I must advise the Member that we have only one minute left before the winding-up speeches.

The current levels of crime are extremely worrying, and, in particular, I want to draw attention to my own constituency of South Belfast, which has been experiencing a significant upsurge in crime levels. I have represented the constituency of South Belfast for the past four years and never has the issue of crime been of such prominence.

I will detail the types of crimes that have been perpetrated in my area. Only recently the body of a 39-year-old woman was pulled from the River Lagan, a murder took place in the Markets area and an armed robbery took place at a fast-food restaurant on the Donegall Road. In recent months two students have been viciously attacked in their home, elderly residents have been attacked and robbed in their homes, and there have been numerous armed robberies. In fact, the owner of a local newsagent situated close to my constituency office has been the victim of armed robbery on six occasions in the last seven months. There has been a 42% increase in sex attacks in South Belfast in this year alone. This is an extremely worrying situation, and, unfortunately, the people who suffer are the decent law-abiding citizens who live in the area.

I am afraid that time being of the essence, I must ask the proposers of the amendments to make their winding-up speeches.

James Leslie was correct to say that we should compare our crime figures with those in other parts of the island. However, whatever our crime rates might be, it must be acknowledged that most people in Northern Ireland are civil and orderly. There are difficulties, and they may become more intense in some areas of the North. However, those difficulties must be considered in the context of our community's, by and large, upholding good and decent family and community values.

Sir John Gorman asked me directly why the SDLP could not support the motion. I understand why he supports the wording of the motion. However, he would appreciate that we wanted to consider its subtext, and it is clear from contributions that the motion is anti-Patten in intention and substance. It would be alien to our political beliefs and our support of the Patten Commission Report to support a motion that is anti-Patten. Given what ensued during the debate, it is inconceivable that we could support the motion.

Alex Maskey asked how the people of east Belfast and the Short Strand were to experience the new beginning to policing, given recent events in that community. I will not walk away from that question, because if any policing is wrong, we are prepared to say so and to propose corrective strategies. If there is good policing, we are prepared to acknowledge that.

Although people may demean the work of the Police Ombudsman, no investigative office in the world that deals with complaints against the police has more powers or resources to call erring police officers and a police service to account. When the police raid houses in a way that breaches proper standards and human rights, as happened in east Belfast and in Derry after the Castlereagh break-in, we are prepared to tell the police that they should review protocols and change them, and enforce orders that govern how they conduct themselves in such raids. When police officers offend human rights substantially, and there is prima facie evidence to support that contention, those officers should be suspended, pending a full investigation into their activities. That strategy will correct wrongful policing. Some people hope that the SDLP gets policing wrong so that they can gain political advantage.

Norman Boyd asked about the availability of officers in police stations. That is a valid point. In too many areas of the North, there are not enough police officers on the ground.

To return to what Bob McCartney said, if Bangor were compared to a town of a similar size in Britain, the current quota of police officers in north Down would outweigh that in Britain.

Will the Member give way?

I gave way four times during my speech; I will not give way now.

Bob McCartney referred to 20% of officers in north Down being on long-term sick leave. He also referred to the excessive numbers of police officers who are on special protection duties for notables in north Down. Many police officers are on restricted duties, and many are based in police stations and police headquarters rather than on the ground.

To say that the problem is about numbers and that the numbers should be increased, thereby protecting the full-time Reserve, misses the real issue about management of manpower in the police. There are not sufficient numbers on the ground because there are too many in police stations and police buildings, too many involved in desk duties, too many on sick leave, too many on VIP protection and too many on restricted duties.

A manpower strategy is required to free more police to serve more communities in more towns, villages and hamlets around the North. Merely protecting the full-time Reserve will not get to grips with the fundamental issue of manpower.

Ian Paisley Jnr said that people from constituencies around the North, including West Belfast, were joining the Police Service. He suggested that I said it is proportionate to the numbers living in those constituencies. It is not. In every constituency people, even those who have had difficult experiences of policing over the past 30 years, now have the confidence to join the Police Service.

