One amendment is published on the Marshalled List.

I beg to move the following amendment, standing in my name and those of Mr Nesbitt, Mr Cobain and Mr McFarland: Delete all after "Assembly" and insert:

Pat Doherty said that he was sad that the amendment was tabled. Although he referred in his motion to supporting the principles of the Good Friday Agreement - or the Belfast Agreement, as it is properly called - he did not say that he supported the agreement itself. That relates to the fact that around four years ago Sinn Féin debated whether it supported the agreement, but we are still waiting to hear whether it does. Pat Doherty supports the principles of the agreement, but only selectively. The motion is not an explicit endorsement of the agreement. It is dishonest and a sleight of hand to talk about supporting the principles without supporting the agreement.

Although Mr Doherty said little that allowed Members to get their teeth into the substance of his argument, he is well aware that Sinn Féin and Republicans have walked away at every opportunity from a key part of the agreement: the right of the people of Northern Ireland to determine their constitutional future. That implies that the inhabitants of the island of Ireland do not form a nation in the political sense and that they have no right to national self-government, no right to unity of the national territory and, above all, no right to national self-determination. Those are key elements.

Another key element of the agreement is the support for exclusively peaceful and democratic means, without the use, or the threat, of force. That is a stark paradox, given the tenets of last week's debate in which Members discussed the situation in Colombia and the investigation into the "Bogotá three" by the Committee on International Relations in the United States House of Representatives, chaired by Henry Hyde. That Committee's evidence stated that two of the Irish nationals being held in Colombia were the IRA's leading explosives experts and that another was Sinn Féin's representative in Cuba, who was probably funded by the Cuban Government. It seems to me that those events contradict the principles of the Belfast Agreement.

We reflect on the report that those found guilty of gunrunning in Miami have been endorsed as IRA prisoners of war. We also reflect on the situation in north Belfast. A Sinn Féin councillor in north Belfast blames everything on the UDA, no matter what happens - whether it rains, or whether there is violence. However, Republicans have a strong case to answer regarding the orchestration of violence in that area, particularly in relation to the argument that in Ardoyne - where Loyalists represent 20%, and Nationalists 80%, of the population - Loyalists are constantly picking on the overwhelming majority in that area.

That contradicts the efforts that Mr Pat Doherty made to convince the House that he endorses and supports the principles of the agreement. There is a long way to go before the Assembly can accept what Mr Pat Doherty claims to represent, and agree with his view that Sinn Féin and Republicans are fully behind the agreement. There are strong suggestions that Sinn Féin is often far from happy with the agreement and with what we all consider to be its principles - the commitment to exclusively peaceful means, democracy, and non-violence.

Ceasefires are about more than simply an absence of so-called military activity. Everybody in Northern Ireland who signed up to the agreement and the peace process believes in an exclusively peaceful and democratic society. That means a complete absence of violence. What those associates of Sinn Féin orchestrate is far from that. However, they are not alone in the "paramilitary constituency" - if I can call it that. There are movements towards violence throughout that "constituency".

Sinn Féin and Mr Pat Doherty are hypocrites who talk about Unionists being frightened of the debate and of not being prepared to take part in it. We had this debate many years ago. As far as I am concerned, it is over. The agreement was endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland. We move on from that. We are all in the House working the process, no matter what we say.

The bottom line is that Sinn Féin and Republicanism are the main threat to the Executive, the Assembly and the entire process. They must do better than simply point the finger at something they claim Unionists are frightened of. Unionists are not frightened of the process. We know exactly where we are going, what our targets are and what our strategy is in this. We will continue to pursue that strategy. Sinn Féin and Republicans are currently the biggest threat to the process.

There is a fundamental flaw in the debate and in the contributions so far. Sinn Féin talks about how others dishonour the principles and substance of the Good Friday Agreement, but not about how it might be doing the same. Likewise, Unionists talk about how others dishonour the substance and details of the Good Friday Agreement, but do not talk of themselves.

That is the fault line in this debate. In talking about how the Good Friday Agreement is being honoured and dishonoured, it is incumbent upon each party to talk about how each party is honouring and dishonouring the spirit and substance of the Good Friday Agreement, and not simply to point the finger at other parties in the Chamber.

