It is an official document.

Indeed, that is why I said what I said, and why an implementation committee is urgently needed. We put forward the idea of an implementation committee right after we had signed the Good Friday Agreement, because we knew that, while doing a deal and making an agreement was easy, implementing it was going to be the difficult part.

If a party has access to information in official documents, let it share that information with us. Let us all engage in factual discussion.

Some irresponsible journalism has presented rumour as fact. A headline in the 'News Letter' last week read "Last days of peace?" David Ervine is probably correct: if a question mark is placed after "Last days of peace", what are we to think? Will we go round and round in this circle? Let those who remember the 1970s reflect, please, on what we now have and on what is precious. Part of the agreement concerned inclusion, and we must work hard at that to reassure those on either side that we are serious about our reasons for being here and for sharing power. If that has not been the case to date, we must rectify it urgently.

The Secretary of State should get his finger out. It is not enough for him to report to the media and expect everyone to be satisfied. He should call on every one of us, including the British and Irish Governments, even if the Irish Government are engaged in an election. This is more important. There should be truth and hard talking. Can any of the pro-agreement parties say that that did not happen at the last meeting? That meeting was scheduled to last one hour; instead, it continued for the best part of two and a half hours, because people began to challenge one another to see others' viewpoints. Perhaps that is why so much confidence has drained away.

Some Unionists have said that they are 100% certain that the IRA was behind the break-in at Castlereagh. Others, however - including the police - have said that it was an inside job. If a criminal investigation is ongoing, surely we must wait for the report of its findings. Have we not done that in other criminal investigations? We damage the process by not waiting.

The Women's Coalition will not vote on the motion, because it does nothing to advance serious discussion on how to resolve the issues or to get to the bottom of what has happened. Dissident paramilitaries and those who have been against the agreement from the beginning -

Time is up.

- are probably clapping their hands in delight at the debate.

Let me put Gerry Kelly and Monica McWilliams right on fact and fiction. It is a fact that three eco-tourists with established IRA connections, and in some cases records, travelled on false passports. The IRA's engaging with Gen de Chastelain is a fact. It is a fact that Paddy Wilson, who is their engager, is also engaging in Colombia. The photograph of Paddy Wilson travelling under a false passport as a Mr Walker is a fact.

The terms of the motion highlight the hypocrisy of the Ulster Unionist Party. On 7 June 1996 Mr Trimble declared in the 'Belfast Telegraph' that he would stop the talks if decommissioning of all arms did not start right away. Exactly one year later he was suggesting in the 'News Letter' that decommissioning should be pigeonholed.

He takes the biscuit for political hypocrisy, because he became First Minister only with the help of whom? - the PUP, also known as the UVF.

Why has this motion been tabled now, when the IRA has been in almost continuous violation of its ceasefire over the past few years? Murders of alleged drug dealers by Direct Action Against Drugs (DAAD) - an IRA alias - have simply been ignored.

Murders of claimed informers, such as Charles Bennett, have been dismissed as internal housekeeping. Executions of so-called dissidents, such as Joe O'Connor in west Belfast, or former activists, now disapproved of, such as Eamon Collins in Newry, have been swept under the carpet. Those who had the personal courage and physique to challenge the intimidation of the local IRA commander, such as Andrew Kearney, have been shot and murdered in their homes.

Beatings, shootings, forced exile, murder, organised crime, racketeering, targeting, training, recruitment and rearming have been going on for the past four years. Yet, until now, none of those caused the Ulster Unionist Party, which has suddenly become politically fastidious, to cease political habitation in Government with Sinn Féin, with whom the IRA is inextricably linked. The real reason for this unprincipled political opportunism is the possibility of an early election if the House of Lords confirms that Mr Trimble's re-election as First Minister last November was indeed a pantomime, with Mr Ford performing nobly as the rear end of the horse.

Mr Trimble's current political lunacy, in claiming that the IRA's second historical stunt amounts to a process of decommissioning, coupled with his having given credence to Gerry Adams's assertion that Sinn Féin and the IRA are separate by asking Gerry and Martin, as democrats, to restrain those with whom they are inextricably linked as terrorists from behaving badly, raises questions as to the balance of Mr Trimble's political mind. Grass-roots Unionists will recognise this charade as another performance by the purple turtle - a burst of assumed red-faced political rage before he rolls on his back to surrender. Sinn Féin should have been removed from the Executive long ago.

However, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP have a vested interest in keeping Sinn Féin here. The SDLP, which suggested via Mr Attwood that this is a battle between Unionists, ignores the fact that it has a battle with Sinn Féin. The SDLP has become even greener than the green, and it will never ever treat with democrats while it is in an unholy union with Nationalists who are committed to terror.

