I come to the nonsense suggested by the Alliance Party that - on the word of Sinn Féin/IRA - these exiles can be bartered; that we can bring these people back and that they will come to no harm. No Unionist could believe any commitment made by Mr McGuinness, as there was a lady in the Bogside whose son was taken across the border -

Your time is up.

Mr McGuinness gave him a safe guarantee, yet he was murdered. This is an absolute nonsense.

Mr Wilson, your time is up.

Unionists must now remove themselves from a process that is bringing Northern Ireland rapidly to its knees.

It seems to me that Sinn Féin has admitted that it did not do a good job in the talks on the Good Friday Agreement. I thought that I did a wonderful job - [Interruption].

Order.

In the talks there was a specific clause that dealt with the issue of prisoners - prisoners whom some people believed were political prisoners but whom others believed were representatives of criminality. Nevertheless, there was a specific section dealing with the issue. I did a good enough job. I offered the people, with all the moral nightmares that it caused, as much as they could dare take. The Republican movement is now saying - and it has been saying it consistently behind closed doors with the British and Irish Governments - that it is not enough. The Republican movement is saying that it needs not only to have its so-called prisoners on the run returned, without going through due process of law - albeit an adjusted process of law to take into consideration the abnormality of the society that we lived in - but to have a process of inquiries. As the Republican movement achieves amnesty, it requires members of the security services to step across the hot coals that Sinn Féin and other Nationalists have planned for them.

In answer to Sinn Féin's comment that they won't talk about the security services, I will talk about the security services but not, as it was suggested, from an anti-agreement point of view. I will talk about them from a pro-agreement point of view. Enough is enough. The Good Friday Agreement is in trouble, as we all know. One wonders why the DUP does not support Sinn Féin when it asks for the return of prisoners on the run, because the two issues of amnesty and inquiry have the capacity to hole below the waterline all that we believed to be possible. I have no doubt about that. It is clear that Sinn Féin's hypocrisy in requiring amnesty for themselves, and demanding the full rigour of the law for others, is shameful.

In some respects it is like the situation when Gerry Adams was asked in the Felons' Club "Is that why 10 men died, Gerry - for cross-border bodies?" Sinn Féin's answer is "You think you are doing badly? Look at the state of those Unionists."

The process of continued agitation at Unionism, aiming at the cracks that exist in the Unionist community, offers to Sinn Féin easy pickings from the British and Irish Governments. Here is how it works: Unionism demands, Gerry Adams offers to supply. Of course, Unionism does not have anything to give, so a Government must pay the price. The more in dismay we seem to be, the higher the price that Sinn Féin can require. The greater the nightmare that we are in, the more the British Government believe they have to keep Sinn Féin sweet to get the sweeties that will allow at least some Unionists to believe that a peace is possible.

In our own hands, therefore, lies the reality of how the British Government parleys with Sinn Féin. Push John Reid out of the road and start taking these people on face to face. The first thing that those of us who believe in the Union need to tell them is that there cannot be any more. The Good Friday Agreement contains a reasonable enough system, given the nightmare that our society has come through, for anyone to step forward and be part of the community.

Had you said five years ago to one of these guys on the run for a double murder "I'll tell you what. Come you with me - we will go to the barracks. You will go to Long Kesh, Magilligan or Maghaberry, and you will probably spend six or seven weeks on remand; your trial will be sorted out; you will get slapped across the knuckles; and you will serve up to two years" - do you know what he would have said? He would have said "How do I sign on? How do I get to do that?" If I am aware of that, then Sinn Féin is aware of it, but Sinn Féin still does not get enough. [Interruption].

I hope that there will be a degree of silence as I speak. I will leave you, Mr Deputy Speaker, with this thought. The issue of amnesty versus inquiry can - and will, if forced forward - hole the Good Friday Agreement below the waterline. Not everyone in the Chamber, perhaps with one exception, wants that to happen.

There was a large student demonstration outside, so I apologise to the House and to those who spoke earlier in the debate for my lateness.

My party is concerned that the Alliance Party's motion is an attempt to simplify, unhelpfully, the complicated issue of outstanding prosecutions for offences committed before 1998. The Alliance Party wants to deal with the matter legally, but it is not solely a legal issue. It wants to link the issue to exiles but not to the wider context of security, law and order, political stability and the need for confidence building in a community that sorely requires it.