I welcome Pat Doherty's belated commitment to the implementation group. The SDLP, along with other parties, argued for an implementation group. The SDLP argued for it and secured it at the Weston Park negotiations. I welcome the belated enthusiasm of Sinn Féin for this key mechanism of the Good Friday Agreement.

I hope that the implementation group will meet soon, and regularly, to discuss all aspects of the agreement, not least policing. Pat Doherty said that he wants to discuss policing. I look forward to that debate and to his realising that, rather than nobbling the powers of the Police Ombudsman, as he recently alleged it did, the Policing Board endorsed the Police Ombudsman as a result of its actions after the Omagh report.

I look forward to the debate with Pat Doherty, so that he can recognise that when the Policing Board agreed a new symbol for the Police Service it did not include the British Crown but symbols that reflect the diversity and traditions on this island. I look forward to that debate with Pat Doherty, so that, rather than having a slogan about the disbandment of Special Branch, we can discuss a strategy to deconstruct and reconstruct Special Branch in an open and transparent way.

I look forward to meeting Pat Doherty at the implementation group where we can show how the Policing Board and the SDLP are getting policing right, and Sinn Féin can show why it still says that policing is wrong. I look forward to telling him how the Policing Board is facing up to its responsibilities on behalf of the citizens in the North, unlike Sinn Féin, which shirks those responsibilities. I suggest to Pat Doherty that it is past the time that Sinn Féin should recognise the policing challenge. Having missed the boat, his party should get in a dinghy and start rowing.

I also look forward to debate with the Ulster Unionist Party at the implementation group and to its explaining to the people of the North and the parties in the Chamber how it is honouring the agreement when it insults the citizens of the Republic of Ireland, as its leader did some weeks ago. I look forward to the Ulster Unionist Party's explaining to the people of the North and the parties in the Chamber how parity of esteem is being recognised - [Interruption].

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

Does the Member accept that as he mentions Mr Trimble's insulting the people of the Irish Republic, he himself insults the majority of people here when he uses terms such as "the North"?

I am of the North and from Northern Ireland. That is sufficient rebuttal of that last comment.

What have we gained from this debate and last week's debate? What have the people of the North gained? What have the kids in the Gallery today gained from it? Are people any more confident that some of those who seek to defend the Good Friday Agreement in the Chamber will live out its true meaning outside? Will those who speak with such conviction inside the Chamber be any more respectful of the convictions of the people who endorse the Good Friday Agreement outside it? I ask that question because it has not been answered.

Who said that? The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Who said that? The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.

Who had the following words written as graffiti on the walls of Northern Ireland?

It was the Prime Minister again, and what happened? All those things changed. Today, Northern Ireland has seen the Royal Ulster Constabulary destroyed and terrorist prisoners released. It has seen unaccountable all-Ireland bodies set up and IRA/Sinn Féin in the Government of Northern Ireland. The Union flag is banned from Government buildings for most of the year. Security installations have been removed, on-the-run terrorists have been pardoned, and there has been discrimination against victims in funding. There has been no substantial and credible IRA decommissioning.

Mr Attwood spoke of what he got at Weston Park. However, there was one thing he did not get, as his leader said. Officials of the United Kingdom said "You have no guns; therefore, you cannot get what you desire." That is the very cradle of the matter that we deal with today.

I am glad to have had the opportunity today to table a motion that will give the House the opportunity that the deputy leader of the IRA here shouted about - an opportunity really to discuss the police in Northern Ireland. The Official Unionists' amendment could not be more hypocritical. It mentions endorsing the Belfast Agreement. The majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland do not endorse it. Furthermore, it calls on parties to support the police. The police have been destroyed by the agreement. The hatchet of Republicanism now hangs over the heads of the Special Branch and the full-time Reserve. The opportunity will shortly be given to the House to have a real debate. We will not ask for an hour. Let us have a full debate, in which every man elected to the Assembly can give a full answer to the question of where he stands. [Interruption].

Order.