In her report on the Omagh bombing Nuala O'Loan said that she got five and a half out of six for what the Policing Board did. In my view, she got six and a half out of six. The Policing Board, by having a presence at board level and on the ground in Omagh, will ensure that the investigation brings those who are guilty of that crime to justice. It is a far superior model of accountability and investigation.

I challenge anyone to read what I, or Joe Byrne, have said in this debate and confirm to us what one Member claimed we said - namely, that we are anti-police, anti-Protestant and anti-Special Branch. I challenge anyone to confirm that any of those allegations are true.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As Alex Maskey said, we share the concerns in the motion about the levels of crime, especially against the elderly. However, as the debate has unfolded it is evident that it is not about policing. It is about a continuation of the attempted demonisation of Sinn Féin - an attempt to make Sinn Féin a scapegoat. It is ironic that the DUP brought this motion to the Floor of the House. The first RUC man to be murdered in the past 30 years was murdered on the Shankill Road in a political climate that had been engendered by the leader of the DUP and in a political environment that it had sought to stir up against the RUC. The DUP's stated policy was to oppose the RUC because the RUC did not fulfil its desires or wishes.

There are Members on the other side of the House who were around at that time and know the input that the party that brought the motion to the House had with regard to policing in the Six Counties. It was not a very honourable policy on, or commitment to, policing, and that continues. Policing was OK as long as it was OK with the DUP. Policing was OK as long as the doors of Fenian houses were being battered down and as long as the status quo, according to the DUP, was being upheld. It is hypocritical of that party to bring to the Floor of the Chamber a motion that condemns, or attempts to condemn, Sinn Féin for its desire to bring about a proper policing service for this part of Ireland.

We should not forget that Sinn Féin participated fully in the negotiations surrounding the Good Friday Agreement and that those negotiations included elements that addressed policing. Sinn Féin was prepared to accept a compromise - [Interruption].

Gunrunner.

Let him go, a LeasCheann Comhairle. We understand about gunrunning from the DUP.

The DUP attempted to undermine the Patten Commission; Sinn Féin was prepared to accept the compromise - [Interruption].

I think it is coming from Séamus Shannon, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Order.

Lest it be forgotten, Sinn Féin is committed to having a policing service - it is not opposed to that - [Interruption].

Order.

Sinn Féin's amendment reads:

the kind of partisan political control that those Members and their leader on that side of the House attempted to exert on the policing service in this part of Ireland over the years. [Interruption].

Order.

The amendment continues:

I ask any Member - [Interruption].

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

I ask any Member to tell me what is wrong with the sentiments expressed in the amendment.

There is no doubt that the motion was tabled for one reason only - to continue the struggle and the war within Unionism. The DUP is attempting to out-manoeuvre and out-fox the Official Unionist Party. That is the aim of the motion; it is not about policing. It does not address the fundamentals of a policing service. It does not attempt to address those issues - [Interruption].

Order. This is the second time that I have risen. The Member is entitled to be heard.

Throw them out, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Order. Order.

This is an attempt - [Interruption].

In some ways, the DUP is paying us a compliment by continually interrupting. Obviously, the truth is hitting very hard, and the DUP does not like to hear it. That is evidence of the hypocrisy in the DUP's fundamentalism - [Interruption].

Gunrunner.

I will allow the DUP Members their little bit of fun because it is interesting to listen to some of their asinine remarks.

The DUP tabled the motion in an attempt to continue to demonise Sinn Féin. However, more important is the DUP's attempt to continue its war against the Official Unionist Party. That is what the DUP is all about; its focus is not on policing but on the next election. UUP Members should be aware of the DUP's maverick conduct - that conduct will continue for the remainder of the year.

It is hard to know how to follow the rant of the gunrunner from mid-Ulster. Listening to what he said - and his valiant defence of the RUC - one could conclude that his party never had any intention of hurting the RUC or the police, and that when he ran guns into Northern Ireland he had no intention of their being used against those who would - [Interruption].

