I beg to move

At the outset it is worth recalling our present situation. We should never forget that Northern Ireland is clearly a better place to live in today, and we do not debate the motion at a time of heightened fear. Members of our new Police Service do not have to check their cars every morning. Shoppers are not stopped every time they pop into a high street store, whether in Belfast, Ballymena or Banbridge. Some may try to exploit the fears of ordinary people, but Northern Ireland is unquestionably a better place in which to live. It is the Ulster Unionist Party that has delivered this situation, despite the risks and the legacy of lawlessness and carnage inflicted upon us by the IRA and other paramilitaries.

However, we recognise that the Republican movement has taken some major steps. It has started decommissioning; its elected representatives sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly - a partitionist body; and it claims to have put its violent past behind it. Unfortunately, that claim is belied by events, and those events have given rise to the motion. The motion refers to recent events in Northern Ireland, England, the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere. A crucial point is that the motion calls on the Secretary of State to make a determination and to deal with it.

Two amendments have been tabled, and I should say something about them. I understand why the Alliance Party has tabled its amendment. It is right that we should be balanced, and the motion refers to Loyalist paramilitaries as well as to Republican ones. If the issue arises, I should be happy to tell my party to support the Alliance amendment.

As regards the DUP's amendment, I must point out to its members that there is a serious issue here. I got the impression last week that they understood the issue, which is that rushing in with an exclusion motion is fruitless. An exclusion motion requires a cross-community vote, and we know from experience - because it has happened - that the circumstances in the Assembly mean that such a motion would not be carried.

On the other hand, our motion puts the responsibility where it ought to rest - on the Secretary of State. I thought that the DUP had realised that when it withdrew its exclusion motion. Unfortunately, the DUP amendment, instead of putting the issue at the Secretary of State's door, puts it back at our own.

Peter Robinson was in error in his interview this morning when he said that if the Secretary of State made a determination on the IRA ceasefire, so what? It means so very much. If there were such a determination, the position of persons released under the early release scheme would be different. If the Secretary of State made such a determination and if the stories about Mr Padraic Wilson at the weekend, for example, were proved to be true, the Secretary of State would have the power to return him to prison. That is a point that the DUP missed.

However, I want to turn to the recent events and violence. We must acknowledge that there have been serious breaches of the IRA ceasefire, and the motion does that. Some people talk about evidence; others suggest that there is no evidence. There clearly is evidence on the Colombian front. I must pay tribute to the US Senate Committee on International Relations for the work that it has done on this issue. Some of the Northern Ireland media reporting of that work misreported the position seriously.

Clear evidence emerged in the course of the hearing that linked the IRA to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) the training given by the IRA to FARC and to the change that took place in the nature of FARC's activities after that. It would be nice if I were in the position to go through the detail of Gen Fernando Tapias's evidence. For Members' sake, it might be good to bear in mind that the IRA's friends on the US Congressional Committee - it has some friends on that Committee, such as Congressman King and others - accepted the standing of Gen Tapias at the hearing. They acknowledged that Gen Tapias is the man who professionalised the Colombian army - a man with a good human rights record. That man said clearly that the IRA has been involved in the training of the FARC organisation, and he produced evidence. He produced statements made by former members of FARC, which clearly involved the IRA.

For example, Geovanny Escobar Polanía gave a statement to the effect that in August 2002 a group of approximately 15 Irish citizens arrived in Bogota and mobilised via buses and private aircraft to various points throughout the FARC demilitarised zone. The purpose of their visit was to train FARC members in terrorism, explosives and military tactics.

In his statement, John Alexander Rodriguez referred to having participated in training directed by them. He also referred to flights of light aircraft with a shipment of 30 boxes of material, the instruction, production and handling of mortars, bombs, gas cylinders and intelligence and the handling of missile launchers. Mr Rodriguez even referred to himself as launching some of them.

Will the Member give way?

Another person referred particularly - [Interruption.]

Order.

Another person referred particularly to the training given by what he called "the three blondes", whoever they might be. I thought that might interest Members. He referred to their giving comprehensive training on the subject of Semtex. He said:

There is clear evidence on the operations in Colombia. That evidence was given, and was thus only available from, last week. We also have other material that one could go through in detail.