The time has come for the House to face up to the fact that the majority of the Unionist population is opposed to the agreement and does not want it. Until that is recognised and there is a fair election for the people of Ulster to decide the issue, we can only move forward to more of the underhand violence and murder orchestrated, as it is in north Belfast, by IRA/Sinn Féin.

Four years on from the signing of the Belfast Agreement, the Good Friday Agreement, or whatever we call it, it is rather sad that today's motion looks merely at its principles. I had hoped that we would be looking more at the practice - the collective ability of this institution and others to bring to fruition all that we expected to see, and ensuring that the agreement works for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland. However, the fact that the motion returns to the issue of principles, rather than the practice of four years' experience, suggests that the agreement was the ceiling of some people's ambitions. It suggests that once agreement was reached, people could scurry back to their corner to look after their self-interests, rather than its being the foundation on which we could build a united community and move from the notion of managing a divided society.

All parties have obligations under the agreement - few parties have lived up to all of them. Therefore, we should not debate support for the principles of the agreement only. We should consider how the Assembly, and the other institutions of the agreement, should work to bring it to fruition.

There have been countless examples of failure to implement the agreement on the part of all who worked on it. The establishment of the institutions has been too slow. We have failed to establish a proper legislative programme here. We have hardly had a single meeting of the British-Irish Council. Decommissioning has been slow, but at least there have been two recent episodes of Republican decommissioning - there has been none by Loyalists. I fail to see how we can suggest that it is a matter of discussing principles rather than practice.

Mr Doherty referred to the amendment. He suggested that the Bill that Peter Mandelson introduced in Westminster had decimated the Patten Report. That is an erroneous interpretation, and it is noticeable that Sinn Féin has produced little other than niggling examples of how it fails to seize the opportunity in relation to policing. Sinn Féin appears to be scrabbling for every excuse possible to avoid taking its places on the Policing Board - and, presumably, on the local district partnerships, when they are established later this year.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland is fully built on the principles of Patten and, in almost every respect, on the fine detail of Patten. It should be seen by all that it is capable of working for all, and it should be supported by all. The PSNI is working for the good of the entire community. It is not, as some would have alleged in the past, representative of one group only.

The amendment deserves support because it gives a more balanced picture than the motion does. I noticed with some amusement that when Mr McGimpsey said that Republicans were the biggest threat to the agreement he faced no disagreement from the DUP. I thought that the DUP hoped that it was the biggest threat to the agreement, but it is clear that it is comfortable working in the Assembly and the other institutions in which it participates. [Interruption].

Order.

I have no doubt that the DUP will continue to be comfortable in doing so. [Interruption].

Order.

The threats to the institutions do not come from those who proclaim their opposition to the agreement, but from those who reached the agreement four years ago only to spend all their time, on whatever side they are, running back to their own tribes and ignoring the needs of the wider community. The Assembly must move away from those party games. We should support the amendment. We should then cease to discuss such issues and implement the agreement.

The principles of the agreement fall into two categories. They are those that legitimise terrorism and those, contrary to Mr McGimpsey's opinion, that legitimise Irish Nationalism and undermine the legitimacy of the Union. That latter set of principles has never been the subject of proper public debate.

The agreement legitimises terrorism by placing the representatives of terror in the Government of Northern Ireland without any requirement for the IRA to decommission. The principle there is that Northern Ireland's citizens should be governed by those who terrorised them for 30 years. That principle is an affront to democracy and common decency.

The agreement also legitimises terrorism by releasing terrorist prisoners. In order to be released, a person must be convicted of a terrorist crime and be a member of an organisation that is on ceasefire. Again contrary to Mr McGimpsey's opinion, the courts have ruled that that ceasefire cannot be broken by either murder or gunrunning. Dr Reid recently ruled that a ceasefire cannot be broken by engagement in the development of the technology of terror at the heart of international terrorism. Therefore, a ceasefire that cannot be broken under those circumstances is no ceasefire at all.

"The idea that people who have committed appalling crimes should be released from prison because they have committed those crimes and because they are members of an organisation that directed that sort of criminality is a legalised corruption of the rule of law that is without precedent in any democratic or civilised state. When you reach the position of legitimising terrorism to the extent of putting the representatives of terror into Government and letting terrorists out of jail, what you have actually done is that, on one hand, you may concede that the terrorist organisation actually committed some horrendous acts, but what you are really saying is that that organisation cannot be held culpable - cannot be held blameworthy - for committing those acts."