No matter how much we might want to put behind us the issues of outstanding prosecutions, exiles and continuing paramilitary and organised crime, they cannot be dealt with by a single wave of the legislative wand. There is no magic wand, as those who were involved in the negotiations know. It requires negotiation, political will, strong leadership and hard work on all sides. To assume that the issue lies at the door of the Government or the courts is to focus on one aspect only. That assumption betrays a sore misunderstanding of the nature of conflict resolution in Northern Ireland.

To demand - and it is a simple and foolish demand - that some of the "on the runs" should simply surrender themselves, approach the courts, admit their guilt, be sentenced and then released at the pleasure of the courts, is to live in fantasy land. We should know by now how unhelpful it is to tie issues together. That merely blocks progress on outstanding issues until somebody's demands are met.

I say to those who would prevent any resolution for those on the run until exiles are returned home, and to those who refuse to discuss the exiles issue until reforms of policing are introduced, that work must be allowed to continue in parallel on all those difficult issues. That has been the case to date, and it is why we have driven the process forward step by step, dealing with the issues in parallel, without making one demand in return for another.

We would have had no progress on policing, decommissioning, or the devolved Government that we now have, had we not adopted that approach, yet the Alliance Party is attempting to place another set of chains on the peace process. The origins of the proposals for those on the run are the Weston Park talks. The proposals were derived from a package of measures, with which not everyone was satisfied, as the First Minister pointed out. However, we should not take the proposals out of context. The agreement contained no explicit provision for those on the run, but those people must be dealt with one day. We must face up to the issue as part of the peace process, as other controversial issues have been faced.

We must deal with the deeds of the past. We recognise the need for truth and accountability, and there must be a proper discussion of the pros and cons of the methods of achieving that. However, this is not the time for that debate. We urge all the parties to get involved in that process. Local groups have begun the process by building on good international practice.

The Women's Coalition is opposed to the exclusion and the intimidation of people from their homes. We recognise that it is not solely a current problem, it will continue for some time. There is no justification for such a situation in a democratic society. Reforms have been made to provide proper channels to deal with community problems and conflicts. However, as with decommissioning, we call on everyone with influence to use it to end the practice of exiling people. We must focus on practical justice, the justice that results from conflict resolution, which involves not only ending violence, but ending its causes.

The Alliance Party's suggestion for dealing with people "on the run", which has no precedent in justice or in international practice, is an assumption that "one size fits all". It does not, and that concept is simplistic. The SDLP's amended motion acknowledges the complexity of the issue and offers much more constructive and creative ways to resolve it.

TOP

There is nothing so corrosive of the human spirit as a sense of injustice. All those innocent people in Northern Ireland who have suffered at the hands of the murderous terrorists on both sides, but largely those of violent Republicanism, will undoubtedly feel betrayed. They will feel that the rule of law has been abandoned if - and this is how the UUP's amendment describes it - the Government's offer of amnesty is permitted to go forward.

I listened to Mr McLaughlin attempting to equate the activities of the security forces with the sort of terrorists who are "on the run". I remind Mr McLaughlin and Sinn Féin of the schoolteachers who were dragged out and shot in front of their pupils, of the bread servers who were shot as they went into shops to deliver their wares, of the people who were "sorted out" at Kingsmill - 10 of them, gunned down by the IRA because they were Protestants - of Teebane, and of the members of the Irish Collie Club who were burnt alive by the IRA at La Mon. To talk about the perpetrators of those atrocities being engaged in anything that might be described as a war under the terms of the Geneva Convention is disgusting.

However, that is what Mr McLaughlin offers. What he also offers is a threat. Mark this: he tells the House that any pursuit of those individuals is fraught with danger for the peace process. What does that mean if it is decoded? It means that if Sinn Féin does not continue to get its way from a supine, abject, appeasing British Government, it might have to sabotage the peace process. By whom will it be made fraught, but by Sinn Féin, and why? The reason is that Sinn Féin, through thick and thin, has managed to retain its weaponry. The real issue is decommissioning. The people who threaten the peace process if their insatiable demands are not met retain 99·9% of their weaponry, Semtex, Kalashnikovs and mortars, yet the leader of the UUP prattles on, down the wings of the Assembly, suggesting that decommissioning has taken place. Decommissioning will come back to haunt the Assembly and the UUP if there is anything remotely resembling decency, courage or guts when the Ulster Unionist Council meets to hear this man prattling appeasement.