Members will be anxious about the concerns over Castlereagh, and the suspicion about the killing in the Dungannon area. If anyone tries to suggest otherwise, I recommend that he reads the letter in 'The Irish News' today from a County Tyrone Republican who made it clear that he has no time for the attempt by some Republicans to suggest that they were not responsible for that murder. People should look at that carefully. Furthermore - [Interruption].

Will the Member give way?

Mr Trimble: - we have the question - [Interruption].

Order.

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not recognise Mr Hussey. [Interruption]. I will give way. [Interruption].

Order.

I do not want to take up too much of Mr Trimble's and the Assembly's time. However, there is something else that we should be aware of regarding an incident in west Tyrone recently. I have a copy of the follow-up security report on the device used in the incident, and I quote:

If dissidents were responsible for that attack, where did they get the materials used mainly by the IRA? Why are the dumps not sealed? Whether by intent or otherwise, are the Provisionals co-operating with the dissidents, or are they really one and the same? To put it in country terms, "the same sow's pigs".

The Member's point is very well made.

The important point to bear in mind about Castlereagh and the Dungannon killing is that there is suspicion, and it is based on intelligence - we do not yet have hard evidence. However, the Secretary of State can act on intelligence. His determination about the UDA ceasefire was made on the basis of intelligence. That is another good reason for putting the issue before the Secretary of State. It is his responsibility, and that of the Government, to maintain the integrity of this process.

It is now eight years since the first ceasefire and four years since the agreement. That is enough time for everything to be settled and enough time for Sinn Féin to demonstrate that it is genuinely committed to peaceful means and not to be continuing with this sort of activity. I hope that the Assembly will support the motion, and I challenge the DUP to support it.

I beg to move amendment No 1: Delete all after "this Assembly" and insert:

Every time the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party indicts the IRA, he is indicting himself. He has accused it of crimes that we know it is guilty of. In his manifesto he asked the following question:

His answer was:

He has indicted the IRA as still being engaged in terrorism today. He should be telling the Secretary of State to get on with the job by letting the Assembly do what it is entitled to do.

I do not need to repeat the indictment already made against the IRA. I advise Members to get a copy of 'Terror International' and read page after page of substantiated evidence - some in the courts - of the fact that the IRA is still engaged in violent acts and terrorism.

I welcome the fact that the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party has awoken to the fact that IRA/Sinn Féin is engaged in intelligence gathering and murder. According to Mr Nesbitt, the Official Unionists now accept that the IRA is replacing old weapons with new ones from Russia. That is sad to state, when we have made attempts to remove the IRA. Mr Trimble tells us that he takes credit for the good things. Nothing can be good for Northern Ireland when the Minister of Education is an IRA/Sinn Féin man who was once the leader of the murder gangs across the Province. The Minister of Education comes from the same litter.

We must face the fact that the Secretary of State has no power. It is no use appealing to him, for he has no power to do anything. This is the House in which the power lies. I refer Mr Trimble to his own party president, Rev Martin Smyth, who spoke in the House of Commons on Thursday 25 April. He said that

What did the Government spokesman say? What did the leader of the Secretary of State's party, the party to which Mr Trimble is appealing, say? [Interruption].

With the Prime Minister beside him, and with his full authority, Robin Cook said that Mr Smyth's comments did not "have a direct bearing" on this matter.

The Government have already decided on the matter referred to in the motion. They have decided that the IRA will stay in this Government.

In the Ulster Unionist Party manifesto for the 1998 Assembly elections, Mr Trimble said that there must be

Those two years have now passed. Mr Trimble also asked

On any one of those points, the IRA has not measured up to what Mr Trimble said they should do. The time has come, therefore, when the people of the Province must remove them from this Government and from this House, as far as executive power is concerned.

A Member: Why do you not take the lead? [Interruption].

Mr Trimble, I will be very happy to resign when you resign, Sir. However, you will not resign, because you have bigger fish to fry.

Will the Member give way?

I will not give way. [Interruption].

Order. Members must resume their seats when the Deputy Speaker is on her feet. Order.

The leader of the Unionist Party decided that the debate would last for only an hour and a half. There is no time for me to - [Interruption].

Order.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Paisley has alleged that I decided that the debate would last for an hour and a half. I appeal to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make it clear that Mr Paisley's statement is totally untrue. It was agreed - [Interruption].