That raises a fundamental question about the core nature of the Belfast Agreement. Where is culpability mentioned in the terms of the Belfast Agreement? The amazing, indisputable answer is that the ultimate culpability for what the Patten Report referred to as "the tragedies of the past" lies not with those who perpetrated those appalling criminal acts but with the legitimate forces of law and order that stood between the terrorist and the citizen. According to the remit given by the Belfast Agreement to Patten, the ultimate culpability lies with the RUC. For example, the Patten Report stated that the RUC is

That clearly states that somehow the culpability lies with the RUC. At the core of the report is the statement that we must

I do not need to take time to spell out the core implication there. Having made the RUC culpable, the report proceeded to lay the foundation for a new so-called police force that would integrate terrorists into the heart of policing. Patten argued that without the recruitment of Republicans - not just Nationalists - the new police force could not operate effectively. Terrorists are elevated by the agreement into Government and into policing those citizens whom they terrorised for 30 years.

Where did those ideas come from? I do not have the time to elaborate, but the fountainhead of the legitimisation of terror can be found in the Mitchell principles. A key factor about those principles is that they have nothing to do with decommissioning. This went undetected by the media, who can hardly read a report. Decommissioning is not required, but those principles require a political settlement that would take the gun out of politics. When one argues for a political settlement to take the gun out of politics, one has elevated the terrorists to arbiters of the content and implementation of what is required to remove the gun.

From where did this Mr Mitchell, who should have been chased out of this country, get all of that? He got it from the Sinn Féin submission to the Mitchell Commission, because taking the gun out of Irish politics by an agreement is central to that party's terminology. Therefore, Mr Mitchell elevated terrorism and its legitimisation into the Belfast Agreement. Nobody can support that agreement.

Order, order. The Member's time is up.

It is rather sad that just after a debate on the future economic confidence of this country, we have a debate on our lack of political confidence.

The agreement should not be used in the Chamber or anywhere else in Northern Ireland to shame the other side. I have said repeatedly that nobody has a monopoly on the agreement. Listening to some of the debate, including Mr Roche's contribution, one could almost forget some of our achievements on constitutional questions. The agreement accepts that the constitutional future of Northern Ireland will be determined by the will of its people. That principle is important to the agreement. Most, if not all, of us agree with that major principle. I would like to be shown the person who does not agree with that principle.

Secondly, articles 2 and 3 were removed from Bunreacht na hÉireann -[Interruption].

Big deal.

I find it amazing that we hear the words "big deal" from those on the anti-agreement side of the House. It was a big deal when we were in negotiations -[Interruption].

Order.

The removal of articles 2 and 3 was a big deal during the negotiations.

There is a devolved Administration at Stormont, which Members around the Chamber are involved in, or they would not be here. The British-Irish Council was established, and it was recognised that all aspirations and identities carry equal legitimacy. Power sharing was introduced, and a commitment was made to democracy and peaceful means of change. The list goes on and on. We once had such confidence in the agreement. What can we do to re-establish that?

I am glad that Alex Attwood said that the negotiations in Weston Park resulted in a round table meeting of the pro-agreement parties. They have met only once, and the meeting may as well not have happened; it was so good that I am beginning to believe that the Secretary of State has decided that that was all that was needed. That is not how we implement agreements. We must continue to restore people's best intentions, rather than reinforce their worst fears, which is all that we are hearing today. Let us give some life back to these institutions.

I will support the Ulster Unionist Party's amendment because we have gone a long way towards restoring confidence and establishing the kind of police service in which Northern Ireland can have confidence - [Interruption].

Order. The Member is entitled to be heard.

I say to Dr Paisley that I would be glad to participate in that debate. I would be glad -

The Member should address her remarks through the Chair.

Through the Chair, I will be glad to respond -

Order. Mr Paisley Jnr has a point of order.

You should call your own party Colleague to order, Madam Deputy Speaker, because she is addressing comments directly to another Member. You are showing favouritism.