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not convicted of gunrunning at any stage in my versatile career. Would the Member like to withdraw his comments? [Interruption].

Order. I cannot hear the Member's point of order. While I am on my feet, Members must take their seats. I would appreciate being able to hear the point of order so that I can respond.

As I was not convicted of gunrunning in my career in the Republican movement, I ask the Member to withdraw that allegation.

I remind the Member that there is a right to respond to allegations. However, I shall examine Hansard and respond to the point of order at a later date. I ask Mr Wilson to continue, and to be wary of the language that he uses.

Perhaps when you are looking at Hansard, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will also look at the 'Magill' magazine documentary that outlined the career of the Member who raised the point of order. What this debate has shown is that Sinn Féin runs scared of any policing issue; it always wants to pass the blame. Alex Maskey blames the police for car crime in west Belfast. The fact that, for 30 years, the party to which he belongs encouraged car theft so that joyriders could run around west Belfast, going through roadblocks, stretching police resources, has been totally ignored. Sinn Féin says that is all the fault of the police.

In the Short Strand recently, it was the police's fault that a mob, organised and led by IRA/Sinn Féin, came onto the streets. When the police respond, they are accused of beating young Nationalists. Sinn Féin want to be treated as democrats; however, when they see any acceptance of the police materialising in Nationalist areas, they create the situations that led to the confrontation that resulted in the police's having to take action to defend themselves and a vulnerable Protestant community on the outskirts of the Short Strand. Such action enabled Sinn Féin to say that the police have not changed.

Those people have manipulated circumstances in Northern Ireland to ensure that the police are not accepted, despite all the changes that have been made. John Kelly's rant is an indication that Sinn Féin does not like to be faced with the truth of its attitude and actions towards policing in Northern Ireland.

I wish to address some of Alex Attwood's points. I accept that the SDLP has made sacrifices by signing up to the Policing Board, yet I do not agree with everything that it has done or said. The Policing Board has conducted robust debates. Nevertheless, I accept that the SDLP has at least been prepared to play a part in policing. It is a pity that, after the speech that he made, Mr Attwood felt the need to hang on Sinn Féin's coat-tails. He talked about suspending police officers because of the crescendo of cries from Sinn Féin representatives when the police enter areas to take action against rioters. That will only help to demoralise the police further.

When talking about police numbers, Mr Attwood says that it is not merely about protecting the full-time Reserve - he steers away from that difficult question. The SDLP will have to make up its mind. What do we do with 2,500 officers who are needed on the streets, but are demoralised because their contracts have not been renewed, and who are treated far worse than any other workers that I know of in Northern Ireland?

The SDLP will have to make up its mind about what it will do about those officers.

I expected some washing of the hands in this debate by Ulster Unionist Party Members. It was odd to hear Billy Armstrong talk about the political and military wing of IRA/Sinn Féin and the fact that it was a scandal to have a Sinn Féin Health Minister who allowed crime - a drain on the Northern Ireland taxpayer - to continue. However, how did the Minister of Health achieve her position? Billy Armstrong - from what I remember - walked through one of the Lobbies to put her there. One cannot condemn Sinn Féin/IRA for its attitude to policing on the one hand and, on the other, put them into ministerial positions.

You can if you are an Ulster Unionist.

Then perhaps you can.

Mr Leslie said that the Ulster Unionist Party had tried to engage in damage limitation. God help us if it thinks that the Patten Commission and the Patten Report amount to damage limitation - they have destroyed the police. We are told that it is because the Government, once again, broke faith with the Ulster Unionist Party - they did not abide by the terms of the agreement that they had signed. I remind Mr Leslie of the agreement's terms of reference on the establishment of a police commission, to which he agreed:

Every aspect of the Patten proposals was involved - [Interruption].

Order.