Those people "on the run" are murderers and psychopaths who did not wish to face justice. It is unutterably wrong that the IRA continues to threaten people - telling them to leave their homes and warning them that if they return they will be murdered - while Mr Gerry Adams, the world statesman, the friend of Mandela, the confidante of Cuba and Castro parades himself about and claims that it is not the IRA that is using bullets, smashing ankles and kneecaps, wielding clubs or strapping people like Patsy Gillespie into a car loaded with explosives and forcing them to drive to a checkpoint. "Oh no", says Mr Adams "if the community wants them back, what has that to do with Sinn Féin or the IRA?"

Mr Mc Laughlin reached fresh heights of hypocrisy today. There was much wisdom in what Mr Ervine said today, though I do not often agree with him. It is alleged that there will be some sort of truth-and- reconciliation trade-off whereby those people "on the run" will be given an amnesty. However, there will be no trade-off for those in the security forces because wound licking from before 1972 has become an art form of Nationalism

There will be no reconciliation, no forgiveness and no peace while people like Mitchel McLaughlin and his ilk continue to ply their awful trade in Northern Ireland.

I support amendment No 1. The Alliance Party's motion is flawed. I concur with some of Ian Paisley Jnr's remarks. The motion's proposal that people should have to admit guilt before a court, be sentenced and have that sentence suspended is unworkable and deeply flawed on several grounds that we cannot support.

Amendment No 1 would also correct the motion, which misdescribes, in some ways dangerously, the nature of the two Governments' proposal. However, we still recognise the proposal for what it is, and we recognise particularly the fact that it is beyond the requirements of the Good Friday Agreement. Mitchel McLaughlin and members of Sinn Féin know that it is beyond the requirements of the Good Friday Agreement. If they felt that it was consistent with the agreement, it would be subject to judicial review. The two Governments would be taken to court, just as the Irish Government have been taken to court for failing to release those convicted of the murder of Det Garda Jerry McCabe. It is beyond the requirements of the agreement, and that is why it was negotiated at the May 2000 talks and subsequently at Weston Park.

Mitchel McLaughlin also said that Sinn Féin was the only pro-agreement party to address the issue and made much of the fact that his was the only pro-agreement party to bring forward proposals on it. However, he failed to mention that Sinn Féin is the only pro-agreement party whose members, representatives and officers will actually benefit from the proposal. That perhaps suggests why Sinn Féin was so singular in its interest and efforts in this area.

The SDLP did not pursue this issue at all at Weston Park. Contrary to the impressions given by Ian Paisley Jnr, our formal response to the two Governments' proposals of 1 August recorded that we had not pursued this issue at Weston Park and also pointed out that it was not a provision of the agreement. Similarly, we recognised the proposal for a review of the Parades Commission as entirely extraneous to the agreement. We are completely consistent on all those issues.

At Weston Park, we also paid much attention to the need that we saw, and still see, for judicial inquiries to deal with serious issues of concern in relation to past cases. We concentrated on seeking inquiries for those cases - Sinn Féin was concentrating on gaining these benefits for people on the run.

In the post-Weston Park package from the two Governments, the provision made for those "on the run" was the result of a sidebar deal. The Governments also made other provisions and commitments. The Governments said that the Weston Park package was a take-it-or-leave-it package. It was a comprehensive package to ensure the agreement's complete implementation.

Some parts of the package are moving forward. Two of them are entirely extraneous to the agreement: the review of the Parades Commission and the proposed amnesty for those "on the run". We have not yet seen other aspects of the package that are relevant to the agreement. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Weston Park package of 1 August contained a commitment to the implementation group, but we have not seen it. All parties wanted it, except for Sinn Féin.

When we pointed out that contradiction to the Governments, we were counselled with the observation from senior Government representatives that the problem is that our party does not have guns. That, as we have pointed out, is a counsel of cynicism. People need not be anti-agreement or Unionist to ask questions about the management of parts of the process. The Governments know where we stand on those issues.

Another reason why we particularly commend amendment No 1 to the House is that, unlike any of the other amendments, it properly addresses the issue of victims. That issue should be addressed in a meaningful way.

