It is very clear that in its stated objective of seeking the exclusion of Sinn Féin, and pursuing an attack on the Good Friday Agreement, this is not a serious motion. Everything that has been said, and much of what remains to be said, will make that abundantly clear. The DUP is not serious about having any party or anyone excluded from the Executive - it never has been. It is serious only about trying to embarrass the Ulster Unionist Party on this occasion. It also wants to sow further dissension in the Unionist community in the hope of electoral gain from that embarrassment and dissension.

The DUP is attempting to disrupt the workings of the Assembly by foisting on us a completely unnecessary and intentionally divisive debate. It exaggerates and continues to whip up, rather than allay, fears and apprehensions across the whole community - fears and apprehensions that, in many respects, I recognise to be genuine.

It is not my responsibility in this debate to defend any other party.

It is my responsibility to defend and uphold the Good Friday Agreement, and to ensure that its benefits continue to flow for all our people. Those benefits can be seen in the progress that is being made towards lasting peace and political stability. We have a Government that are accountable to the people, and that pursue economic and social policies that have the potential to bring even greater benefits to all sections of the community. Despite all the difficulties and challenges, we have been gradually laying the foundations of a warm house for all, whatever their background, identity, affiliation or ultimate aspiration.

I recognise that in laying those foundations, we have much building left to do. However, in this enterprise, the DUP seems confused. It does not know what its role should be, or how it might play that role. [Interruption].

Order.

If the DUP were honest in its confusion, I would have greater respect for the position that it articulates. There is very little on which I agree with Mr Cedric Wilson and his Colleagues, but I acknowledge the honesty of their position in the Assembly. They say that they will not mix it with Sinn Féin, and they do not. If the DUP were serious, it would follow Mr Cedric Wilson's example. However, it cannot resist the temptation to play political hokey-cokey: one leg in, one leg out; one arm in, one arm out. No wonder their Members' heads spin in confusion all the time.

DUP Ministers communicate in writing with my Executive Colleagues and me. Talking is merely another form of communication. The DUP Ministers ask the Executive, with their two Sinn Féin Ministers, to consider and approve their proposals. I am not the arbiter of the spending allocations that are made to Departments, but those DUP Ministers discuss their spending plans in detail with me, knowing that I must go and seek the endorsement of my Colleagues in the Executive. They ask that those Ministers approve their spending plans also.

The DUP Members participate in district partnerships and local strategy partnerships. They work in local groups with representatives from all political parties, including Sinn Féin. The DUP Members apply for funds that are managed by the Special European Union Programmes Body, and other North/South agencies directed by the North/South Ministerial Council, with which they also claim to have no truck. [Interruption].

Order.

The hypocrisy and the cynicism of the motion can hardly be more transparent. There remains a serious obligation on all pro-agreement parties to advance all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. There is an obligation to advance not only the institutions that have been established through that agreement, but the confidence- building measures that are contained in the agreement. Those include the obligation to promote decommissioning. Implied in that obligation is the obligation to rid society of paramilitarism. The SDLP has consistently made the argument that paramilitarism is inconsistent with democracy.

The SDLP has continued to make that argument not just in the Assembly but throughout the 30 years in which paramilitarism wreaked havoc in many sections of our community. Paramilitarism includes Loyalist and Republican paramilitaries.

The progress that has been made must continue. Members place their trust in the work of the decommissioning body, and, with the support of the two Governments, the SDLP and other pro-agreement parties, it has worked hard to ensure that decommissioning will be progressed, and, ultimately, that it will be successful. Therefore paramilitarism, which has been a poison in our society, will be completely eliminated sooner rather than later. The warm house that we are building with confidence can then continue to be built, and it can shelter all, even those who oppose its construction.

The motion has been tabled by Members who believe that apologists for gunmen should have no place in Government. The vote today will be a test for all Members. Do they want a Government involving IRA/Sinn Féin, or a Government that are exclusively and totally committed to peaceful and democratic means? We must not forget that while we are here to debate this important motion on the exclusion of IRA/ Sinn Féin, many still carry the wounds of 30 years of terrorism. There are widows carrying broken hearts and children longing for the return of their fathers, but that will never happen because of terrorism. However, that does not seem to matter to many Members.

Many elected representatives of the Unionist community cannot face this debate; how could they? How could any Unionist defend putting IRA murderers into Government over the people whom they have murdered for the past 30 years? It is pathetic that the Ulster Unionist Party could muster only a lookalike mortician and a comedian on the Front Bench instead of taking this matter seriously.