- in those terms of reference, which the Ulster Unionist Party not only negotiated but sold to the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, it cannot now wash its hands and blame the London Government.

Order. Will the Member bring his winding-up speech to a close?

Sinn Féin tried to wash its hands of its support for criminality, which has led to a decline in social structures in its community. Equally, Ulster Unionists cannot wash their hands of their responsibility for encouraging a proposal that has destroyed the police.

We now move to the vote. I remind Members that if amendment No 1 is made, amendment No 2 will fall.

Question put, That amendment No 1 be made.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify which vote you are talking about, as there seems to be some confusion?

Thank you for that point of order. If clarification is needed, I am happy to give it. The vote is on amendment No 1 on the Marshalled List, which stands in the names of Mr Maskey and John Kelly of Sinn Féin.

Amendment No 2 on the Marshalled List stands in the names of Mr Attwood and Mr ONeill of the SDLP.

Question, That amendment No 2 be made, put and negatived.

Joint Parliamentary Forum

TOP

Mr Ford:

I beg to move

Order.

There has been much debate in this Chamber about the agreement, and doubtless that will continue. Accusations are continually levelled at those who do or do not carry out their duties under the agreement. The fact that we cannot decide whether to call it the Good Friday Agreement or the Belfast Agreement demonstrates our problems.

The motion highlights one aspect of the agreement on which there has been no progress at all. It may not be the most significant issue in the agreement - there are many more important matters - but it is one for which action is required of the Assembly. We are used to seeing party representatives wagging their fingers and accusing each other of not living up to their obligations. However, we have brought the motion because the Assembly has a collective responsibility to take action on this matter.

Paragraph 18 of strand 2 of the agreement directs

The motion addresses that. It instructs the Speaker to nominate Members to engage in discussions with the authorities in the Oireachtas. It is not a prescriptive resolution. It does not define the outcome; it simply paves the way for the establishment of a joint forum in which matters of mutual interest can be discussed. For example, it might provide a format in which informal contacts in Committees could be maintained more significantly. It will certainly provide an opportunity for people from the Assembly to inform TDs of the real concerns of Northern Ireland's people. I have no doubt that Northern Ireland is ignorant of the realities of life in the Republic. However, ignorance in the Republic of the realities of life here is vast.

When the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation was established in Dublin in the wake of the 1994 ceasefires, Alliance was the only non-Nationalist party from either part of the island to attend, along with the independent Senator, the late Gordon Wilson. I have no doubt that my party's presence, and the formal and informal contacts we made, assisted Southern representatives to understand the concerns of people across the breadth of opinion in Northern Ireland.

It would have been better had Unionists been there to put their own cases. I repeat that whatever ignorance there may be in Northern Ireland regarding matters in the Republic, there is no doubt that the Republic's ignorance of matters in Northern Ireland is even greater. Some of the suggestions put forward by Alliance on difficult issues, such as the recognition of Northern teaching qualifications in the Republic for anybody who wishes to move South, or the future of the Adelaide Hospital with its Protestant foundation, made some TDs and Senators sit up. That confrontation was necessary. The problems of sectarian thinking in official policy are the same down there are they are up here, and TDs and Senators must still be confronted about them. The issues of equality and human rights do not concern only Northern Ireland, but are prevalent in both jurisdictions.

The motion as it stands is a relatively easy one for Nationalists; however, it is important that Unionists also show a willingness to play their part in improving relationships across the island, without retreating into the laager mentality preferred by some of their anti-agreement members. The Ulster Unionist Party leadership must lead its followers. Having signed up to the agreement in 1998, they should put in place its full operation.

I was surprised and interested to hear on the BBC that representatives from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister discussed this matter in Dublin last night. Members have heard me complain on numerous occasions about the failings of the Executive, the inadequacies of legislation, the difficulty in bringing in the Programme for Government. Those matters are the direct responsibility of Ministers. Yet it seems - because no official spokesman for OFMDFM has denied the reports that I heard on the BBC last night - that they had time to discuss this motion in a meeting between Government Ministers. This motion has nothing to do with the Executive or the Cabinet in Dublin. It is a matter for the Assembly and the Oireachtas to debate.