The Member has 10 seconds.

There is too much danger of a partisan approach to the treatment of victims being adopted. They are either patronised or ghettoised. We need a victim-centred approach, and amendment No 1 is unique in focusing on that requirement.

In supporting amendment No 2 in my name, I wish to make some comments. While awaiting the Government's deliberations in the next week or two, several Members have made much of their amazement, annoyance or astonishment at the outcome of the Weston Park talks and their further implementation. Mr Ervine's comments and those subsequently made by the Deputy First Minister almost made me think that after four years - eventually - we were getting to the point at which the light was coming on. When we give in to terrorists what do they do? They ask for more. There is an amazing thing. Many bigots, terrorists, arsonists and murderers are members of Sinn Féin. If they are let out of jail early they may say OK, but they still want a little bit more. Those who designed the deal that got terrorists out of jail early then say that they did not mean for it to be like the way it is. They thought that when the train was on the track and moving in a particular direction it might move slowly and that matters would move alongside the train. Now they complain because the Provos have jumped on board and want to put in more fuel to make the train go faster. All those who constructed the device, laid the tracks and put the train on those tracks now say that they did not want it to move so quickly. It is a bit late to start complaining four years later, as the First Minister has done. He waxed eloquently about how he and his party would trenchantly oppose all manifestations of the Bill when we see it. If that opposition at all resembles the trenchant opposition that I witnessed in the House of Commons when dealing with criminal justice, when I saw a series of amendments withdrawn time after endless time, I await the outcome with bated breath.

The Deputy First Minister and Mr Alban Maginness referred to a sidebar deal. Part of that means that people such as Liam Averill, a double sectarian killer, and Owen Carron, a Sinn Féin ex-Member of Parliament, both of whom are on the run, will be given an amnesty. A series of other people will be let out of jail. One of the First Minister's points was accurate. One option is that prisoners could give themselves up, return to jail for a few weeks and then be released. If the second option is a complete amnesty, why on earth would prisoners accept the first option? He is correct in that respect. Therefore, why did he agree in the first place with the concept of early release of prisoners in the Belfast Agreement?

The Member's time is up.

If one plays with fire, do not be concerned if one gets burned. The First Minister is getting his fingers burned. He seems to be realising that the chickens are coming home to roost.

When we see the terms of the Bill, we shall see the reality and we must resist it. Amendment No 2 will do that successfully, and I ask Members to support it.

Previous Members who spoke used the term "cherry-picking" to refer to the Belfast Agreement. My party has never wanted to cherry-pick. It wishes to see the full and accurate implementation of the Belfast Agreement. The agreement does not include an offer of amnesty, which is why my party is opposed to such an offer. The Belfast Agreement clearly outlines the terms, and that is why my party wants its full implementation.

Not only are exclusively democratic and peaceful means mentioned on page 1 but the opposition of any use or threat of force by others is mentioned. Retained arms, although predominantly silent, still threaten. That is why my party remains committed to full decommissioning. The Pledge of Office states that those in ministerial positions must be committed to

Weapons that are still held, even if they are predominantly silent, do not constitute a commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.

Another aspect that Members referred to is mentioned in both the Belfast Agreement and the Mitchell principles, both of which we want to implement. I am sorry that Mr McCartney has left the Chamber. I wish that he had stayed because I like to exchange views with him eye to eye. The Mitchell principles refer to the absolute commitment and total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. When referring to my party, Mr McCartney talked about "prattling appeasement". He talked about the real issue of decommissioning. He has said that all we need is a mere form of words by which paramilitary parties can be treated like democratic parties. I hope that he reads the transcript of today's debate, because he is the hypocrite; he is prattling appeasement when he uses phrases such as "mere form of words". If anyone does not believe me, especially Mr McCartney, I invite him or her to read the 'Belfast Telegraph' of 1 May 1998, which plainly shows that. I do not accept Mr McCartney's accusation of prattling appeasement. He should take the mote out of his own eye before he accuses another Member.

When Mr Trimble was speaking, there were loud noises from the DUP. Of course, there was silence when Sinn Féin Members were speaking. They talked about - [Interruption].

TOP

Order.