Order. I thank the Member for raising the point of order. The Business Committee decided the timing of the debate. Please be silent for the Member to resume his speech.

The Members of the august body that did that were Mr Trimble's parrots, and if he does not like his parrots, he should shoot them - but evidently he loves them. A few days ago, Mr Trimble was wagging his finger saying "Who are the fools? We have got decommissioning." I say today "You are the fools?" Mr Trimble told us that no Unionist in Northern Ireland could believe a Republican. He believed them, and he tried to fool the people.

I call Mr David Ford to propose the No 2 amendment on the Marshalled List of amendments.

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

Order. The Member has the right to be heard.

I welcome the support given to the Alliance Party's amendment by Mr Trimble. We accept that there was some justification behind the original motion, but it clearly went over the top. It implied that guilt had already been decided while clarification was still being sought and that the UUP had the answer to the question it was asking. That did not seem entirely correct, and it was also partial. It ignored the threat to society from Unionist terror groups, and it concentrated solely on demands for action against Nationalist terror groups. I have sympathy with some of Mr Trimble's views - clearly all the parties that assented to the agreement should live up to their obligations.

There are many concerns centring on Colombia, the Castlereagh break-in and other matters. There are many questions that the Republican movement has yet to answer. There are many conspiracy theories about Castlereagh, nearly as many as there are journalists working in Belfast, but no one can say whether they involve Republicans or rogue groups in the system.

Similarly, with regard to Colombia, some Alliance representatives went to Washington in March and met people from the House Committee on International Relations. It is absolutely clear that concerns were developing there and that evidence was being compiled for last week's hearing. There were serious concerns about international involvement in Colombia in which it appeared that the IRA was implicated along with the FARC. Republicans must live up to their side of the Good Friday Agreement. They are contributing massively to the declining support for the agreement, because they are simply not being seen to deliver on their obligations.

There are far too many questions still around - questions over acts of violence, murders and international connections. I am concerned at recent suggestions that Palestinians may be using IRA-style pipe bombs, but, as a Member of the Assembly, I am much more concerned about Loyalists and Republicans using pipe bombs on the streets of Belfast. When the IRA has made moves on decommissioning, I have welcomed them. They have been a serious step towards promoting a culture of movement in favour of the agreement. They have been significant - at least in Republican terms, if not in the terms in which others have viewed them - and the IRA has expected people to have confidence in the process because of that. However, it needs to do more, and it needs to be seen to be doing more. It needs to be more open and transparent about the process because it is not just the Unionists who are concerned. There is widespread concern across the community, and that concern must be answered. Unionists cannot have it both ways.

I was interested in the line of questioning that was put to Dermot Nesbitt on 'Good Morning Ulster' this morning. He was asked "Isn't the Alliance Party right to say that your motion is over the top?" He replied "No, we have the information." He was then asked "Well then, isn't the DUP right?" He replied "Well no, actually, we do not have the information."

I paraphrase, but that was the way in which the motion was produced for the House. That is why it needs to be worded more satisfactorily.

Fundamentally, Unionists - specifically Ulster Unionists - have to decide where they stand on the agreement. What is their attitude to the Belfast Agreement? If the Assembly wishes to make an honest attempt to find out information from the Secretary of State, that is fine. However, if it is a halfway house to appeasing not just the DUP but also the anti-agreement elements within the Ulster Unionist Party, it is achieving nothing and is contributing to destabilising the situation. It is somewhat reminiscent of the attitude, as first adopted, on the day that Sinn Féin entered the talks in 1997. My party had discussions with Sinn Féin before it came into the talks, and we sought to involve it in the process and to assist it to move towards democracy. At that time, the Ulster Unionists complained about parties with paramilitary links, and then we saw them arrive in the talks accompanied by the PUP and the UDP.

If the amendment is accepted by Mr Trimble and backed by his Colleagues in the Division Lobby, it will at least be a sign that they are starting to move away from the notion that there are "good terrorists" and "bad terrorists" or "our terrorists" and "their terrorists". I do not believe that that was their position when they tabled the motion, and the whole group needs to make that clear by its actions in the Division Lobby. There have been many incidents recently. They have gone from the Lammas Fair, through south Antrim to the streets of north Belfast nightly, raising questions about the actions of Loyalists, their attitude to the agreement and their attitude to their ceasefires. There is widespread acceptance that that needs to be looked at. I welcome the fact that Mr Trimble has joined in that today.