Members from both parties that are represented in OFMDFM are in the Chamber. During the course of the debate, will they ask their Ministers to tell Members whether there was truth in the BBC's story; whether the story was leaked to the BBC by OFMDFM; and whether they discussed the motion? Will they tell us the outcome of the discussions? Will they support the motion to ensure that the Assembly lives up to this part of its responsibilities under the agreement, because that is what the motion is for, and that is what the Assembly should do? I commend the motion.

I will not support the motion. I am neither against better North/South co-operation in principle nor against gaining mutual benefit through such co-operation, but we must consider the wording of the motion carefully. It adopts an imperative tone, and talks about instructing the Speaker. That contrasts with paragraph 18 of strand two, which says only that consideration should be given to creating such a body, so Mr Ford's motion goes too far.

In opposing the motion -

If that is so, will the Member say why the Ulster Unionist Party failed to table an amendment?

Although the motion may be incompetent, that does not necessarily require the UUP to table an amendment. The UUP is not against North/South discussions per se. However, we stress the need for a careful evaluation of whether a new institution should be created under the agreement. Given that several institutions have been established, it seems sensible to evaluate the potential costs and benefits of creating another one.

That is especially the case given that several organisations, such as the Civic Forum, the Northern Ireland Economic Council and the Economic Development Forum, can interact with their counterparts in the Republic to facilitate discussion on North/South issues of mutual benefit to civic society and promote co-operation.

The role of the Assembly may be raised. The Assembly has exercised its scrutiny power to maintain the budgets of the implementation bodies of the North/ South Ministerial Council. Similarly, the Assembly's Committees can scrutinise the six North/South implementation bodies and the six areas of co-operation through existing agencies. Therefore, it is by no means self-evident that a further consultative body, linking the Dáil and the Assembly, would be beneficial, but we must consider the benefits against the costs - a measure for which the agreement provides.

I caution against accepting the motion because it would inevitably add to the workload of several Members and disrupt the Assembly's business. If passed, the motion would lead to Members having to attend meetings with their counterparts in the Southern institutions, and, of course, that would take Members away from plenary and Committee sessions. That point was discussed at length today in the context of how Members' involvement in other bodies might lead to a reduction in the effectiveness of the Assembly.

The motion goes beyond the terms of the agreement; therefore my party will not support it.

I welcome Mr Ford's motion. Dr Birnie's speech reminds me of the curate's egg: it is good in parts and equally bad in others.

The Good Friday Agreement imposed a duty on the Assembly to consider developing a joint parliamentary forum, and the motion points to that obligation. It is disingenuous of Unionists to claim that, technically, the motion goes too far, and it is too imperative. Dr Birnie failed in his valiant attempt to justify the Unionist position. We must properly consider a North/South parliamentary forum. I take comfort that Dr Birnie, on behalf of his party, does not reject a North/South parliamentary forum, but rather delays consideration of it.

Let us consider the benefits of a forum. As Committee members, we have met and participated in useful discussions with Members of the Oireachtas and Committees of Dáil Éireann. I am sure that my old friend Sir John Gorman recalls an interesting and productive meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Proceeds of Crime Bill with TDs and members of the Garda Síochána.

No Unionist in the House - and I include the DUP - has anything to fear from a joint parliamentary forum.

Let us speak for ourselves.

I am sure that Rev Dr McCrea will speak for himself. He is more than capable of doing so.

Unionists have nothing to fear from engaging with parliamentarians south of the border, and vice versa. Similarly, parliamentarians from throughout Europe have nothing to fear from engaging with their counterparts in other jurisdictions. The motion is not a threat to Unionists. There is much to learn from an interchange of views. The proposal is not to establish a covert all-Ireland parliament, much as I would love to see that. Rather, it is an attempt to bring people from North and South together in politics.