Let me make it clear that we fought the Weston Park aspect at every stage. Dr Paisley says that he wants to be the leader of Unionism. He said that he would be glad to have his Christmas dinner with an election under his belt - such prophecy. However, let me look at the DUP - [Interruption].

Mr Nesbitt, you must address your remarks to the Chair.

I am addressing the Chair, but that does not preclude me from looking in another direction. As I look at the DUP Members, I remind them that they cannot listen. They said that there would be no talks until the IRA was defeated. They said that they had Ulster Resistance, which would smash the IRA. They had the Third Force and the Carson Trail. They had many things - [Interruption].

What about the hokey- cokey?

Order, order.

The DUP delivered nothing. The DUP even said that it would not recognise Sinn Féin, but it recognises Sinn Féin all the time. The volume of DUP voices is remarkable, given that they cannot listen to what is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Surely the Member should continue his speech and say why he invited me to South Down when he was fighting the seat, and why he said that he was glad that I was there to help him to fight the seat.

Order. That is not a point of order.

I was interested to hear the Minister- in-waiting's speech. He seemed to get carried away, and was under the impression that the Deputy Speaker was down here rather than up there. As Mr McCartney says, Mr Nesbitt seemed to be slightly disorientated.

The DUP amendment goes right to the heart of the issue. The early release - or what is now known as an amnesty, which is an extension of the early release scheme - is a continuation of the Belfast Agreement. During his deliberations, Mr Trimble said that the UUP had warned the Government not to go down that road. Mr Trimble must have noted that the Government are not listening to him. I wonder why the Government would not listen to Mr Trimble. Could it be because this is the same Mr Trimble who said that the UUP would not negotiate with Sinn Féin before, during or after the talks? The UUP did the opposite of what it said that it would do. No matter how silly the Government might be, that was not lost on them. They realised that to be gored by Mr Trimble would have the same effect as being gored by a dead sheep.

Mr Nesbitt is trying to make an impact on the Minister by ranting in such a way. He does not have to impress us by virtue of the fact that he will soon be the Minister. We will judge him when he gets into office and we will take him on when that day comes. However, he should deal with the real issues now. The answer to why Mr Nesbitt and Mr Trimble have no effect on the Government is simple, and Mark Durkan let the answer out of the bag. He said that the UUP do not have guns. That is the real issue. These guys over here have the edge - they have the real machinery. That is one of the reasons that my party insisted on a full and transparent decommissioning process. When Mr Trimble returns to the Dispatch Box, he may wish to note what some of the rest of us have noted.

In the House of Commons, on 24 October 2001, the Secretary of State said - [Interruption]. At least Mr Nesbitt has the guts to stay to listen, unlike his Colleague. The Secretary of State said:

The scheme to which the Secretary of State referred was the early release scheme. The next words are the important ones:

That is what it is all about. I also draw Mr Nesbitt's attention to something that appeared in the local press just this morning.

Not that photograph again.

No, it is not that photograph again. An article quoted two of Mr Nesbitt's Colleagues, Mr Burnside and Mr Jeffrey Donaldson:

I challenge Mr Nesbitt through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to tell the House whether he agrees with the sentiments expressed by his two Colleagues and is prepared to bring the charade to a halt, or whether he going to give those guys over there, who have the cutting edge, an opportunity to continue to get -

The Member's time is up.

There are contributions in every debate that define it as good or bad. On this occasion, it was defined as bad. Mr McCartney, you may like to wait 10 seconds.

No, I have had enough.

Order.

Mitchel McLaughlin, in his contribution, mentioned the RUC, the RIR, the UDR, MI5 and so forth. He never once mentioned an IRA murder or atrocity. In contrast to that, in his contribution, the man who has just left the Chamber never mentioned one state murder or atrocity. That shows how this debate contrasts to the SDLP motion. I want to get back to that - [Interruption].

I notice that Alban Maginness did not.

I will come back to you in a second and that will silence you.

The problem with the process - and it is a true process in part - is that it is occasional and partial. It is about the recovery of the bodies of the disappeared, a victims' commission and inquiries into Bloody Sunday. It might also be about the appointment of an international judge to look at six cases. However, the problem with all of that is that the process is not fully inclusive. Some say that it creates a hierarchy of victimhood; others say that it is selective. It leaves few people reassured and many embittered. The SDLP amendment is trying to move the process beyond being particular, selective and exclusive to becoming inclusive and general, and common to all those who have suffered grief and pain over the past 30 years.