The motion, as it was tabled, bore the signatures of Mr Trimble, Mr Leslie, Mr Davis and Mr McGimpsey. However, I believe that it bore the fingerprints of Messrs Burnside and Donaldson. It is time that the Unionist grouping in the Assembly began to get away from those influences. The amendment gives the opportunity to do that. It gives the opportunity for Ulster Unionists to stop looking over their shoulders at the anti-agreement elements within their party. The amendment changes the motion. It seeks genuine clarification of the situation from the Secretary of State. I welcome the acceptance by the First Minister, and I look forward to seeing him, his Colleagues and other Members of the Assembly uniting around a reasonable policy. I commend the amendment.

The SDLP will be opposing the DUP amendment because, in reality, it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is an exclusion motion in the guise of softer words. It is a wrecking attempt that is based on party needs and not on compelling grounds. We could see that from the exchange between the DUP leader and the UUP leader.

In addition, we will not be supporting the UUP motion for various reasons. We have already seen on the Floor of the House this afternoon why we will not be supporting it. Is this a place where, amid all the sound and fury, there can be a proper debate and a proper conclusion to this serious issue? Will we have any more clarity at 6 pm than we had at 4 pm? Is this the best time and place to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion - [Interruption].

Where else?

I will come to that. Is this the best place, enabling some in here to grandstand and others to point fingers? The SDLP does not think so.

Will the Member give way?

I have only five minutes. Our approach is to try to protect what has been achieved in the Chamber and through the Good Friday Agreement, to advance legitimate concerns about the integrity or otherwise of ceasefires and to develop outcomes that develop confidence in ceasefires and the political process. That is why it is appropriate to make an assessment about IRA and UVF ceasefires and to seek assessments of the integrity or otherwise of those ceasefires from Governments. It is appropriate to determine, from police services on this island and elsewhere, whether ceasefires are being maintained.

Where did the security report that I have come from?

I will come to that. It is appropriate to raise any issue, including this one, with the recently established implementation group through which the Governments and the pro-agreement parties have outlined mechanisms whereby issues can be properly discussed, considered and resolved.

The issue must be addressed with rigour, whether by Governments, parties, people, or by police services. If paramilitary organisations are active, we need to know their full nature, details and intentions. What we need is not speculation, but substance; not story telling, but evidence gathering. Only with rigour can we prove that ceasefires, wherever they may be, are being demonstrably dishonoured.

We must not fall foul of those who brief, leak and, perhaps, lie for self-protection. Elements in paramilitary organisations, British security agencies, the darkest places of Government offices and special branch have all done that in the past and are all capable of doing so now. In making a judgement in these matters we should not fall foul of these agendas. We must bring rigour to the process to ensure that our achievement - a new political and policing order - is not unduly damaged. Organisations that renege on ceasefire commitments must be called rigorously to account. What is known must be seen to be known, and what action is taken, seen to be taken.

I will consider current events using Colombia in its IRA context and the break-in at Castlereagh in a wider context. Gerry Adams claims that his non-attendance at the US Congressional hearing was vindicated. Is that really the case? The Congressional report concluded that the IRA had well-established links with the FARC. It stressed that it was implausible that the IRA would not have known about the links with FARC, adding that the IRA contribution has markedly enhanced FARC techniques. It is quite proper to challenge the reasons behind the Congressional report and its evidence, but it is not vindication. People here deserve more respect from political leadership. They want accountability, whether it is for the actions of the police in the North; of politicians in the South; or what illegal organisations do internationally or at home. Warm words cannot evade that requirement - be they from Gerry Adams, the IRA, the UDA, the UVF, the state, or anyone else. We need assessment and accountability for past and present activities. However, this is not the place or the time.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It is obvious from the debate so far that it has more to do with an argument in Unionism than with anything else. To people who are not sitting in the Assembly, the background is one of constant Loyalist attacks - in my constituency of North Belfast, for example - over the past 18 months. In the past couple of days death threats have been issued to Sinn Féin councillors and elected representatives and an attack on an ex-Sinn Féin councillor's home has occurred, and four people have been killed by Loyalists in the past 18 months. Yet on the Benches opposite no motions have been proposed - there has been absolute silence.