The motion is a fraudulent farce.

My remarks are addressed to the Sinn Féin Members; I do not intend to attack fellow Unionists as others have done today. Today's question is simple: do Members ignore all that has happened in the past few months and pretend that nothing is wrong? Or do we, as elected representatives, reflect the deep concerns of the people of Northern Ireland and demand from the Secretary of State a clear determination on the status of the IRA's ceasefire?

We must question the ceasefire status of a group that has gathered and stored information on political figures and has targeted people for the past few months. Those are hardly the actions of an organisation committed to purely peaceful and democratic means. Are we supposed to accept at face value the explanations and excuses that have been given for the presence of three senior Republicans, including Sinn Féin's Cuban representative, in the jungles of Colombia? As Congressman Henry Hyde said, the reasons given are little short of an insult to our intelligence. We are told that they travelled to Colombia on false passports to study the flora and fauna of the region and to discuss the peace process with FARC, the world's leading eco-terrorists. Is it purely coincidental that FARC has killed numerous people recently using IRA-style urban terrorist methods? FARC has developed those tactics and methods only since the Republican visit. I do not believe for a minute that that is a coincidence.

We will be failing in our duty as elected representatives if we do not call on the Secretary of State to make a determination on the break-in at Castlereagh. As he did with other ceasefires, he should make an honest assessment and then say what consequent measures he considers appropriate.

What credibility will the Assembly have if it does not endorse this motion? We can support the UUP motion and show that Unionists are united. Do we want to be seen to turn a blind eye to everything that has happened? What message would that give to paramilitary groups? It would suggest that they can do what they want and that the Assembly will take no punitive measures.

In addition to all the democratic rights about which we hear so much, we have responsibilities. Republicans have been ignoring their responsibilities for too long, and it is time that they faced up to them. Shipping in guns from Florida or elsewhere is incompatible with maintaining a ceasefire, as is killing or maiming people who happen to disagree with them. A commitment to purely peaceful and democratic means is more than a collection of words. It is a solemn promise which everyone in the Chamber, including the Republican movement, gave regarding the way in which they would conduct themselves in the conflict resolution process. Others have been held to account for failing to live up to the promises that they made; Republicans cannot be exempted from their responsibilities.

If this process is to flourish we cannot have one group of people playing by different rules. It is not possible to be partly democratic. A person is either committed to democracy, with all the responsibility that it entails, or he or she is not. [Interruption].

Order.

There are no halfway houses.

Bertie Ahern says that he does not believe that Republicans were involved in the break-in at Castlereagh because he has found them to be honest in the past. He must have a short memory. How honest were Republicans when they initially denied murdering Det Garda Jerry McCabe or when they denied responsibility for the Enniskillen atrocity, the disappearance of Jean McConville or the Birmingham bombings? How many drug dealers have been murdered by Direct Action Against Drugs?

Despite the honesty of Republicans, Bertie has made it abundantly clear that he will not form a coalition with them after the election in the Republic. However, people on this side of the border are expected to swallow everything -

The Member's time is up.

We are told to ignore the evidence of our own eyes and ears. The trouble is that there are too many doctors on this side of the House who can diagnose the illness but cannot provide the cure. [Interruption].

Order. The Deputy Speaker is on her feet. Order.

This is the first time that the hon Member Mr Davis has spoken on Sinn Féin/IRA's breach of its ceasefire. I have not heard the Member talk in that way in the past four years, and some of his Colleagues will be amazed to hear the views that he expressed. He cited the IRA's breaches of its ceasefire and said that we cannot turn a blind eye to it or trust it. The Member will have no difficulty resolving that the IRA ceasefire is flawed and considering the appropriate measures to take. The hon Member is nodding. If he truly believes in what he said, I expect to see him in the Lobby with the DUP to vote for its amendment. If he is not in that Lobby, we will know that his words were hot air designed to distract attention away from the fact that everything that he said is true this week, was true last week, last month, last year and has been true for the past four years while he and his Colleagues kept Sinn Féin/IRA in the Government of Northern Ireland -[Interruption].

I hear the Member for East Belfast, Sir Reg Empey, chirping from the Back Benches. If he has something to say, perhaps he will get to his feet and say it as a man in a debate instead of leaving it to his Colleagues. [Interruption].

Order, order.