The DUP has been castigated for carrying out stunts. What greater political stunt is there than the abuse of having a First Minister elected without the support of the majority of Unionists in the Chamber? It was he, in his dash to power, who put IRA/Sinn Féin terrorists into the heart of Government. The Ulster Unionist Party is guilty of putting them there. However, it could join with the rest of the Unionist family to put them out. The Ulster Unionist Party has run away from its electoral manifesto commitments.

Will the Member give way?

No, I will not give way. The Member will have plenty of time to take part in the debate, and he will no have competition from the rest of his party, for they are not in the House.

The debate clearly shows, as the vote will show, that the majority of Unionists in the House do not agree with Sinn Féin/IRA's being in Government. One of David Trimble's main policies in allowing Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness - the representatives of gunmen - to be in Government is not supported by the majority of Unionists in the elected Northern Ireland Assembly.

Perhaps the Member will agree, as he looks at the Bench on the other side, that not one Member of the Republican and Nationalist parties - especially those Nationalists who are supposed to believe in democracy - is in his place. Nevertheless, having made that clear outside, they were still called to take part in the debate.

That will speak volumes. The majority of Unionists outside the House do not support Mr Trimble and the Ulster Unionists. It is with them - the electorate - that David Trimble will finally fall, and may that happen soon.

Today's vote will also demonstrate that there is no cross-community support for David Trimble or Mark Durkan to be the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. They require more than 50% of the votes of the House. I challenge them, if they are so confident, to resign their posts and put themselves forward for re-election. When Mr Trimble was returned to office he did so on the back of the greatest cheater's charter ever. We are lectured about morality, honour, honesty and truth; yet, the proponents of the agreement are not prepared to go through the proper democratic process, because they know that they do not have the support in the House.

No other society, indeed no other Government, would tolerate such a situation. There is no better example of that than the Republic's Minister John O'Donoghue, who unequivocally ruled out his party's entering into Government with Sinn Féin/IRA because they were associated with a private army, and he stated that they could, therefore, not be trusted with matters such as defence, justice and security. The hypocrisy of Fianna Fáil in promoting, and advancing at every turn, the inclusion of Sinn Féin/IRA in the Executive Government of Northern Ireland is absolute, when Bertie Ahern scorns their presence in the South.

IRA/Sinn Féin has not changed its ways; it has not decommissioned. Instead, it chooses to target, train and murder. Mr McGimpsey claims that the great achievement of the Ulster Unionist Party is that it achieved decommissioning. Mr de Chastelain tells us that he does not know where he was, he does not know how he got there, he does not know who went with him, and he cannot say how much material he saw or did not see, but he knows that he left the weapons and the bunkers safely under the control of the Provisional IRA. That is a tremendous achievement for Mr McGimpsey and Mr Trimble to beat their chests and cry

The events of Sunday 17 February 2002, in my constituency of Mid Ulster, highlighted the real agenda of IRA/Sinn Féin. Found in the heart of McGuinness's territory was a sophisticated rocket launcher and warhead. Those arrested are well-known IRA members. What was IRA weaponry doing on the move? Had this not been decommissioned? We know that nothing has been decommissioned. Make no mistake about it: these were intact weapons of war to execute and murder the ordinary decent citizens of my constituency. The Ulster Unionist Member, Billy Armstrong - where is he today? - said in the 'News Letter' on Tuesday 19 February 2002:

Surely in the light of those words he should back the motion, or else he is a hypocrite saying something for public consumption while supporting IRA/Sinn Féin in the House. We know that he will be an obedient poodle who will do his master's bidding when the strings are pulled. Those who fail to back the motion are registering their support for, and placing their confidence in, IRA/ Sinn Féin. The IRA has never shown any remorse for its deeds.

The reality of the debate is that it reflects that decommissioning has yet to occur, and that the IRA has no intention of decommissioning. Mr Trimble and his Weston Park negotiating team told us that decommissioning was the only item on the agenda to be dealt with. Yet he and Jeffrey Donaldson breathed life into a talks process that led to a five-page document in which 67 words dealt with decommissioning, and the rest detailed the destruction of policing and security installations and attempts to put the IRA back into Government. What a set of negotiators; considering that Weston Park delivered promises for an on-the-run amnesty that is being developed for IRA murderers.

The Ulster Unionist Party in its document, 'Understanding the Agreement', claimed:

Ulster Unionists who fail to support the motion will, once again, be trampling their pledge to the electorate into the ground. They will also be registering a vote of confidence in Martin McGuinness and his friends within the IRA murdering machine.

As I have said, in no other democratic country in the world would there be terrorists in Government. However, of course, we find one here in the post of Minister of Education.