I will go further. When there was some debate that there should be a determination on the UDA's ceasefire, if my memory serves me right, members of the UUP argued against it. They said it would be a bad idea for the Secretary of State to take such a course of action. Add to that ongoing collusion, undercover surveillance and the bugging of houses. It is ironic that at the weekend there were leaked reports that Republican houses were being bugged as well. The recruitment of informers is ongoing - I know of a case where a vulnerable young boy of 14 was recruited and has been used for the past five years. There are beatings in North Queen Street and other places that we have seen in the media. When houses in South Armagh are raided, people like Peter Carraher are beaten up on the basis that there was a protest at one of the barracks. Plastic bullets are still being used. The last three kids who have been struck by plastic bullets were a 10-year old, a 12-year old and a 14-year old.

What about blast bombs?

The UDA are at that too.

All the evidence and the circumstances of what happened in Castlereagh, which was mentioned in the debate, point towards the involvement of other intelligence agencies. We are in the ironic position whereby those who carried out the raid are briefing Members on the other side of the House, who are using that information as a reason for the debate. That is ridiculous, especially when one considers the death of William Stobie, an agent who was killed in mysterious circumstances, and that of Stephen McCullough, who was found dead at the bottom of Cave Hill after trying to give information. One could be forgiven for asking where is the Crown forces' ceasefire.

Where are the stories coming from? I used the word "stories", and people are calling them leaks, but it is disinformation - and it comes from the securocrats in the system. That is not a new development, because those are the people who were against the peace process from the start and who have tried to undermine it ever since. Yet the people across the Chamber - and some on this side - take as gospel these intelligence reports, which have been used against the peace process from the start. Those who went into Castlereagh and took the alleged documents are the same people who are giving briefings and winding up the Unionists and other political parties so that they will hold this debate to try to undermine the peace process.

Against that, the IRA is now in the fifth year of its ceasefire; it is fully engaged with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD); it has allowed the involvement of international inspectors; it has agreed schemes; it has twice put arms beyond use, most recently on 8 April; it has said several times that it is no threat to the peace process; and it has proved its commitment in actual deeds as opposed to the nonsense of the other side of the House. [Interruption].

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member is entitled to be heard.

The Nationalist community is asking what is the intent of the Unionist leadership, which has stalled the institutions and subverted the all-Ireland bodies. David Trimble has undermined Ministers in the Executive and insulted people in the Twenty-six Counties and elsewhere. He has not used his influence with regard to arms. The UUP cannot "out-Paisley" Paisley; it cannot "out-DUP" the DUP, and it should forget any idea of doing so. We heard about decommissioning and are now hearing about the issue of IRA disbandment.

This process is about people on the ground; it is about making politics work, and the pro-Good Friday Agreement parties should work towards that. There should not be trial by media - that is the evidence that was produced - nor should there be trial by Unionism. If books, papers and programmes are to be relied on, a book entitled 'The Committee' was published, which attacked David Trimble and others, so we should not take such matters too seriously.

Many in the Unionist community are asking what is the real purpose of the motion that Mr Trimble and his Colleagues tabled and what would it achieve if it were accepted?

Mr Trimble wants the Secretary of State to determine the status of the so-called IRA ceasefire and to take "appropriate action", whatever that means. Mr Trimble has already heard the Secretary of State and is well aware of Mr Reid's view that the ceasefire is intact. However, Mr Trimble has a different view. He made it clear when he emerged from a meeting with his friends in SinnFein/IRA last Friday that he had, in no uncertain terms, told Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness that nobody in the Unionist community believed a word that Republicans said when they denied the involvement of Sinn Féin/ IRA in recent terrorist events. That is Mr Trimble's assessment of the situation.

Mr Trimble is right, but he should be aware that no one in the Unionist community understands why the Ulster Unionist Party and the DUP have Ministers in a power-sharing Administration, who govern the very people that Mr Adams, Mr McGuinness and their colleagues terrorised for the past 30 years. Why are the Ulster Unionist Party and the DUP having this exchange concerning who is to blame for this sorry plight, with one saying to the other "after you"?