The hon Member is keen to speak now, but he did not take his chance to make a contribution to the debate. At the time of our exclusion motion, he, along with other Members, came to the Chamber briefly and then scurried off. They criticised the DUP for being engaged in stunts when we were in the business of moving the exclusion of Sinn Féin/IRA for many of the same reasons that they are now putting forward to support their motion in the Assembly today.

In relation to the so-called decommissioning event or stunt that the IRA carried out, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party - who, by the way, spent most of his time attacking fellow Unionists - asked only two weeks ago where the anti-agreement Unionists were, and who was looking foolish now. Now who is looking foolish? He was praising the IRA and criticising Unionists two weeks ago, and now here they are coming to the Assembly reading out a litany of crimes that were all in existence two weeks ago. Colombia is no recent invention of the media. This party and others, and the press, have been exposing what has been happening in Colombia for a considerable time.

Mr Trimble said two weeks ago in a speech in London that the IRA was still killing people in Northern Ireland. If he really believes that, why is he asking the Secretary of State to make a determination? He knows that the IRA is killing people. The SDLP knows that the Provisional IRA is killing people, because the hon Member for South Down, Mr McGrady, stood up in the House of Commons and named the Provisional IRA as the murderers of Matthew Burns in south Down.

We have heard from several Members that the IRA and the Republican movement, on numerous occasions, have denied involvement in events, only to admit them later, as identified by the widow of Garda Jerry McCabe amongst others. There is a whole list of these types of events. Therefore, given the involvement of IRA/Sinn Féin, why should we wait until the Secretary of State makes a determination? Why does the Assembly not take responsibility? Why do the Members on the Ulster Unionist Bench want to shuffle this responsibility off on to the Secretary of State when we have the power to table an exclusion motion and say to the Secretary of State that the majority of Unionists - the majority of Members in the House - do not believe that an organisation engaged in murder, violence, intimidation, gunrunning and promoting international terrorism should be in the Government of Northern Ireland?

As far as the PUP is concerned, I listened to Mr Ervine talking about not being a party of exclusion, yet his party put its name to an exclusion motion just a few months ago in the Assembly. He talked about walking out. He walked out of Weston Park, but he soon walked back into the process. He is in no position to lecture anyone about the process.

If people on the Unionist side of the House really believe that the IRA is involved in Colombia, really believe that gunrunning from Florida has taken place, really believe that the IRA is engaged in murder, really believe - unlike Mr Cobain, the Member for North Belfast, and the Lord Mayor of Belfast, Mr Rodgers, who both denied that the IRA was involved and put the blame entirely on the security forces - they will join us in the Lobby and vote for the amendment and against the motion.

Alex Attwood has already said that the SDLP will not be supporting the main motion, even as amended. Our reason for not doing so is that the Secretary of State does not need a resolution of the House before making a determination. A party does not need to bring a motion to the House to call on the Secretary of State to make a determination on the status of any ceasefire. The SDLP previously called on the Secretary of State to make a determination in relation to the UDA ceasefire, and we did not trouble the Assembly with it. We were quite open and public in our calls for it, and pursued it on those terms. Some people who are calling on the Assembly to back this motion opposed our call then.

I will make it clear that we do not oppose any call by any party for a determination to be made by the Secretary of State, and any party is free to make that call. As some Members suggested, the Secretary of State, in his comments and observations last week, hinted at how he would respond to a call for a formal determination. If people believe that it would be helpful to have a determination by the Secretary of State on the ceasefire of the IRA or the UVF, and if Mr Reid were so persuaded, the SDLP would not oppose his decision to do so.

People, rightly, have many concerns about the nature and the level of ongoing paramilitary activity, including that of groups such as the IRA and Loyalist paramilitary organisations. They are also concerned about what certain members of the intelligence community are up to. We read in the newspapers about leaks and spins, with documents apparently being handed to MLAs, and so forth. That does nothing to reassure people that there are not wheels within wheels as regards the activities of the paramilitaries and the intelligence services. Let us be clear: there are also spins within spins in this exercise.

Many of us have legitimate questions about what is happening and about the implications of such activities. That is one reason that I agree with the comments of Mr Attwood and Ms McWilliams that the implementation group that the Governments established would be a suitable forum in which to air and share those fundamental concerns. The implementation group should not be convened as a crisis measure to deal only with the issues that we discuss today; it should deal with other matters. The recent report of the Oversight Commission for Policing Reform and that of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD), on the second act of decommissioning, are among the plentiful material that could form that group's agenda. There is plenty of material to provide the basis upon which parties could share their fundamental concerns about what is happening.