I am pleased that I did not score party political points when Dr Paisley referred to the ability of only the men in the Chamber to participate in the debate. I decided to let that remark go, but given that that side of the House has turned into a playground, it is important to say that I - and I assume all parties - will be glad to participate in a debate on policing.

If we have forgotten the principles to which we signed up, it is time that the implementation committee restored some confidence in the process to the people who watch debate after debate and wonder what has happened. Patience and perseverance are required, not fatigue and failure, which are all that that side of the House ever promises.

When is a document not an agreement? It is not an agreement when all the parties to it do not subscribe to any of its contents. Any fool would realise that the parties agreed little or nothing of what is alleged to be the subject of this document. There was no meeting of minds, which is essential to any agreement. In 'The Daily Telegraph', the First Minister said that the implementation process was not implementing the agreement that he thought he had signed. If the leader of that party is not sure about what he signed, we can be fairly confident that no one else is.

The consent of the people in a referendum to the approval of this document was induced by a wave of propaganda that would have done justice to Joseph Goebbels. It was also induced by the lying, mendacious, duplicitous behaviour of a Prime Minister - one Anthony Blair. He told the people of Northern Ireland, in his own handwriting, what those pledges were and has resiled and reneged on every single one of them.

This alleged agreement was never intended to be an agreement or political settlement between democrats. It was never more than a schedule or scheme for conflict resolution between the British state and violent Republicanism. In order to keep the bombs off the mainland, the British Government were prepared to enter into an agreement. [Interruption].

Yes, the only man in cloud cuckoo land is the First Minister - the king of cuckoos. And what did Mr Trimble do? So greedy was he to become the First Minister, that he entered into an agreement without any provision for making good the deficit in infrastructure of the previous 30 years. He did not even have the wit to say to the British Government, which was absolutely hanging its tongue out to get rid of Northern Ireland to a devolved Administration: "Here is our price". Instead, he and Mr Empey have engaged in a brazen con over the last few days. They are going to get £5 billion on loan and, over 25 years, repay £10 billion. At the same time they are spending £1·2 billion out of the grant on an absolute welter of bureaucracy, which they have done absolutely nothing to reduce in the last two and a half years.

Then, of course, we have Sinn Féin/IRA and their partners in harness, the SDLP. We have Monica McWilliams talking about the great principle of consent. The Unionist people have been given consent to pass the legal title deeds of Northern Ireland over to the Republic of Ireland, when, in fact, it has already got, de facto, an actual possession of the place. As for her suggestion of the great amendment of articles 2 and 3, whatever else she is and whatever expertise she has, it is certainly not that of a lawyer. [Interruption].

Order.

We also have the gunrunners, the non-police people, the trainers of terrorists - the people who have really decommissioned nothing, though the king of cuckoos now tells us they have done it twice. If he can get the people of Northern Ireland to believe that, he can get them to believe anything.

The truth is that, increasingly, pro-Union all classes, even the middle-class yuppies, are beginning to get the message that this agreement has totally shafted them - in education, health, sewerage, water and every conceivable aspect. More accountable, more sensitive, more efficient government for Northern Ireland - that must be the biggest joke of the century, perpetrated by the cuckoo king.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to make a few points. Some comments were made earlier about the time available for this debate. All Members will be aware that it is open to any Member or party to propose a motion to the Business Committee and to argue for whatever time they want for it. It was noticeable that at this afternoon's meeting of the Business Committee the DUP sat quietly and did not propose anything for next week. In fact, we have only one plenary sitting next week. Tuesday was available, and if the DUP had wanted to put forward any proposal for debate, it was free to do so. Either it was not prepared, or it was not able or not interested. Then DUP Members come into the Chamber and make noise about wanting longer debates, yet they sit on their hands at the Business Committee.

On a point of order, you will be able to inform the House that the motion has only just been tabled and therefore could not be debated next week.

Further to that point of order, is it in order for the Member for West Belfast to tell tales outside the Business Committee? The proceedings of the Business Committee are supposed to be held entirely in confidence. It is improper for a Member to divulge discussions held at those meetings.

Order. It is quite correct that the proceedings of the Business Committee are confidential, but the minutes are published on the Internet.