I am reminded that the Provisional IRA has, down through the years, murdered schoolteachers, schoolchildren, principals, students, others who work in schools and school bus drivers. Many innocent victims have been murdered in the presence of young people and students. Millions of pounds have been wasted through damage to schools and universities by IRA bombs. There remains a crisis in education funding, which can, in part, be attributed to 30 years of terrorist onslaught directed against us by the Provisional IRA.

This is the same Minister who, after the elections to Londonderry City Council on 16 May 1985, said:

When Mr Trimble addressed the Assembly the other day he told the DUP and its friends to get out of the place, but he did not tell Martin McGuinness or the members of the IRA to leave this place to true democracy and to true democrats.

The motion is simple: we can choose to exclude the political representatives of the most brutal killing machine in Western Europe and take a stand for democracy, decency and justice, or we can choose to allow them to remain in the Chamber with their stockpile of weaponry, dancing on the graves of thousands. Make no mistake, we will hear from Mr Trimble that, prior to the election, he will have a stunt for the electorate, and the IRA will have a stunt to seal or open another bunker prior to St Patrick's Day and the Irish Republic's election.

With one brief period of exception, the party that is the subject of the motion has lived up to its old nickname and has effectively run away today. We are confronted by the absence of the party opposite, but it is not the silence of the lambs; rather it is the silence of the wolves.

We are reminded of the flexibility of the English language. When the phrase "motion for exclusion" is used by anti-agreement Unionists, the words become equated with "stunt", "joke" and "political escapade". We are accused by that erstwhile visitor to Northern Ireland, Lord Kilclooney, of tabling the motion for narrow political purposes. To be fair to Lord Kilclooney, the next time he comes here, he might include a visit to the Policing Board. Yet, when the First Minister uses the phrase "motion for exclusion", he is suddenly said to be taking a stand of courage against the ravages of terrorism; he is showing decisive leadership and using a device to force Sinn Féin to decommission - the motion to exclude suddenly becomes something noble.

Today's debate was inevitable, because when the Government were re-established in November, there was no firm basis. When we were deciding whether to re-elect the First Minister and establish the Government, two questions were raised about decommissioning by others and me. We needed to know whether we were establishing a secure Government, so we asked for clarity on what the supposed act of decommissioning had been. Secondly, we asked if it was a one-off gesture or part of a process. As responsible politicians, my Colleague, Pauline Armitage, and I and others went to Gen de Chastelain - the only person who could give us an answer. We had a lengthy meeting and asked him a wide range of questions. It has already been said that there was no detail on the methodology, the amount and where or when decommissioning had taken place. One phrase that was bandied about was that "the amount was significant". Gen de Chastelain denied that he had said that the amount was significant. One of my Colleagues asked him if, given that he had described the IRA event and the LVF action as significant, he still regarded the LVF act as significant. The general replied that he did and for the same reasons as he had at the time. He said that an event had taken place and that it was "significant".

In the light of the LVF's subsequent actions, for anyone, Nationalist or Unionist, to draw reassurance from the significance of its decommissioning shows how paltry the reassurance from Sinn Féin was. The more important question about whether Sinn Féin is fit to be in government is not about the actions that it has taken in the past, but about its future intentions.

Gen de Chastelain was asked several questions on this, for example "You are saying that the only commitment by the IRA has been to meet again soon. There has been no commitment to any second act of decommissioning?" The answer was "That is correct. The only formal commitment has been the one they made publicly to initiate a process to put arms beyond use on 6 May last year. However, we do not want to be involved in a one- off event."

Another question was "Am I correct in saying that there has been no specific commitment by the IRA to a timetable?" The answer was "That is correct." Yet another question was "Is it also the case that they have given no specific commitment to complete decommissioning?" The answer was "That is also correct."

In November many of us warned that we had seen a cynical gesture, aimed simply at getting Sinn Féin back into government and the First Minister back into his position. We were told that we were scaremongers who were opposed to peace. However, there has been no commitment - and, more importantly, no action - by Sinn Féin to move towards a peaceful way forward and complete decommissioning.

The Member may be aware that, one week ago, Gen de Chastelain confirmed in an interview everything that the Member has said, and indicated that there was absolutely no prospect - immediate or otherwise - of any further event. As far as he was concerned, no further progress had been made.

I am grateful to the Member for that information, which confirms what has been said.

It seems strange that this is happening four months after it seemed appropriate to set up the Government. The first time the Government were set up, continuing without decommissioning was said to be intolerable after two and a half months. However, not only has the First Minister failed to back the motion, but there has not been even a vague hint of sanctions against Sinn Féin/IRA.