We should develop a policy of good neighbourliness between the North and the South.

What is there to fear from that? Unionists will remain Unionists; Nationalists will remain Nationalists, and Republicans and Loyalists will also remain the same. The SDLP supports the motion. The proposed arrangement is part of the agreement; it is centred in the agreement, and the mandate for this House comes from the agreement. A joint forum is part of the process of reconciliation between the people of Ireland, North and South, and it is important to develop that.

Public representatives from North and South meet in other political spheres. Our councillors - and not only those along the border - whether Unionist or Nationalist, SDLP or Sinn Féin, meet with colleagues in the South. They meet under the auspices of the Local Authority Members Association (LAMA). Many Members have engaged in those meetings and found them to be productive and useful. If councillors can meet at that level, why can we not meet at the most important level of politics in Northern Ireland?

I reiterate to my Unionist Colleagues and friends that there is nothing to fear from this. The North/South Ministerial Council deals with Executive functions and policies between the two Governments. The Council is subject to the critical examination of the Assembly. However, a joint forum would involve Members of this Assembly meeting Members of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann to discuss all sorts of common issues. That would be of great benefit to all our people, North and South. I support the motion, and I hope that Unionist colleagues will refrain from opposing the motion and will wish it well.

First, I must make it clear that I, and many of my Colleagues, have tried to respond positively over the years to invitations from the Irish Republic to go to that country and make our views known on why we are distinct and different - why Northern Ireland is a separate entity, jurisdiction and country and will remain so over the decades and further into the future. Mr Davis frequently mentions the 1982 Assembly in the Chamber - why should he not do so? I recall, back in those halcyon days, shortly after being elected to that Assembly, going to the Republic to what was almost the shadow of the Dáil to tell people exactly why Northern Ireland would remain separate from the Irish Republic. It is a separate entity, a separate country, and it will never, ever be united with the Irish Republic.

I take the motion at face value. I do not doubt in any way the Alliance Party leader's motive for the motion or call into question his rationale for it. If a joint forum would simply promote greater dialogue on issues of mutual interest and concern between Northern Ireland and the Republic, I would welcome it. However, we must examine the evidence and rationale under the terms of the Belfast Agreement.

Some four years ago, the First Minister said that the counterbalance to the North/South pressure - the North/ South Ministerial Council and the greater involvement on a North/South basis - would be involvement on an east-west basis: the British-Irish contingency.

Therefore I asked how many British-Irish Council and North/South Ministerial Council meetings had taken place. Not to my, or anyone else's, surprise, I was told that there had been 50 North/South Ministerial Council meetings and five British-Irish Council meetings. Ten times more emphasis is placed on Council meetings on the North/South axis than on the natural east-west axis. That appears to lie at the heart of the North/South promotion.

Alban Maginness, who unfortunately is not in the Chamber, makes the case that Unionists will still be Unionists after North/South discussions, and Nationalists will still be Nationalists. He does not seem to understand that the difference is that when Nationalists take part in east-west discussions, no Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or other politician in Great Britain wants Nationalists to be British. No one engaged in east-west dialogue wants to build a political basis that will in some way encompass the Nationalist viewpoint and make Nationalists feel that they are British. However, an examination of "North/Southery" shows that it is designed to make Unionists feel more Irish. That is always at the root of it.

Many people in the Nationalist and Republican community want to develop education in a North/South context - an all-Ireland context. Higher education, tourism, health, agriculture, economic development, policing - there is no end to the issues that Nationalists and Republicans want to develop on a North/South basis. Is it simply to get more effective policing or a better education system? Of course it is not. If it were simply that, they would sit down with Unionists in Northern Ireland and discuss the problems. Efforts would be made to determine the fault lines in education, health, tourism or whatever, and methods would be devised to improve them.