I am happy to have my knuckles rapped. The essential point remains - [Interruption].

Order.

The essential point remains that next week we will have one plenary meeting. That left another day for any of ten or twelve pages of no-day named motions, which could have been tabled by the DUP or any other Member. They chose not to do so.

I support the motion and oppose the UUP's amendment. This motion is essentially aimed at the Ulster Unionist Party - there is no question of trying to convince the DUP and its cohorts on the Benches opposite. They are entitled to their opinion, but they are avowedly anti-agreement and wait with bated breath until it collapses. That is their choice, and they are entitled to that.

However, the Ulster Unionist Party is supposed to be a pro-agreement party. I am disappointed with Michael McGimpsey, a Minister in the Executive who should be more responsible. I will stand corrected, but I think he said that Sinn Féin never really endorsed the Good Friday Agreement. Michael McGimpsey should know that we negotiated the agreement, went away and considered it, embraced it and then went to our constituencies and sold it. We have been working hard on its implementation ever since.

Without giving a litany of examples, the Ulster Unionist Party, in ongoing negotiations here and in the British Parliament itself, has sought to restrict, minimise and subvert every element of legislation that emanated from the agreement. The Ulster Unionist Party is formally a pro-agreement party, but it has worked hard and assiduously to undermine it.

I would prefer to have a discussion on the Good Friday Agreement and its principles. As David Ford said earlier, it is important to go back to the principles of the agreement. There have been many failures and fault lines in its implementation during the last four years. Whether it is through an implementation body meeting or any other forum, we all welcome the opportunity to ensure that the agreement is implemented properly and fully.

Policing was mentioned and is included in the UUP amendment. Alex Attwood said that he looks forward to having debates. We have had debates with him and other party members in several venues. For the life of me, I cannot understand why he wants to have more debates because at any that I attended, the SDLP did not seem to do too well.

This motion is more important. It is supposed to be a reminder that we are four years on. There are many serious difficulties emanating from the non-implementation of the agreement. Michael McGimpsey again mentioned north Belfast. I listened to the media this morning and heard people talk about being bored by news of north Belfast. It is disgraceful for leading journalists and other commentators to talk about being bored by the events in north Belfast. Anyone with any insight into or knowledge of what has happened there knows that a kernel of the Good Friday Agreement is its ability to bring us out of a conflict situation to better times for all. Michael McGimpsey should know better. His Colleague, Fred Cobain, Billy Hutchinson and others who have been talking with party members and others throughout north Belfast know that there is a need to quell the disturbances in that part of the city.

This morning we produced a video, and I challenged the PSNI to produce its evidence of who was firing guns at it this weekend, never mind the last 12 months. Who was throwing the pipe bombs at the weekend? It was not football hooligans; it was not people coming from football matches or those annoyed at one team or another losing. There are serious difficulties in that area, so the conflict is not over for many people here.

I am amazed that Sinn Féin introduced the motion. Despite what we have just heard, Sinn Féin has not accepted the agreement; there was no acceptance of it at the party's Ard-Fheis. There is no sign that they support peaceful and democratic means. Society is in chaos as a result.

What are you doing in Government with them?

How do they square their words and actions in the community over their acceptance of the consent principle - that Northern Ireland is British until the people vote otherwise?

Mr Pat Doherty gave a list of grievances, which consisted of problems with the implementation of the agreement. The Republican movement has been the biggest obstacle to the implementation of the agreement, particularly with its reluctance to start decommissioning. We have heard a complaint from Sinn Féin about the implementation group. That is such hypocrisy. Sinn Féin was the biggest obstacle to the implementation group. They were petrified that the other parties might gang up and give them a time-scale for decommissioning. It is only after the second act of decommissioning that they now express some urgency for the implementation group.

Our amendment carries support for the police, and Sinn Féin oppose that. What type of society do Sinn Féin want? Nationalist and Republican areas have problems with crime, and are no different from other areas. Sinn Féin must realise that the Martin Ferris school of justice is not the way forward.

One only has to drive through north Belfast, Toomebridge or Draperstown to see enormous posters urging people not to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin cannot afford to stay off the Police Board. How will Sinn Féin square the anti-PSNI circle when they join the board and expect their people to join the police service?