The principles that inform the SDLP amendment - and I welcome Monica McWilliams's support - are the affirmation of those who have suffered, the acknowledgement of the wrong that has been done, and the move to greater accountability so that out of the pain of the past 30 years can come wisdom falling drop by drop upon the heart. That is the purpose of the SDLP amendment. If we do not move into that sort of territory we will create a hierarchy of victimhood in which many people will feel excluded - their grief will not be acknowledged.

This issue more than any other exposes the self-seeking agendas of Sinn Féin and the DUP, their double standards and their doublethink. While Sinn Féin calls for the state to account for its human rights abuses - a state that the IRA said it was at war with - they do not call for themselves in the IRA to account for the human rights abuses that they were guilty of. They call for an amnesty and for no accountability for what they did, but they do not apply the same standards and principles to what the state did. It is doublethink at a preposterous level.

Sinn Féin says that it agrees in principle that those who were guilty of the Omagh bomb should be brought to justice, but it does not agree in principle that the IRA should be brought to justice for its actions. On the one hand, Sinn Féin calls for those who are exiled in Ireland because they are "on the run" to be allowed to come home. However, it refuses to accept its responsibility for allowing the return home of those exiled outside this island, whom they excluded without just cause. Sinn Féin says that it wants to persuade Unionists about the future of an agreed Ireland, yet prominent ex-Republican prisoners claim that the party should abandon the language of oppression, struggle and sacrifice, and call for the language of victory now.

On the one hand, it says that it wants to persuade Unionists that there is a bright future, yet on the other, one of its senior ex-Republican prisoners said at a recent conference that there could be no reconciliation in Northern Ireland until the British state acknowledged what it had done to the Irish people. This, more than any other issue, exposes Sinn Féin and the IRA.

TOP

One of the most painful aspects of the Good Friday Agreement for many who eventually supported it was the early release of politically motivated prisoners. Many had to swallow hard before they backed that section of the agreement. However, the Good Friday Agreement provided that those who had been convicted in a court of law were eligible to be considered for release on licence. Their deeds were public. There was either a plea or a finding of guilt, and the release on licence meant that those concerned could be returned to prison. I suspect that if the Government proposal from the Weston Park communiqué had been contained in the agreement, not only might the majority have been smaller, but there might not have been a majority at all.

It is clear from the Government's proposals that to fail to pursue criminal prosecutions at this stage would be tantamount to accepting that a war was fought. It would be incredible if the Government were to proceed on that basis. Similarly, it would be dubious if they were to proceed with an amnesty without ensuring that the paramilitaries who would benefit from that amnesty had to lift their threats against others. That is why the motion was drafted carefully to set out in the limited detail that is possible at this stage a response of opposition to the Government's proposals. It states how those proposals could be refined realistically, in the light of the Government's commitment to Sinn Féin that they would proceed on that basis, and it inserts a direct linkage between those threatened by paramilitaries and the paramilitary organisations that would benefit from such an amnesty.

I will examine the three proposed amendments. I am concerned about the way in which Alban Maginness proposed the section of his amendment that relates to the second sentence of the original motion. The issue of whether a truth commission would be appropriate for Northern Ireland is too complex to be dealt with in one sentence. That is why the Alliance Party, in its motion, proposed what it regarded as a minimum requirement. It did not venture to propose the establishment of a truth commission, a possibility that is opened up by the amendment that is proposed by Alban Maginness and Mr Attwood.

I acknowledge Alban Maginness's point that we should recognise the hurt of victims, but that is not the purpose of the motion. We have considered the needs of victims, and, when discussing that issue, we should remember that many will never know the details about those who carried out atrocities against them or their family members. Therefore, we cannot wrap up all victims' concerns into such a motion. Fundamentally, my difficulty with the SDLP's amendment is the weak, wobbly plea at the end that something should be done about exiles. It weakens the original motion far too drastically.

The DUP's amendment was outlined in the terms that we would have expected - nothing less from either the proposer or his Colleague. Mr Durkan responded to the suggestion that the parties that were present at Weston Park are bound by the communiqué of the two Governments to "take it or leave it". However, the point merits repetition.

