community and NIACRO and its Base2 programme can all provide graphic evidence of the trauma and hardship that exiles experience in Northern Ireland and abroad. We read about it every day in the newspapers. We must take note of the overwhelming evidence and listen to their advice that people at all levels must work together to solve the problem. We must also note the finding of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee's report 'Relocation following Paramilitary Intimidation' that a greater degree of focus and co-ordination is needed on the real problem faced by those who deal with people who have been forced from their homes by paramilitary intimidation.

The action plan of the Northern Ireland Executive must be expedited immediately. Furthermore, the British Government must no longer only talk about the problem; they must act to ensure that paramilitaries and their related political parties are involved fully in the process of halting their vile, violent practices.

The number of citizens exiled is increasing, and that is unacceptable. A progressive step would be to make the necessary finance available to develop programmes such as the NIACRO programme for exiles. There must be an end to kangaroo courts and informal justice. I hope that the Security Minister, Jane Kennedy, is right in saying that with goodwill and support from all sides, particularly for the police in Northern Ireland, we will turn the tide. The tide must be turned before it is too late. I would remind her of this, when she speaks against deals being made; deals were made throughout the Good Friday Agreement talks on, for example, policing and ex-prisoners. It was felt that those deals were necessary at that time so that agreement could be reached and peace achieved.

The Minister's comments against the linkage of those two issues would make sense if both were to be given equal priority, which is clearly not the case at the moment. That issue is important as the Maranatha Community stated in item 16 of its report:

On a personal note, my husband and I were exiled twice, and not because of antisocial acts, unless a mixed marriage or helping different communities to work together amounts to antisocial behaviour.

It would be incredible if the Government proceeded with an amnesty for paramilitaries before first ensuring that those paramilitaries lift the threats against those whom they have exiled. It is not too late for the Government to reconsider their proposals and to put them forward in a manner that might just be more acceptable - although I am not sure about that. If the Government must proceed down this road, they must at least require those seeking an amnesty to apply individually, appear before a court and admit to the offences where appropriate. They then could be placed on licence with suspended sentences, thereby providing safeguards in the event of further offences - the same system used for ex-prisoners. This approach would be more consistent with the agreement and would provide some small sense of justice and consolation for the victims.

Will the Member please draw her remarks to a close?

I sincerely hope that the Government do not ignore our debate, the debate at Westminster, or the report. Violence must no longer be a festering wound; instead it should become a dim memory.

I beg to move amendment No 1: In line 2, delete "a general" and insert "an"; In line 2, after "for" insert "certain"; In line 3, delete after "goes" to "spirit" and insert "beyond the requirements"; and in line 4, delete all after the first "and" to end, and insert:

The SDLP has long been an advocate for human rights, and will continue to be so. It does not see human rights as some sort of cynical political tool, but rather as something precious that must be established firmly in the community and embedded in the very foundations of our new political order. Human rights must be applied universally, not selectively. Everybody is entitled to enjoy human rights and both state and citizen are obliged to uphold and respect them.

Thus, when paramilitaries offend basic human rights by killing or injuring people, they, like the state when it offends human rights, are obliged to acknowledge and give a full account of their actions to society at large and to victims and their families in particular. It is not for Republican paramilitaries to ignore their human rights abuses and seek a selective, limited amnesty exclusive to themselves. They are not entitled to benefit from a process from which other people are excluded. The origins of this "on the run" amnesty proposal is shrouded in secrecy, but it would appear that it arose around May 2000 when the Republican movement was engaged in a separate negotiation process with the British Government on decommissioning.

What was agreed was unclear. However, last year, at Weston Park, the issue became public and part of a side bar deal between Republicans and the British and Irish Governments. The SDLP was not party to that deal, and it advised both Governments that it was extraneous to the Good Friday Agreement. It was a separate deal by Republicans for the benefit of Republicans. It was a self-serving deal to satisfy their internal political needs.