Mr Trimble knows that the Unionist community has had a bellyful of that nonsense. The message from that community is that he must lead the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives out of the Assembly. Whether the Ulster Unionist motion succeeds or the DUP proposes a motion next week to exclude Sinn Féin, the support of the SDLP is required to remove Sinn Féin from the Government. However, Mr Durkan calls the activity of Sinn Féin/IRA and the acts of terrorism "turbulence". It might seem like turbulence to Mr Durkan, who views it from a distance, but to those who have been murdered or terrorised or had their loved ones buried in unmarked graves it is more than turbulence.

It is a disgrace that those who say that they believe in democracy dismiss the activities of gangsters in such a fashion. Mr Durkan will meet his day of reckoning when they gobble up his party. He gave them oxygen when they were on their knees. When the RUC and the army had the IRA hounded into their corners in west Belfast like the rats that they are, the SDLP and Mr Hume brought them back, gave them credibility and brought them into the democratic process. The SDLP will regret that when the electorate deals with it.

Let us remember that Mr Trimble was the guarantor of the Prime Minister's promises. Mr Blair promised that there would be no question of those who were not completely committed to the democratic process remaining in government in Northern Ireland. Mr Trimble knows that the Prime Minister has lied to the people of Northern Ireland. What is he going to do about it? He can try to pass the buck to the Secretary of State. Mr Trimble has assessed that IRA/Sinn Féin's so-called ceasefire is not worth a tuppenny candle, yet he is prepared to continue to sit in government with its Members.

The people of Northern Ireland will tell Mr Trimble that that is not sufficient, because they know the true purpose of Mr Trimble's new approach to those he has cosied up to in recent years. He realises now. He said that not a single Unionist out there supported what was happening in this process. Sooner or later he will be faced with an election. If the DUP's challenge in the House of Lords succeeds, an election might be called before the end of this year. I say to Mr Trimble and his Colleagues, and even to those in the so-called anti-agreement wing of his party, that it will do no good to say that the party is under new management, change its leadership and attempt once again to sell policies that repeat the lies of its last manifesto. They told the public that they would not sit in government with those who were armed and were carrying on the violence.

Time is up.

You have broken that pledge, Mr Trimble; now let us see you squirm.

Time is up. Order.

I support the amendment tabled by Dr Paisley and Mr Peter Robinson. I am encouraged that the Ulster Unionist Members have deigned to attend such a debate at last. One could ask whether they have had a road to Damascus conversion at this late stage, but I doubt it.

Let there be no doubt that the pro-agreement element in the Ulster Unionist Party has closed its eyes and ears to what the anti-agreement Unionists have been saying for months. They will get little salvation when they go to the electorate having hardened their stance at such a late stage.

Had that party been present in the Chamber in March, when the anti-agreement Unionists called for the removal of IRA/Sinn Féin from government, they would have heard plenty of evidence to question the validity of the ceasefires. The month before that, the media was filled with accounts of the IRA's involvement in the murder of Matthew Burns in Castlewellan in February. Since then there have been many more chilling reports of the latest discoveries of the IRA's murky, underworld deeds. A trigger-happy gunman in Tyrone murdered a man on his taxi run. As the story unfolded, it became apparent that the Provisional IRA was the prime suspect for the planning and execution of that operation. Furthermore, it followed confirmation that the IRA was involved in co-operation with Colombian terrorists - despite earlier denials by Gerry Adams - and that its organisation has been importing weapons from Russia.

None of those events takes note of the daily gangsterism in which the paramilitaries are involved. We see the writing on the wall at Bawnmore, "White City will burn"; a man with strong IRA connections being questioned about the break-in at Castlereagh, and - surprise, surprise - found to be in possession of intelligence on the details of politicians and a list of security bases to be targeted for attack. That man was released from prison under the terms of the Belfast Agreement.

Four years on, the Assembly must question whether anything has changed. Time prevents my outlining further examples. However, how much more evidence is needed to prove that IRA/Sinn Féin has peace on its lips but war in its heart? These people are in Government by day and involved in terrorism by night. Can the Assembly be expected to believe that the ceasefire is intact, despite cynical, token acts of decommissioning for the sake of political gain in the South? The evidence of the past month suggests not. What now of Mr Trimble's assessment? He has, once again, been foolish in his analysis, while anti-agreement Unionists have been steadfast and true.