It is not solely the absence of decommissioning that renders Sinn Féin's continued role in government incompatible with democracy; it is their daily activities, such as punishment shootings, criminality, occasional murders, exiling of people, beatings, gangsterism and refusal to end the war.

Nationalist politicians and media commentators on both sides of the border often tell me that we cannot expect 30 years of terrorism to end overnight, and that it will gradually peter out. However, it is probably more than seven and a half years since the first ceasefire, and we have not seen the violence peter out. We have seen the paramilitary activity tighten its hold on the community, and the authorities have consistently turned a blind eye to it.

Does the Member accept that the current threats against 22 people in west Tyrone and the find near Ballybofey - only a few miles from west Tyrone, on one of 49 roads that cross the border - are evidence that the IRA is active and not on ceasefire?

Absolutely. Whenever something happens or threatens to happen, either a wall of silence faces us, or it is dismissed as internal housekeeping. Alternatively, when something happens the whispers go out; the oft- used excuse that, whether the violence came from the Loyalist or Republican side, it cannot be attributed to mainstream paramilitary organisations. It is supposedly the work of dissidents and mavericks.

We must be grateful that the NIO was not in charge of this country in 1939. We can imagine the sort of statements that would have been produced after the invasion of Poland. It might have said that it was not the work of the Nazi Party, which was committed to the European peace process, but of a few dissident, maverick Germans.

Indeed, the Government, having examined the situation, could declare that Herr Hitler was still on ceasefire. Humour aside, every time that the Northern Ireland Office turns a blind eye to recurring Loyalist and Republican terrorist activity, it effectively gives it a green light. It says to terrorists that as long as they do not stir things up by making it obvious who is directly involved or by killing people from the other community, it will not place sanctions on their activity.

However, it is not only the Northern Ireland Office that has a responsibility. Assembly parties, including the UUP and the SDLP, have a moral responsibility. The House heard many fine words from Minister Farren, who told us that terrorism is incompatible with democracy and that it could not be tolerated. It has been tolerated by Assembly parties for too long. The House has heard enough of fine words. It is time for parties to commit themselves to sanctions. The one sanction that is available with regard to Sinn Féin/IRA that would have any effect, or afford an opportunity to achieve decommissioning, is exclusion from office until that decommissioning has been completed and terrorism has been brought to a halt. I urge not only the UUP but also the SDLP to stand shoulder to shoulder with us, the other democrats in the Assembly, and to have the courage of their convictions. Instead of SDLP Members skulking in their offices today, they should come into the Chamber and vote for the motion. That would send out a clear signal that the Assembly will no longer tolerate the terrorism of Sinn Féin or Republican and Loyalist paramilitary groups. I urge Members to support the motion.

Given that Ministers and those in senior Government positions in the rest of the UK are rightly removed from office for crimes such as lying, misappropriation and financial impropriety, the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to ask why the Assembly must debate the issue of the removal of someone from Government who, as Minister of Education, boasts openly to schoolchildren about his days on the run when he avoided proper retribution for such crimes as the House has heard of today.

The people of Northern Ireland would also be correct to ask why, as Dr Paisley and others have asked, the Government of the Republic of Ireland, the other co- sponsor of the Belfast Agreement, have different criteria for those who are considered to be fit to hold office. Although I agree with Dr Paisley that there may not be much genuine intent on Mr Ahern's behalf, he has set the criteria that the IRA must decommission all its weapons, and that Sinn Féin must divorce and dissociate itself completely from the IRA before it can sit in an Administration in the Republic of Ireland.

The hypocrisy of the British and Irish Governments comes as no surprise to anyone in Northern Ireland. They are the people who forced the iniquitous Belfast Agreement on the poor, unsuspecting, decent, law- abiding citizens - Protestant and Catholic, Unionist and Nationalist. The agreement is now starting to show its true colours. It is quite clear that the Belfast Agreement was created because the British and Irish Governments decided that they would appease terrorism rather than challenge it or deal with it. My Colleague Mr Roche has related, in graphic detail, the crimes committed by the people who now sit in Government over those whom they terrorised. These people have still not been brought to book for crimes such as the murder of Patrick Gillespie.

Why do we have such an Assembly, an elected body, in Northern Ireland? People had high hopes that the Assembly would be a starting point for a devolved Administration.