The selfishness and the arrogance of the Republican movement are exemplified in that deal. The movement is impervious to the greater needs of the whole community. We should be victim-centred. Victims in society must be acknowledged. The victims - Catholic and Protestant - of Republican violence must be acknowledged and affirmed. This proposal does nothing to acknowledge those victims and their deep hurt, a hurt that continues to pain many people.

That pain will continue to hurt unless there is some form of closure. That is why the SDLP amendment asks that further consideration be given to a mechanism for human rights abusers to acknowledge and give full account of their actions to victims and to the community. It is to be hoped that such a mechanism can acknowledge victims and can serve as a form of public accountability for all in society and for all human rights abusers. It is to be hoped that closure can then be achieved so that the victims - some of whom are alienated from the peace process and from the new political structures - can embrace the new political dispensation.

It is surely right that those who have been exiled by paramilitary groups, especially by Republican paramilitary groups, should be able to return to their homes and their homeland without fear, without let or hindrance. If paramilitaries seek an amnesty for themselves, surely it is common justice to grant an amnesty to those who were expelled by paramilitaries? Not to do so is rank hypocrisy.

Leaving aside the issue of amnesty, and leaving aside the motion tabled by the Alliance Party, the issue of the exiled stands on its own. Those who have been exiled by illegal paramilitary groups have the right to return at any time under the new political dispensation. To deny them that right is to deny them their human rights, because it is a violation of human rights to prevent people from enjoying their home and homeland. Even if the motion had not been moved, a fundamental injustice has been carried out against the exiled. It is right and proper that the House disapproves of that. Those who are responsible for expelling those people have a duty to say to them - especially in the present political circumstances - "Yes, come home. Yes, you have a right to come home, and, yes, you will be unharmed. We, the political representatives of the Republican - or Loyalist - movement, guarantee you that right to come home and live free from harm."

TOP

I beg to move amendment No 2: Delete all after "1998" and insert

At the outset of this debate, Mrs Eileen Bell, the deputy leader of the Alliance Party, said it was absolutely incredible that the Government would bring forward the proposal that they have. The Alliance Party's motion is absolutely incredible. It is both contradictory and unworkable. That is why the DUP has tabled its amendment.

The motion claims that the Government's proposal goes beyond the Belfast Agreement. However, it goes on to endorse what the Belfast Agreement has done and to endorse the proposal that the Alliance Party says goes beyond the Belfast Agreement. Despite saying that it is inconsistent with justice, the Alliance Party goes ahead and supports the proposal. It supports it by suggesting that the way round it is probably to inflict another injustice and turn the due process of law and order on its head.

The suggestion that criminals should confess guilt and then be sentenced and licensed without a trial is inconsistent with any notion of justice or fair play, no matter who those people happen to be. The biggest contradiction came when Eileen Bell told us of the problems that she personally went through, with which we sympathise. She then suggested that we go to the people who put her and her family through that and seek an assurance from those criminals that they will now be nice people. We cannot, and should not, support such a proposal.

The amendment put forward by the SDLP still proposes an amnesty. The DUP opposes it for that reason. Mr Alban Maginness said that the amnesty was a "sidebar deal". I studied the papers emanating from Weston Park, and I did not see one word of condemnation from the SDLP of the communiqué issued by the two Governments at that time. If it was a sidebar deal, why did that party not condemn it at that time? Why did it then want to be associated with that sidebar deal? That is exactly what it did.

My party's amendment is consistent with the principles of justice and fairness. It seeks to withdraw the shameful offer of amnesty, to deliver complete decommissioning of terrorist weapons and to bring to justice those responsible for terror in Northern Ireland. No one in the Chamber should be opposed to those principles. It is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland to ensure that people are brought to justice for their heinous crimes. It is in their interest that we should not have a "get out of jail free" card for people who have not yet even been convicted for those crimes. It is workable, and it should be backed by every right-thinking person in the Chamber. To do otherwise is a further concession to terrorism in Northern Ireland.

An amendment will be proposed by the leader of the Official Unionist Party. He has little backing in the Chamber today. Although the first sentence of the UUP amendment backs part of the DUP's amendment, it is a denial that the hand of that party's leader is all over the offer that was made at Weston Park in the first instance. Let us face it: whether that party likes it or not, the amnesty is consistent with the spirit of an agreement that lets people out of jail free.