Such is the present level of crime that I urge all Members to follow the amendment and support the police. I call on the DUP not to run under Sinn Féin's skirts and vote with them again this week. [Interruption].

Order.

Mr McFarland: I urge Members to support the amendment. [Interruption].

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

I urge all Members to vote for the amendment. [Laughter].

The Speaker should not be shouted down.

I thank the Member for that helpful clarification of procedure.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. There were several inaccuracies in Michael McGimpsey's statement. Sinn Féin is not the IRA, and Unionism needs to get its head around that fundamental fact. Sinn Féin does not speak for the IRA. While Michael McGimpsey continues to con himself by thinking that that is the case, he will never be able to handle the situation. He spoke about north Belfast, and ran away from the issue once again. The fundamental problem in north Belfast is that the UUP in particular has abandoned a whole section of its own community and left them leaderless and in the hands of the idiots in the DUP.

Michael McGimpsey also said that he has a strategy. If he has, I wish he would share it with us, so that we could debate it. We have no sign of what that strategy is about.

Alex Attwood spoke passionately about the implementation group, saying that it was the SDLP's idea. He totally ignored the fact that Sinn Féin has been arguing for inclusion in all aspects of politics for years. Mr Attwood said that he is looking forward to a debate on policing with Sinn Féin. I remind him that we have already had one round of debate in Strabane where he was soundly beaten. He has not come forward with a date for the second round, which we agreed was to be in Omagh. The people know that the SDLP have sold them short on policing.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley's position is understandable, even though it is continually clouded with his bigotry. He is against the Good Friday Agreement. He campaigns and rallies against it. The UUP position is different, however. They say that they are for the Agreement and then keep dodging the issues that would move the situation forward.

David Ford said that the remaining policing issues are only minor matters. I remind Mr Ford that there are still some serious issues to be dealt with in the area of policing.

Mr Roche rants and raves on. However, he would not be here today if it were not for the Good Friday Agreement that he so despises. Then we have Bob McCartney, who is eloquent and passionate, but cannot get past the simple fact that the people of Ireland, North and South, democratically endorsed the Good Friday Agreement. He laughs at democracy, because it does not suit his argument.

I largely agreed with Monica McWilliams's position, although I do not agree with her support for the amendment. I remind her that articles 2 and 3 were not removed from the Irish Constitution. They were amended and rewritten. I argue that they were rewritten in a much more inclusive way than previously.

Alan McFarland worries about the Sinn Féin position on consent: let me explain it simply. Sinn Féin consented to all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement, including the all-Ireland dimension, the Assembly and all the issues that deal with justice and equality. We have no problem with any of that. We consented to all of the Good Friday Agreement, not to one small, narrow aspect of it.

I say to the UUP that we must continue the debate outside the House. Let us pursue it and find a way forward, because these idiots are going nowhere.

Order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley was afraid to go to Derry today to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He cannot even face that. These people are leading Unionism nowhere. This debate is only beginning - it will continue.

Order.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

I would normally take a point of order after the vote is declared.

It concerns the validity of the vote.

I will take the point of order on that basis.

My understanding is that there was no pro-amendment teller in the "No" Lobby. According to Standing Orders, the vote is invalid. I would like a ruling on that.

Mr Speaker: It is difficult for the Speaker to challenge tellers when they come forward on the basis of whether they are voting "Aye" or "No". We can check afterwards which way they voted. However, I must ask the proposers whether they had someone supporting the amendment as a teller in both Lobbies.

The Members who proposed the amendment indicate that they are not content that they had a Teller in both Lobbies. [Interruption]. Order.

On that basis, the amendment falls.

Order. Members must vote once more before Question Time, which has already been delayed by some 10 minutes.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although it is not customary, unless there is a petition of concern or if it is a certain type of vote, to have a breakdown of the Nationalist and Unionist composition of a vote, can you confirm whether there were any Unionists in the Lobbies supporting the Belfast Agreement?

That is not something that I can confirm at this moment but, as the Member knows, Hansard will show the names of all those Members who voted, and Members will be able to see for themselves.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>