It stemmed from the two Governments' decision to pay the price to get the terrorists off their backs. However, it could not have happened without the betrayal of the Unionist and, indeed, of the wider community, by Mr Trimble and his Colleagues. Moreover, it was Mr Trimble who permitted those people to be brought into government in Northern Ireland. That diametrically opposed his pledge in 1998 in an Ulster Unionist Party document that encouraged people to vote "Yes" in the referendum. Mr Nesbitt is clutching at straws when he points to what he deems an act of decommissioning. They are no doubt hoping that there will be another event or stunt in the next week or two, whereby Sinn Féin/IRA will try to build some confidence, as they call it.

Mr Trimble set a higher criterion that is, in fact, closer to that of the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern. He pledged that the UUP would not serve in the Executive Committee with any party that is not genuinely committed to peace. If anyone is in any doubt about what that means, he goes on to say that

I ask Ulster Unionists to judge that against the present situation and to explain why they are still in this House and in the Executive with Sinn Féin.

We must face reality. People will undoubtedly ask why, even if every Unionist were present and voted for the exclusion of Sinn Féin from the Executive, the motion would not succeed. It is because, under the present system, cross-community support is required. Undoubtedly, support would not be forthcoming from Sinn Féin's bedfellows in the SDLP, the Women's Coalition and perhaps even from those who still claim to have some element of Unionism in their loyalty.

There is only one way in which the community and the House can rid itself of the spectacle of Mr Martin McGuinness and Ms de Brún fronting a party that is inextricably linked to a terrorist organisation, and I ask anyone to challenge my thinking and reasoning on this. Given that the two Governments will not do it for us, the only effective and possible means of removing Sinn Féin from office is for the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party to resign their ministerial positions. The Executive cannot continue without a Unionist input.

I agree with Dr Paisley, and I shall face his challenge fairly and squarely. He rightly said that the DUP's leaving the Executive today would not bring about the demise of the Executive. However, it would clearly leave Mr Trimble exposed. I appeal to my Colleagues in the Democratic Unionist Party to do that to him to leave him naked and alone in an Executive with those fronting paramilitary organisations. That would be the beginning of the end of this unholy edifice.

If the Ulster Unionist Party and the DUP cannot bring this process to an end and remove Sinn Féin/IRA from the Executive before the end of this Assembly session and so allow them into the next Assembly session, they will be equally guilty of betraying the electorate and the decent people of Northern Ireland. Our future, the future of democracy and the future of those who hold dear decency and the entire structure of law and order in this Province is in our own hands.

It is in the hands of every Unionist in the Chamber, and I ask for a united Unionist front on the issue. As the Ulster Unionist Party approach the Ulster Unionist Council meeting on 9 March I ask them not to consider what is right for David Trimble or the yes/no divisions in that party but to ask themselves how democracy can best be served and proper structures put in place. That cannot be done by propping up the system that was set up under the Belfast Agreement. I leave the Unionist community to determine whether there is a will in Unionism to deal with the issue of terrorists in Government. Only through a united Unionist approach can Sinn Féin/IRA be removed from Government.

Again, the deadline for total decommissioning - 28 February - has passed. The original date was May 2000. In a letter to David Trimble before the referendum on the Belfast Agreement, Prime Minister Tony Blair said that decommissioning must begin immediately the Assembly elections were over, that there was a limit of two years for the completion of this process and that all participants had to reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations.

The Prime Minister went on to assure David that if the provisions in the agreement were not strong enough on that point then he, the Prime Minister, would introduce the necessary legislation.

The Ulster Unionist Party also made commitments to the electorate. It said:

It went even further:

Those are not my words. I am quoting from the Ulster Unionist Party document 'Understanding the Agreement'.

All my life I have been loyal to the Ulster Unionist Party. Now I have been suspended because I decided to stand by that document and my election manifesto. As an Ulster Unionist I look forward to the day when a policy of removing terrorists from the Government of this part of the United Kingdom will mean that my loyalty to that party can continue.

There has been no decommissioning about which we can be certain. There was, apparently, a significant act of decommissioning in October 2001. There is nothing more to report at the moment, so Tony Blair has had another bright idea. He will slightly change the criminal justice procedures. The coat of arms will remain in some courts, and the Union flag will fly on designated days.

The UUP has talked of its achievements on the criminal justice procedures. It should not have signed up in the first place to an agreement that would remove the Union flag and the coat of arms. Had it not agreed to that, it would not have had to fight so hard to retain the status quo.

Mr Blair and Mr Reid will doubtless announce an amnesty for terrorists on the run. Since that was never part of the Belfast Agreement, smiling, lying Tony decided to serve up a wee sweet pill to the Unionist community before the real - bitter - one. No one should be surprised; we have seen it all before.