The people who would benefit from this are the same sort of people who tried to perpetrate an atrocious act in Coalisland yesterday. According to one newspaper, they got out of jail free in the first instance under the terms of the Belfast Agreement. The people who voted for that should hang their heads in shame today when they consider that the people whom they let out of jail free are probably engaged in continual terrorism.

This amnesty is a direct result of the Weston Park talks. David Trimble went to those talks claiming that decommissioning was the only issue to be resolved, yet he came away from those talks with proposals that weaken policing, were designed to demolish security and, most obnoxious of all, put on the table an offer of an amnesty to further terrorism.

Let us look briefly at the communiqué that those parties supported and did not condemn at the time. The British Government said that both Governments recognised that there was an issue to be addressed with the completion of the early release of prisoners. That means that it was not complete when the prisoners got out. It had to be addressed because other prisoners had to get out. The communiqué went on to say that only those organisations signed up to ceasefires should benefit. Ceasefires have been meaningless. Since 1998, 99 people have been murdered by the same paramilitaries who are supposed to be signed up to a ceasefire.

According to the communiqué, the general amnesty would be a natural development. What would that natural development be? People engaged in terrorism and not yet convicted should be, in the words of the communiqué, no longer pursued. That is what they signed up to, and that is what their fingerprints are all over. Not only are Mr Trimble's fingerprints over it, his friend, Mr Donaldson, is also culpable because he was there as well. They signed up to it, agreed it and supported it at that time.

Let us consider the people who would benefit from such a terrible scheme: Charlie Caufield, who was wanted in connection with the Enniskillen bomb; Michael Rogan, who was wanted for the Lisburn bomb; Michael Dixon, who was wanted for the 1996 mortar bomb attack in Germany; Liam Averill, the well-known transvestite who escaped from the Maze Prison; Owen Carron; Robert Campbell; and Dermot Finucane.

My Colleague reminds me that the La Mon House Hotel bombing took place 24 years ago this Sunday. A Member of the House was questioned in relation to that bombing. Nothing would now come of that because all those heinous acts of terrorism would be put to one side.

I must remind the House that in the 'Belfast Telegraph' on 1 August 2001 the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party said that the document's other proposals would be irrelevant in the absence of decommissioning. Given that there has been no decommissioning, I hope that people realise that David Trimble was wrong then when he said that this would be irrelevant. It is not irrelevant; it has come to fruition now, and I hope that the House supports the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No 3: In line 5, delete all the words after "this Assembly" and insert:

I congratulate the Alliance Party in tabling the motion and for bringing the matter before the House. This is a serious matter. I will disagree with some of the terms of the motion, but that does not detract from the fact that it has brought this serious matter before the House. Other Members will also appreciate the significance of having a situation where the Alliance Party, who are not noted as opponents of proposals coming from the Northern Ireland Office, clearly condemns these proposals in unequivocal terms, and that is a good thing. I will offer what I think is a better way forward, but it is important to congratulate the Alliance Party for bringing forward the motion.

I am not clear about what the Government's precise proposals are, and I would be delighted if other Members were in a position to inform us about that. We have had several suggestions. Mr Paisley Jnr read a paragraph from the Weston Park communiqué, but that document was not clear about what was being proposed. It has been said that it is about legislation to deal with people who are "on the run". That is not the same as a general amnesty. A general amnesty would refer to all offences that had occurred, and would benefit people whether or not they are "on the run". However, that is not being proposed.

Part of the reason that we have not seen proposals emerge so far is that there is great difficulty in defining something that would relate to the handful of individuals who are "on the run", and not relate to others who are not. Anything that relates to a specific group will come into the category of private legislation; it would not be a general public act. There are considerable technical problems in bringing forward such legislation. We do not yet know precisely what the provision is.

In so far as there is any argument in favour of dealing with people "on the run", the case presented is that people who are not "on the run" by virtue of having had their cases dealt with under existing legislation can now live in Northern Ireland and move about freely, whereas those who are "on the run" and have not had their cases dealt with are in a disadvantageous position.