Whatever Cedric Wilson and Ian Paisley Jnr may say about that, as Eileen Bell made clear, it is no part of our case that we supported the Weston Park communiqué. Some of us made our objections to that clear from an early stage.

The fundamental difficulty with the DUP amendment is that the Prime Minister has already offered some form of amnesty. The issue now is whether we can do something to ensure that that amnesty does not become an unreasonable, open-ended offer, but is dealt with in line with the terms of the agreement. It is not whether we should simply say no and know that the view of the Assembly if we do say no will simply be entirely overruled by the Government.

The Ulster Unionist amendment was an interesting effort. It seems to be some type of catch-up, chronologically as well as everything else, between the Alliance motion and the DUP amendment. There is an indication that that party has some sort of understanding. I welcome that Mr Trimble seems to think that praise was due to the Alliance motion, although I confess that I cannot say the same for Mr Nesbitt. I could not make out a word that he was saying that was of any relevance to either the motion or the UUP amendment - [Interruption].

We must hope that he will improve in the future, and we will hear something relevant.

The UUP has dropped any issue of linkage. It has dropped any reference to the paramilitary exiles. Given that it has made an art form of creating linkages where they do not exist, for the UUP to drop a linkage where such a direct linkage clearly exists seems to be over the top, beyond anything that we would normally expect of that party. There is a direct comparability between the two issues. The linkage should stay. That is where the fundamental weakness in the UUP amendment must be addressed.

I want to mention some other comments in this brief winding-up speech for a long debate. I noticed that Mitchel McLaughlin believes that the motion takes a lopsided approach. Should he wish to bring forward a motion welcoming all those aspects of Weston Park that dealt with inquiries and so on, I have no doubt that he would be welcome to do so. Those points were dealt with by David Ervine and Mark Durkan. There is no doubt that Sinn Féin was the only party that had associates who were likely to benefit from the motion.

The Member has 10 seconds left.

Therefore, it is not surprising that Sinn Féin is the only party that wanted to object to it.

None of the amendments adequately addresses the points properly raised, and therefore the motion should stand unamended.

Question put, That amendment No 1 be made.

I remind Members that if amendment No 2, standing in the name of Mr Campbell, Mr Morrow and Mr Ian Paisley Jnr is made, amendment No 3 will fall.

Question put, That amendment No 2 be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 28; Noes 39

Question put, That amendment No 3 be made.

Order. If the Members who are leaving will do so quietly, we can move on to the next item on the Order Paper.

TOP

School Buses

Mr Kennedy:

I beg to move

I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring this motion to the Assembly. It is an important issue. Given the number of accidents, at least two of which in the past three months have had tragic consequences, the debate is timely. The loss of a child, in any circumstances, is a tragic and traumatic event, and I want to be sensitive to the emotions and feelings of those who have lost children.

The safety of children while travelling on school buses, especially when boarding and alighting, has been a matter of concern to me, and I know that other Members share my concern. Several months ago, the Committee for the Environment published the findings of its inquiry into the transportation of children travelling to and from school. I acknowledge the Committee's work and commend it for the detailed consideration that it gave to such an important issue.

I recognise that the issues that my motion addresses are the responsibility of various Ministers, including the Minister of Education and the Minister for Regional Development. The Department of Education is responsible for policy on school transport, and the Minister for Regional Development would be responsible for changing the road traffic regulations to allow school buses to operate as they do in the American system.

I thank the Minister of the Environment for his presence today. I look forward to his response to the points that will be made in this important debate. As everyone is aware, this is Mr Foster's last appearance as Minister of the Environment. I pay tribute to him for the priority that he has given to road safety since he took office. Most importantly, as regards the motion, he moved rapidly to increase the number of road safety education officers. As Chairperson of the Education Committee, I am aware of the excellent work that road safety education officers do with young people in schools and other places. That was the clearest demonstration of the Minister's commitment to the safety of our children and young people, and I congratulate him warmly on it.

The Minister was also responsible for a major increase in road safety advertising. The House will be aware of the high-impact campaigns, many of which addressed young people. Those campaigns have done much to change attitudes and behaviour and to raise the profile of road safety. They have also addressed the principal causes of death and serious injury. The Minister's personal commitment to making our roads safer has been evident to all. I congratulate him on his performance as Minister of the Environment and for the courteous and accessible way in which he carried out his duties.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>