The terrorists who carried out the Teebane massacre, killing workmen who were travelling home after an honest day's work, will be free to do what they want and to go where they like. The same applies to the Enniskillen bombers and to the terrorists responsible for the attack on the Darkley Mission Hall and for the Kingsmill massacre, La Mon and Bloody Friday - to name but a few.

I have no doubt that the concessions agreed at Weston Park were in exchange for an act of decommissioning in October 2001. There was one item on the agenda at the Weston Park talks - decommissioning. Now, months later, we still have no decommissioning, just more concessions.

Who altered the agenda? I had a meeting with Mr Trimble, and he told me that the Prime Minister had changed the agenda, and that he - Mr Trimble - was very annoyed. I repeated my question. Again, Mr Trimble looked at me and said "I was very annoyed". Perhaps our Prime Minister should spend more time trying to defeat terrorism in the United Kingdom, and less time trotting around the world talking tough on terrorism. Would Mr Blair allow terrorists to hold ministerial posts in his Government? Even the terrorists' best friend, Bertie Ahern, does not want them.

Following a murder in Castlewellan, County Down, a Sinn Féin Member said that he was 100% sure that the IRA had had nothing to do with it. However, Members are always told that Sinn Féin cannot speak for the IRA and that it knows nothing about the IRA's guns.

As a reasonable person, I accept that members of Sinn Féin have been elected. Members of Sinn Féin live here, and I ask them to decommission their illegal weapons. That was part of the great and wonderful Belfast Agreement that they signed up to, and which they want to see implemented in full. Mr Adams has said that he is going to try to persuade moderate Unionists like me to join him in a new, agreed United Ireland. Well, Gerry could make a positive start. He could start by decommissioning all his illegal weapons. I still will not join his United Ireland, but I will try to make him feel more welcome in my United Kingdom.

Decommissioning always seems to get a reprieve. The deadline was originally May 2000; that became February 2001; and now it has been extended to 2006 or 2007. Why do Members accept those deadlines? The Royal Ulster Constabulary was not granted a reprieve on its disbandment, uniform changes or recruitment policies. Why? It was because Members of the House would not have accepted it. How then can Members of the House accept a process with no decommissioning? Surely decommissioning is at the very heart of the peace process. Repeatedly extending the deadline gives the impression that decommissioning is not really that important. Sinn Féin can sit back, retain its weapons and seek more and more and more concessions.

Everyone in this House should be equal when it comes to creating a peaceful, prosperous Northern Ireland. I have no guns, bullets or Semtex to use as a bargaining tool. I have nothing more than my conscience, my memories of my murdered friends and my honest belief that I have a right to see decommissioning now, rather than in 2007.

I appeal to the Prime Minister, his Government and Mr Trimble to stand by their commitment to decommissioning as part of the peace process. We will possibly see another bunker sealed within the next few days. I hope that members of the Ulster Unionist Party do not jump up and down with excitement, because it is not for their good, my good or the good of Ulster - it is so that Sinn Féin might get a few extra votes in the elections in the Irish Republic.

The relatives of those who gave their lives for this country must wonder why they did it, for we now share power with the men and women who murdered their loved ones. I wonder how the Unionists in this House will be recorded in history. We will not be around to see that, but we have children and will have great-grandchildren, to whom we have already given a murderer and a bomber as a Minister for their education. I suggest that we do not let them down again. I support the motion.

I will be brief, to allow the Member to have sufficient time for his winding-up speech. I wish to reply to some of the points of those who attacked the DUP and then scurried out of the Chamber, because they did not have even the courtesy to listen to the rest of the arguments. The absence of other parties from the House, with some exceptions, shows contempt not for certain parties, but for the people of Northern Ireland. Those parties try to downplay the importance of decommissioning, yet no issue is more important to the people of Northern Ireland than the way in which the so-called peace process has allowed people to be in Government while holding on to paramilitary weapons and maintaining a paramilitary organisation.

If those Members think that the issue will be brushed under the carpet because they are absent, they have another think coming. Even the parties in the South recognise the dangers that they might face and are speaking out on the issue. As my hon Friend said, undoubtedly they speak with forked tongues, but they make the same point. However, some Unionists still sit silently in the Chamber, or on their hands, and are prepared to allow IRA/Sinn Féin in Government in Northern Ireland, although Nationalists and Republicans in the South do not, and would not, support their presence in Government.