In so far as there is a problem, it can be dealt with. Those who are "on the run" can come back, surrender themselves to the police, go before the courts and apply for early release under the early release scheme. Existing legislation provides for such cases to be dealt with. The Alliance Party's need for people to acknowledge their guilt in court can be met. There is also a provision for those offenders to be treated in the same way as others. An important general point is that the persons referred to should not gain any privilege over others, and should be treated exactly as others have been treated since the agreement.

Any measure that would apply only to terrorists who were "on the run", whether they came from one group, several groups or all groups, would be repugnant. Many in Northern Ireland would find a one-sided amnesty morally repugnant. The Government do not understand the strength of people's distaste for the proposals that they are introducing.

Mr Paisley Jnr's comments were, as usual, erroneous. Before, during and after Weston Park, and every time that the issue has arisen, we have urged the Government strongly not to follow that course.

Rubbish.

The Member might not believe it, but it is true.

Order.

Those who advance their political careers through distortion and deceit can make any comment they choose. The facts speak for themselves. We have, at every occasion, advised the Government not to go down that course. We have said that it would be legally and morally wrong. Furthermore, if the Government take that course, it will do them enormous damage not only in the eyes of people in Northern Ireland but in the eyes of people in the United Kingdom generally. The Government know that the Ulster Unionist Party would fight such a proposal at every stage through Parliament.

Order.

I speak in the knowledge that the actions of my Colleagues and myself in Parliament will carry much more weight than the comments of the Members in the corner, who are conspicuous by their absence and their ineffectiveness on those issues - [Interruption].

Order. The Member is entitled to be heard.

The SDLP amendment does not condemn clearly the amnesty proposal. Therefore, my party could not support it. The DUP amendment, on the other hand, contains the usual posturing, sets out an unreal position and does not engage with the existing situation. However, my party's amendment would deal with amnesty and provide for the operation of the judicial process. Furthermore, it would remind those parties that are related to paramilitary organisations of their commitments to the Mitchell principles, which deal with the continuing use of paramilitary violence, and, by extension, the issue of exiles. For that reason, Mr Deputy Speaker, I propose amendment No 3.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The issue of the "on the runs", as they have been called, is not, as the Alliance Party would argue, one of a general amnesty. The British Army, the RUC and the UDR have had a general amnesty for the past 30 years. The issue relates to the anomalies resulting from the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement. The proposals will sort out such anomalies, and are precisely in line with the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement and the logic of a peace process and a conflict resolution process.

Political prisoners have been released under the Good Friday Agreement. That was agreed, negotiated and voted on. In other words, we agreed that that would be the outcome. Anyone who is pursued, arrested, charged and sentenced, and who is a member of an organisation that is on cessation, would be similarly released. That is a colossal waste of time and money. However, that is not the key issue.

Any such pursuit of those individuals is fraught with dangers for the peace process. Can that be the intention of the proposers of the motion? I suspect not. However, it is the intention of those in the Unionist community who belong to the "No" camp. It is their intention to find, manufacture and exploit every opportunity to damage the peace process. For that reason, Sinn Féin is critical of the approach taken by the Alliance Party.

Sinn Féin's approach as a pro-agreement party is governed by the logic of a conflict resolution process. The matter will be resolved as a result of our engagement with the British Government. No other party has sought to resolve this matter, and no other party has brought forward any realistic proposals to resolve it. The issue challenges those who claim to be in the pro-agreement camp, because it must be dealt with and resolved. There is no benefit to any community in pussyfooting around. The issue must be resolved as part of a conflict resolution process. It is interesting to contrast the opinions of the proposers of the motion and of the amendments with their silence about the British Army, the UDR, the RIR, the RUC or MI5 - no calls for court appearances there.

The SDLP surrendered on Patten's minimum requirement for those who would be transferring directly from the RUC. That is shameful given the RUC's clear track record of involvement in orchestrating murder campaigns, collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries and abuse of the civil rights of the Nationalist community over many years. I want to refute, on the record, Eileen Bell's revisionist comment that there was a time when the RUC enjoyed the support of the Nationalist community. Never in its history did the RUC enjoy the support of the Nationalist community. In the earliest years of its existence it reached the princely height of 19% support, and it plummeted from that point.