I do not give great credence to IRA denials. I am as aware as other Members are of previous instances of IRA denials that were subsequently contradicted by admissions or evidence. Equally, I do not place much credence on the spin of selective briefings by some members of the intelligence services. Therefore, we are all caught: we hear different claims from the "unbelievables" in different quarters of the conflict. Those of us who are unsure of whether to believe the claims of paramilitaries and intelligence services should concentrate on what we believe ourselves. Although others are back doing what they know best, we should do what we know best - protect the political process. We listen to the IRA's reassurance that it poses no threat to the peace process. However, I am as frustrated as anybody else is by the IRA's apparent belief that it alone is the arbiter of what defines the peace process and of what is good or bad for the process. We are the arbiters of the political process; we are here to guarantee it, and I will not allow paramilitary activity from any quarter to veto it. I will not allow the shenanigans of the intelligence services to handicap the operation of the political process.

Over the past hour and a half, we have had examples of too many armchair generals giving their opinions and exerting their spin, whether inside the Chamber or being quoted from outside it. Therefore, it is reasonable that the Assembly, in the present circumstances, should request, as a corporate body, that the Secretary of State make a determination on the state of the IRA and UVF ceasefires. We may be the arbiters of the political process, but we can advance that process only in an atmosphere of honesty. If we attempt to cover matters up, we will not make that advance.

The debate was not difficult to summarise: I discovered that Nigel Dodds, Cedric Wilson, Denis Watson and Robert McCartney do not like the Good Friday Agreement - well, that is really amazing. I was interested in Gerry Kelly's comments when he criticised the original motion, though he made little reference to the amendment. [Interruption].

Order.

Some of the criticisms that Gerry Kelly made of Loyalist and Unionist paramilitaries were similar to those that I made earlier in the debate. However, ideas should not be denigrated on the basis of those who hold them, so in that respect I welcome Mr Kelly's contribution.

We had a contribution from Monica McWilliams, which was thoughtful in highlighting the danger of building up a crisis. There is no doubt that we are in great danger of talking up the crisis and making too much of it. We must also recognise that we had a meeting of the implementation group, which failed to achieve anything significant in paving the way forward. If we do not find a better way of making those systems work, we will continue to be in the same kind of crisis as we have been.

I noticed that Alex Attwood felt that this was not something for the Assembly today, that it was all to do with the battle within Unionism. I said what I thought about the battle in the Ulster Unionist Party and the difficulties that appear to afflict Mr Trimble - the fingerprints of the MPs that are on the motion as well as the signatures. However, there is no doubt that when we look at the overall package, it is simply not acceptable for the SDLP to say that it would sit on its hands and ignore the issue.

Mark Durkan said that we do not need the Assembly to deal with this matter, that individuals could take their own counsel on it. That is true, but would it not send a powerful message if there were a vote across the breadth of the Assembly to put forward a simple and balanced request - not a loaded and biased one - for clarification from the Secretary of State, because the Assembly, as a body, was prepared to unite around such a call? If we were to do that, it would show that the Assembly was uniting to defend the integrity of the agreement and to ensure that we make progress together. Otherwise, we will simply dissipate our energies in a serious of nugatory votes over the next few minutes, which will achieve nothing.

Throughout the debate, and before it, I have attempted to discern the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party's thinking when he tabled the motion. He knows only too well that the impact of the motion is to avoid doing something rather than to do something. It is an attempt by him to kick up the dust and pretend to be the tough man taking action. In fact, it is buck-passing at its cynical worst.

The people who have the power to take action are the people on the Benches in the Assembly. We have the power to take action, if we had the courage to do so. I call on all who want to take action against those who are involved in violence to ensure that they are no longer part of the Executive. I call on them to go to the Business Office and sign the exclusion motion, and then we can deal with the issue.

There is no need to take it up the hill to the Secretary of State and ask him to examine the issue and make a determination. Why on earth should they ask the Secretary of State to make a determination when they have already reached their conclusions? Why have they reached those conclusions? It has not been evidenced over the past number of weeks, months or years that they had done so.

When the leader of the UUP went on 'Good Morning Ulster' to indicate why he was proceeding with this type of motion and not the exclusion motion of the DUP, he gave only one reason, and I quote:

I have not seen much evidence of people being pulled together, because the SDLP, who no doubt he wanted to pull towards him in the debate, has not been prepared to take the action that it should.

When SDLP Members wanted a determination from the Secretary of State on the UDA/UFF, they were on their feet, here and outside, calling on him to make that determination. However, when the finger is pointing towards their own Colleagues in Sinn Féin/IRA, they are strangely silent. It is the most sectarian decision that SDLP Members have taken, and they should be ashamed of themselves in taking that position.