Some 99% of the Ulster Unionist Party's contribution to the debate was a tirade of abuse against the DUP, based on a series of documentation. Some of the UUP were members of the DUP for much of the time that the documents referred to. I see one of the Members, from Lisburn, who will undoubtedly be opposed to what Mr Nesbitt said, as he supported many of the policies at the time and is on record as saying so. The UUP has no defence against our arguments for the exclusion of IRA/ Sinn Féin. IRA/Sinn Féin is a paramilitary-linked organisation, which is part and parcel of the Republican movement, and which is engaging in paramilitary, violent activity today - never mind its history. It has never apologised for that history, and it has never disowned it. It should not be in Government. Rather than take that issue on, the UUP prefers to attack other Unionists. Mr McGimpsey had the audacity to say on the radio this morning that the motion was really an attack by the DUP against Ulster Unionists.

Dr Farren said that the DUP was confused. The only people in Northern Ireland who are confused about the Democratic Unionist Party's position are Dr Farren and those who oppose the DUP. I am glad that he has finally had the courtesy to reply, since he did not have the courtesy to wait to hear the other arguments, but scuttled out as soon as he had finished his own speech.

Order.

Dr Farren spoke about the DUP's taking the Pledge of Office, an issue that I heard about on the radio this morning. The DUP took the Pledge of Office, subject to its electoral commitments and manifesto. It acts entirely in accordance with that procedure and those commitments, unlike others, and it abides by those manifesto commitments. Mr Trimble and the Ulster Unionist Party proposed the exact same motion before the last election, as the hon Member for North Down Mr Weir pointed out. When that party proposed the motion, it was considered to be a tremendous act of courage, designed to take on the IRA; now it is considered to be a stunt. The difference is that, at that time, there was an election coming up, for which Mr Trimble needed support. He thought that the motion would give him some cover.

As Dr Paisley said, if the Ulster Unionist Party is prepared to leave office, the DUP will not remain in the Executive. However, if the DUP were to leave its ministerial positions now, those positions would be taken by its enemies and used to advance the pro-agreement agenda.

Likewise, it has been agreed by all anti-agreement Unionists that it would be wrong to leave the Assembly, even though Sinn Féin is part of it - we have to be here to take Sinn Féin on. We have to ensure that we use the tactics that were endorsed by the electorate when they were put to them at the recent election. There is no confusion - the people are clear, and we are clear. We are going to remain here to harry and harass Mr Trimble, IRA/Sinn Féin, the SDLP and anyone else who wishes to implement the pro-agreement agenda.

It is a regrettable matter, but one of which the pro-Union supporters will no doubt take note, that the Ulster Unionist Party, in league with Irish Nationalists and Republican parties, has confined this important debate to two hours.

None of those parties - and especially not Sinn Féin - wishes to have an issue central to the very heart and concept of democratic government fully debated in a public forum. The number of Ulster Unionist and SDLP Members, to say nothing of Sinn Féin, present for this debate on such a central issue is nothing short of a democratic disgrace, and the contributions of some, such as Dr Farren, are nothing short of democratic depravity.

The peace process was allegedly based on the negotiation of a political settlement between parties dedicated to a peaceful democratic process. It was claimed that only those who eschewed violence as a means of achieving political objectives, and who were permanently committed to non-violent means, were to be included. However, Sinn Féin/IRA bombed and murdered its way, not only into the negotiations, but into Government over those whom it had terrorised, while the security forces who have upheld the rule of law have been downgraded and demeaned.

The peace process and the institutions that it has spawned were merely a cover for conflict resolution between the British Government and violent Republicanism, camouflage for the appeasement of terrorism to obtain not an end to acts of terrorism, but an end to such acts on the British mainland. The Belfast Agreement was conceived as the product of political terror, and it survives because of the threat of renewed mainland terror.

The price of England's safety was the promise to Sinn Féin/IRA of a transitional process towards Irish unity, and the retention by Sinn Féin/IRA of its weaponry is its means of ensuring that perfidious Albion antes up in the fulfilment of its undertaking. Nothing else can explain the abandonment by the British Government of every position that they have taken on the need for decommissioning. They have exaggerated the significance of, and accepted, every ambiguous and deceptive statement on decommissioning made by Sinn Féin, and they are permitting the denigration and demeaning of every symbol, flag and insignia of the majority's British, political and national identity.

That is all made possible by the British fear of a resumption of mainland violence and the retention by Sinn Féin/IRA of its weaponry. Even post-11 September 2001, the British Government stay in cowardly concession mode, despite the fact that the United States's attitude to terrorism would have made any immediate resumption of mainland violence by the IRA improbable.