The RUC's track record compelled parties such as Alliance and the SDLP to make clear their position that if there were a general amnesty for the perpetrators of such nefarious activities as collusion with Loyalist murder squads or the orchestration of murder campaigns, they should also be brought to the attention of those who talk about justice. However, we find that the old agenda has "not gone away, you know". The old agenda is to close your eyes, institutionalise state violence and not to talk about it. Do not talk about the war if it means talking about the British Army, the RUC or the UDR. Do not talk about the war in those circumstances, but talk about Loyalists and the IRA - they are safe subjects.

Thus, we find the lopsided debate that has characterised those parties' approach to the peace process. In such circumstances, those people will be held to account by a community that will judge their double standards, and by a community that knows that if we are to have the truth, we must have the whole truth. If we talk about people being held to account, we must ensure that everyone is held to account, including the security services.

TOP

My party will not be supporting the motion standing in the name of the Alliance Party. As usual, the Alliance Party has almost got it right. It looked at the situation and no doubt reflected a view, even among its supporters, who, as Mr Trimble pointed out, are not known for their strong Unionist views or traditions.

This agreement, and the amnesty that is being proposed as part of the Belfast Agreement, are so obnoxious that even the soft-bellied, slightly green Alliance Party has difficulty keeping the decent ordinary people who normally support it along the tracks of agreeing that this was what they signed up to in the Belfast Agreement.

The Alliance Party got it right at the start of the motion by saying that this is inconsistent with justice and international practice. Everyone throughout the United Kingdom, and perhaps throughout Europe and further afield, knows that the stark reality is that Northern Ireland faced a 30-year terrorist campaign, yet President Bush and the Prime Minister tell us that they will carry out a programme of terrorising the terrorist and of making sure that there is nowhere for them to rest their feet. Northern Ireland has perhaps suffered most, certainly in Europe, yet the final indignity for the victims and the families of those who have been maimed and murdered by these terrorists is that the terrorists will now be given an amnesty. No doubt Mr Trimble is aware that this will be a total amnesty for all terrorist acts before 1998.

The Alliance Party got it right when it said that this was an affront to decency and democracy. However, it got it wrong when it said that this process and the Weston Park proposal had nothing to do with the Belfast Agreement and that it was not in the agreement. The Alliance Party must be aware that the first item on the agenda of the Belfast Agreement was the release of all unreconstructed terrorists - terrorists who had shown neither repentance nor sorrow for their crimes - and then to place the frontmen of those organisations into the heart of Government in Northern Ireland and to set about - with the complete acquiescence of Mr Trimble and his party - the destruction of the force that stood between the decent ordinary citizen, Catholic, Protestant, Unionist and Nationalist, and the men of terror represented by Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we hear Mr Trimble's denial of Weston Park and that he had signed up to it. [Interruption].

Order.

We are aware that after the Weston Park talks Mr Trimble and even Mr Ervine, who represents the PUP and who fronts the Loyalist paramilitaries, said that Weston Park was a bridge too far and that they could not endorse it. Mr Trimble's fingerprints are indisputably on the Weston Park document. When he came back he set about one of the demands on the 23-point plan of Weston Park; that was Mr Trimble's part of the deal. The bit that he had to implement was to put back in office - by signing the necessary papers for the North/South Ministerial Council - Mr McGuinness and Ms de Brún. He complied with the British Government.

He also sat by while the final nail was put in the coffin of the RUC, and he watched the military posts come down. Every item on the IRA wish list of Weston Park has been gradually fulfilled. Mr Trimble now tells us that he will stand against this. If he wants to show the true nature of his opposition to this - and this applies to all the Unionists who participate in the Executive with Sinn Féin - he can tell the British Government that the day they introduce this legislation he and his Colleagues and all the Ministers represented in the Executive will no longer give any credibility to the House or to allow this charade to go on.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>