The Provisional IRA has been involved in violence. That is not a matter of conjecture. It is not guesswork, spin or rumour; it is fact, and every Member in the House knows that. It is a fact that can be seen through convictions in the courts. Dead bodies are not rumours. The people on those Benches are in an organisation that is responsible for the death of all of those people, for the 250 shootings and punishment beatings - [Interruption].

Order. The Member will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr P Robinson: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Colombian incident is not a matter of rumour, it is a matter of fact. The gunrunning from Florida is a matter of fact, and everybody knows that. Members in the House need to face up to that reality. That organisation is not on ceasefire - it is getting itself ready for war. It is about time that the House realised that the Members sitting on those Benches are not peacemakers; they are people using a so-called peace process to get concessions from weak Unionists who are prepared to give them those concessions to keep the peace.

I read carefully in 'The Sunday Times' what the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party had to say after his meeting with Mr Adams. Mr Trimble said:

There you are. That is why the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party is concerned. He is not concerned about the duplicity of the Provisional IRA or the impact of the actions taken by the IRA; he is concerned only with his own position and how it affects his Administration. He is practically saying to the IRA "Cool it boys, or we are all sunk". That is the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party's message to the Provisional IRA.

We all recognise that there is one reason why the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party is strutting around the Province beating his chest, and that is the proximity of an election. He fears that the case going before the House of Lords will expose him as an impostor and a cheat.

The Member's time is up. [Interruption].

Order. I will have dignity in the House.

There has been a huge amount of emotion expressed in the debate, not least from Unionist ranks. There has also been a huge amount of criticism coming from those Unionist ranks, and most of it is not against Republicanism but against David Trimble and the UUP.

It is important, in between the chanting from that corner, that we try to deal with the issues. We should not deal with them in an emotional manner - and we heard Mr Peter Robinson speak in that emotional, plaintive voice of his - but rather in a fashion that promotes some form of political analysis and some form of logical way forward.

As far as the IRA and Sinn Féin are concerned, the Colombian evidence is clear. Ms McWilliams said that there was no evidence. The evidence comes from the Committee on International Relations in the United States House of Representatives, chaired by Henry Hyde. [Interruption].

Mr Bob-a-job.

Mr McCartney's remarks are beneath him, as they always are.

The Committee's evidence states that

It goes on to talk about the IRA involvement in training FARC, which it describes as

It is clear that there is a case to answer. There may or may not be a case to answer about Castlereagh; I strongly believe that there is. There are claims that it is the work of securocrats. However, we are well versed in the way in which Republicans have conducted their debates and their arguments, where everything is deniable.

It seems to me that as far as Colombia, Washington and Castlereagh are concerned, a determination by the Secretary of State is the proper way forward. I have listened to the arguments about signing up to exclusion motions - we shall all have a vote next week, and we shall have another emotional rant, which is what we have been hearing. That vote will serve no purpose under the rules of the process.

I value that process. However, Republicans, the IRA and Sinn Féin have placed it in peril. Look at where we came from and the chaos that we left behind in trying to move to a future for the next generation and for ourselves. That future is now imperilled. We must use the process to move forward. A determination by the Secretary of State is the way forward.

If people are convinced that the IRA has broken its ceasefire, they should not have a problem with a determination being made by the Secretary of State. On the other hand, if Sinn Féin has no worries, why does it oppose the motion? It seems to me that both arguments are illogical. If that determination shows that the IRA has broken its ceasefire, there are consequences for all of us. The evidence and the facts are there.

In order to protect what we have achieved, as someone said, this is the way forward. The SDLP cannot walk away from this. It cannot all be blamed on securocrats. It is not deniable. It will not go away because Gerry Adams could not be bothered going to Washington, or because he was afraid to go. It will not be solved by Gerry Kelly's simple attack on Unionism and Loyalism, and a failure to offer any explanation. The motion is about confidence in the process. The way forward is for all of us to take the decision that the motion requires as a first step. Nobody should have a problem with that.

Both the DUP and Sinn Féin's views, it seems to me, offer a logical argument for that next step. We shall then hear from the Secretary of State, take the next step and deal with this matter. We shall deal with it logically and unemotionally, because that is what society has charged us to do.

I remind Members that if amendment No 1 is made, amendment No 2 will fall.

Question put, That amendment No1 be made.

Question put, That amendment No 2 be made.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you inform the House that, since the motion has now been amended, the Secretary of State will not be called on to make any statement - appropriate or otherwise - or to indicate any action that he intends to take?

That is correct.

<< Prev