Current proposals for granting amnesty to criminals on the run bear witness to the continuance of this sickening appeasement. The British Government have been able to pursue a policy of endless concessions to Sinn Féin/IRA by the abject failure of David Trimble and his party to support other pro-Union parties in excluding Sinn Féin from the democratic process while it remains inextricably linked to armed and violent terrorists who retain the means of death and destruction and who, almost daily, engage in the most serious criminal acts of violence and intimidation.

What is the reason for the Ulster Unionist Party's behaviour? It is that Mr Trimble and his supporters on the institutional payroll are more dedicated to their personal and party interests than they are either to the democratic process or to the defence of the Union. The twists and turns of Mr Trimble and some of his political henchmen, such as Messrs Nesbitt and McGimpsey, are too numerous to detail.

Unfortunately for them and their party, as far as the electorate is concerned, they are becoming like President Clinton, whom one Washington journalist described as having no one left to lie to. They are discovering that the pro-Union people now recognise that they have been conned and that Northern Ireland is, indeed, a cold place for Unionists. It is a cold place because Sinn Féin/IRA has the weapons that frighten Mr Blair and his Government into turning the heat down by an endless stream of concessions to Republicanism. Indeed, so gutless are Mr Blair and his political gofer John Reid that the latter is inviting Sinn Féin/IRA and the Irish Government to give Unionists a little heat - perhaps in case Unionists decide that Northern Ireland has become so cold and that heat is so necessary for their survival that they begin to warm themselves.

Does Sinn Féin, that regurgitates the worn out mantra that it is entitled to be here on the basis of its mandate, not realise that since Adolf Hitler's thugs received the judgement at Nuremberg, parties can no longer claim to have a mandate to murder, maim and destroy on that basis? They can no longer claim, as Mr Milosevic is discovering, that acts of violent political terrorism can receive the absolution of an electoral mandate. Nor can Sinn Féin/IRA be allowed the protection of a military ceasefire to justify acts of civil murder, violence and intimidation against those whom it decides to punish. Indeed, nothing is more despicable than Prime Minister Blair's failure to honour the pledges on beatings and intimidation which he gave not only to the pro-Union people, but to those living in Nationalist areas whom Republican terrorists continue to prey upon and attack.

Democracy and its institutions cannot coexist with terrorism, and what is appalling in democratic terms is the position of the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists. They seem to think that terrorism can, indeed, live side by side with democracy. Democrats cannot negotiate on an equal basis with those who can threaten violence and who retain the means to make good those threats. Perhaps Mark Durkan, now in the elevated position of Deputy First Minister, did not realise the full import of his remarks in a recent debate when he revealed that senior British officials at Weston Park in effect contrasted the relevant political leverage of democrats such as the SDLP with that of Sinn Féin in four words - you have no guns. Now is the time when all democrats must remove Sinn Féin/IRA from the political scene until it, like the rest of us, has no guns.

Now I will mention the absent senior sycophant Dermot Nesbitt. In this Chamber on 19 February he said:

Well I have read the 'Belfast Telegraph', and there is not one single word about decommissioning and not one single phrase about "a mere form of words". After two letters and six phone calls Mr Nesbitt replied that the weight of his onerous duties of office prevented him from responding.

This is the man who invited everybody in the Assembly to go and look at the 'Belfast Telegraph' of 1 May 1998, yet he now finds that even he cannot go. That is typical of the turns, twists, deceit, duplicity and utter cowardice of an Ulster Unionist Party that has deceived and conned the pro-Union electorate. However, its time is up. I support the motion.

I remind Members that, in accordance with section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, this motion may be passed only with cross-community support.

I declare that the motion has fallen.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. If there is a dispute about the outcome of the vote, do you not have to call a Division?

If the House wishes to divide, I am certainly prepared to call a Division.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. That vote shows overwhelming approval for the exclusion of IRA/Sinn Féin, and it shows that a clear majority of Unionists in the House are in favour of that. Will you ensure that that is brought to the attention, not only of the Secretary of State, but also of the Prime Minister? He pledged that if the mechanisms of this Assembly did not prove adequate for removing IRA/Sinn Féin, he would take action. Will you ensure that that is drawn to his attention so that he fulfils the pledge he made to the people of Northern Ireland before the referendum?

I do, as a matter of course, bring to the attention of any Ministers motions that relate specifically in their terms to the Ministers involved. This motion relates to responsibilities within the Assembly, not to what the Prime Minister might do. It would be inappropriate for me to take that action. I have no doubt that there are Members here who are fully equipped to do what the Member suggests. That is the proper course of action, rather than for me as Speaker to address the matter.

Adjourned at 12.44 pm.