However, Nationalists and Republicans seem to think that improvement equals "North/Southery"; that a better education system and better economic development are possible only on an all-Ireland basis. They can approach any issue and turn it into greater North/South co-operation. For about seven years there has been a nonsensical attitude in the Irish Republic, and even in the Nationalist and Republican community, that tries to take the sharp edge off Irishness and remove aggressive behaviour on St Patrick's Day. They do that not because they want more people to celebrate St Patrick's Day but because they want Unionists to think that they can now embrace this sense of Irishness.

Unfortunately, although I do not attribute any of this rationale to Mr Ford or his underlying analysis for suggesting the forum, that is what lies at the root of any proposals that I have ever seen for North/South co-operation. I speak as someone who goes frequently to the Irish Republic, and who will continue to do so, not because I am open to being persuaded to do the impossible - to become an Irish citizen - or to accept that Irish nationhood can be expanded to take account of my Britishness, because it cannot - [Interruption].

Nobody is suggesting that.

Alban Maginness was absent when I spoke earlier, so I will repeat what I said briefly for his benefit. People who promote "North/Southery" can turn everything - attitudes, Government functions, promotion of the usual co-operation and discussion that takes place between adjoining countries - into a basis for future incorporation into a re-formed all-Ireland state. However, that never happens on an east-west basis.

Neither Mr Maginness nor any other Nationalist will ever go to an east-west dialogue -

Will the Member give way?

I will give way in a minute if the Member will let me finish. No Nationalist or Republican will go to an east-west set of talks and sit beside people on the British side of the argument trying to persuade them that they are British and that their sense of Irishness is misplaced. However, that is what I come up against every time I go to the Irish Republic - that I am a misplaced Irishman - and in some way they are trying to change Irishness to make me feel that I am Irish.

The SDLP and Members from Dáil Éireann participate in the British-Irish parliamentary tier, while, unfortunately, Unionists do not. What is the difference between those forums? They may have different personnel, but they are essentially the same sort of forum. We do participate.

I was not accusing Mr Maginness or Nationalists of non-participation, but he inadvertently makes my point for me. He knows that the origin of the parliamentary tier that he refers to was the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which, like the Belfast Agreement, Unionists viewed as an attempt to make us feel Irish when we are not and never, ever will be. There is nothing that anyone can do in the Irish Republic or in the Gaelic or Irish tradition that will make Unionists feel less British. Even if the British Government do not want us, it does not matter. We will be no less British.

The Member makes my point for me when he refers to a body that was viewed with suspicion for precisely the reason that I have given - the wish was to establish a forum where Unionists could gradually, over time be shown that the Irish Republic is not the big, bad nation that they feel it to be. Perhaps over time they can get accustomed to the Irish language, the Irish culture and everything about the Irish nation state. That is the seedbed of the Belfast Agreement.

That is why we so oppose the Ulster Unionists. Whether they recognise it or not, they are blindly encompassing a scenario that will eventually - not tomorrow, next week or next month, but over a period of years - lead to them and those like them who are defeatist in outlook saying, as some already are, that perhaps Irish nationhood is not so bad now because it has been changed. Articles 2 and 3 have been dropped, and their outlook has changed.

I do not want in any way to undermine the bona fides of the Alliance Party, which moved this motion for its own perfectly legitimate reasons. I simply do not accept those reasons. I do not accept that those who would be promoting the forum, those who would be behind it and those who would find it a useful tool would simply say to the Alliance Party: "This is nice as far as it goes, and we will allow it to sit here and promote greater dialogue between North and South". They would conveniently hitch it onto their own agenda, as they have hitched everything else. It would be used to drive forward the North/South bandwagon, which we as traditional Unionists will resist for years and decades to come.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom labhairt i bhfabhar na tairisceana atáimid a chaibidil inniu. I support the motion. It is surprising that Mr Campbell is surprised that Members have an agenda. That reminds me of a Member accusing another Member of making a political speech one day. Mr Campbell seems so secure in one breath in his Unionism and Britishness, yet in another breath he is afraid of the political cat.