In what has been proven to be an inaccurate analysis of the Belfast Agreement, Mr Trimble and his pro-agreement Colleagues have been guilty of abandoning every election pledge. Clearly, the serious questions that he was going to ask Gerry Adams last week came - once again - to nothing. That is no surprise. However, the Ulster Unionist Party does not appear to learn from its mistakes. The motion is weak - typically weak. It merely calls upon the Secretary of State to make a determination on the status of the IRA ceasefire and to indicate the consequent measures that he considers appropriate. The Secretary of State has already declared the ceasefire intact. Therefore he will, no doubt, declare that nothing need be done.

Where does that leave the so-called peace process? The answer is where it has always been: at the whim, mercy and service of those for whom violence has always paid. I remind the members of the Ulster Unionist Party that they have already heard what their Colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour Party have said and how they propose to vote. I urge Ulster Unionist Members to support the amendment in the name of Dr Paisley and Mr Robinson and to present a united Unionist front. The United Unionist Assembly Party supports the amendment.

It strikes me - watching the demeanour of the Democratic Unionists - that they would have had quare fun in the air-raid shelters. They are the type of people who get happy at the thought of a crisis. The fun and laughter in the Chamber today does not portray the true picture. The Assembly is on the cusp of a crisis - one that is probably deeper than any we have had.

However, I have difficulty with the amendment. The Progressive Unionist Party is not a party of exclusion; it does not believe that excluding people is the answer. It certainly does not believe that it is wise to table an exclusion motion in the knowledge that it cannot work. It is ridiculous to ask the Secretary of State to give a repeat determination. The Assembly must instead identify the problem.

The Progressive Unionist Party entered into a partnership in the full knowledge that the partner had told lies previously and did not have substantially bona fide intentions to accompany - in the view of my community - the process. However, the Progressive Unionists were prepared to take a risk and accept the challenge. The partner, on the other hand, is behaving with great infidelity. It is not a jibing or laughing matter. It is more than just the stunt of 30 names that cannot achieve anything. Parties must look into their hearts.

If you genuinely, truly, really, believed that someone was besmirching the process so much, you -

You would go to court.

You would probably walk out and not afford the process any oxygen. In doing so, you would precipitate a crisis that would force the circumstances to be looked at again. It is simply the case - [Interruption].

Order.

The Member who heckles is very legalistic and can clearly interpret what would happen in the event of a complete walkout by the Unionist family. He fully understands - [Interruption].

Order, order.

Nevertheless, we could bandy about all the issues that have already been raised. However, the simple reality is that, for me, there was the IRA. Sinn Féin likes to call it "the army". For 30 years, the army was undoubtedly in the ascendant in its relationship with Sinn Féin. Many of us in the negotiating process struggled with and wondered about whether Sinn Féin would achieve the ascendant in its relationship with the IRA. Many of us believed, in the historic days of the Good Friday Agreement, that that had, indeed, happened.

The events that others have related show that that is not the case; that Sinn Féin is hidebound to the army, not the other way round. Therefore, those who propagate Republican opinion via the mouth are telling us how reasonable and decent the future can be and what fine democrats they will be. However, the IRA, or elements thereof, is undoubtedly doing something completely different. That is intolerable. It is not acceptable. My party will review its position in relation to this Assembly and the peace process.

The exclusion of Sinn Féin is not the issue, because any agreement that we create in the future - and some day there will be an agreement that works - will be of a similar style and nature to the one that we have. The question is, if there is a next time round, will those who operate it do so with greater honour and integrity? I know, perhaps better than most, that it is not easy to be in Sinn Féin's position, but I will require some convincing that Sinn Féin did not, and do not, know what details the leadership of the IRA is placing on the activities of the IRA.

The Member's time is up.

From what I have heard so far, it seems that the debate is one where rumour is fast becoming fact, and spin is being traded off as substance. We are in grave danger of spinning ourselves round and round in yet another crisis. Unlike others, the Women's Coalition tried to avoid the knee-jerk reactions of the past two weeks and the jumping to conclusions time and time again. We do not know the facts.

It is rather worrying to see Mr Hussey reading from a "security report" on the Floor of the House. Often that is what raises the concerns. If we are to implement this agreement, we should share such information and not just pull it out because of a particular liaison with one part of the police in Northern Ireland. I am certain that the police have tried to avoid that in the past. That is why they have kept many documents to themselves, lest any political party make them its and its alone. It was a rather worrying introduction to the debate.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>