Dr Birnie's remarks are at best unenlightened and lacking in generosity. Splitting hairs and dancing on the head of a pin is in no way convincing.

Perhaps Dr Birnie drew the short straw in the group in having to defend the indefensible. Perhaps Mr Campbell is right. Perhaps it is because of an impending election - meaning that there will be more of the same unenlightenment in the months ahead, with the rejection of specific aspects of the Good Friday Agreement, which the UUP has already endorsed. That position is neither honest nor sustainable.

I am challenged to be measured in my comments, and that is very difficult. Unionist councillors and Ministers are heavily involved in cross-border arrangements, as has been outlined by Mr Alban Maginness. Why then is the middle tier of political office not involved, given that there is ministerial co-operation and councillor co-operation? For example, Unionist councillors on Omagh District Council have their hands up to go to conferences south of the border before they even know what is at issue. Everyone in Omagh District Council knows that when Killarney or Clare, or any of the annual conference venues, is mentioned, the Unionist hands go up. It is only then that they find out what the conference is about. I will not name those Unionist members who queue up weekly in an orderly fashion in their jeeps at Emyvale, Lifford and just south of Newry for cheap diesel.

I commend the Alliance Party for tabling the motion. It is not strong enough. Why is there delay over something that should happen immediately? It should have happened yesterday. The establishment of an all-island body for Members of the Assembly and Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas is a priority for my party. It is consistent with the principles and ethos of the Good Friday Agreement, and it is accurately detailed in the wording of the motion, where reference is made to "strand two, paragraph 18". Agus as Gaeilge:

"The Assembly and the Oireachtas to consider developing a joint parliamentary forum, bringing together equal numbers from both institutions for discussion of matters of mutual interest and concern."

I cannot understand the Ulster Unionist attitude on this matter, except to put it in the context of the battle with the DUP.

At the core, there is a recognition of the centrality and importance of North/South relations, the importance of national reconciliation on the island, and the need to develop consultation, co-operation and action in the island of Ireland on those matters. That is already happening in the implementation bodies established through the North/South Ministerial Council: An Foras Teanga, Waterways Ireland, Tourism Ireland, the Special EU Programmes Body and others.

A joint parliamentary forum involving parliamentarians in the Twenty-six Counties and Assembly Members in the North must be established. Why? What would such a forum do? A great deal of material could be discussed and developed with a sense of purpose and urgency. That would include the implications of 'Ireland, North and South: A Statistical Profile', a document released recently, tourism promotion and health planning and provision, ignoring the boundaries and health bureaucracies in the country for the benefit of all citizens. It would focus on the removal of duplication and double provision and on seamless provision and the cost-effective delivery of health services. It would also include the working of the North/South Ministerial Council An Chomhairle Aireachta Thuaidh/Theas, the study of obstacles to mobility - plenty of food for thought there - and presenting Ireland as a unit for the development of the hard-pressed agricultural sector, North and South.

We could learn how the Industrial Development Agency might secure inward investment. I welcome the fact that Alban Maginness referred to the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, Comhlacht Idirpharlaiminteach na hÉireann-na Breataine.

As an Irish citizen and an elected Member of this House, I am happy to sit on the body - it has become known as "the body", if anyone wants a laugh - in an expression of the east-west relationships, which is not my forte, as everyone will know.

I participate in the body on behalf of Sinn Féin in a spirit of reconciliation with my colleague Caoimhghin Ó Caoláin, TD.

The body was formally established in 1990 as a link between the Dáil and the British Parliament, and its origins lie in the joint studies report initiated by Margaret Thatcher and Charles Haughey in 1980. In 1990, agreement was reached on formal constitutional rules. It was agreed that two plenary sessions would be held each year and would alternate between Ireland and Britain and that the structure would include four committees. The aim was to contribute to mutual understanding through the body's work and through informal contacts.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>