On a radio programme, I publicly asked the Sinn Féin representative for South Down, Mick Murphy, if he would join me in supporting a monument in Castlewellan to all those who had suffered and died in our area, instead of the one he proposed, and he publicly refused. What else can one say? He was only interested in a monument for "themselves alone".

If we want to deal with equality as an issue and an agenda to be followed, we must practise what we preach, and we must be seen to do it. There is no point in talking in lofty terms about equality while doing the exact opposite on the ground and, as I have said, treating equality with the contempt of which I have local experience. Therefore, in an attempt to deal with this growing problem it is necessary to bring all those agencies on board in order to get a coherent, sensible, fair and equal way of dealing with that.

Now that I have a fuller picture of the number of Members who wish to speak - and it may yet change again - I advise Members to limit their contributions to eight minutes.

I support the motion. Individuals, communities and societies like to mark and remember milestones in their history, and that is accepted across the world. However, the misuse of that which is being undertaken by those who any civilised society would look upon as fascist thugs is unacceptable. It is akin to erecting a memorial to Adolf Hitler, whom Sinn Féin/IRA backed, or putting up a memorial to Myra Hindley after her death.

A civil war is not being commemorated - it is not a war in any legitimate sense of the word. Memorials are being erected to common criminals who have killed innocent people across the Province. They are being erected to people who are nothing more than vagabonds who have raped and pillaged their way across the entire community and country and murdered workers, schoolteachers, children, women, fathers and husbands in a dirty, grubby, filthy and rotten campaign.

Memorials have been erected for people who have killed the likes of 17-month-old Colin Nicholl and two- year-old Tracey Munn in 1971 - that was a brave act. It is repugnant to decent people that a group of brutal terrorists are commemorated, the sort of thugs who murdered George Saunderson, the school principal, in Erne County Primary School in 1974. My constituency of Newry and Armagh has suffered much of the brunt of Republican Sinn Féin/IRA terrorism - Kingsmills, Glenanne and other incidents have been mentioned today.

Anthony Nolan, an IRA activist who was nothing more than a common thief, accidentally shot himself while planning a bank robbery; he is some hero. Is he the type of person who deserves to be remembered? Bateson, Sheridan and Lee killed themselves while transporting a bomb to kill innocent people. On that occasion, the evil that they planned for others was turned on them.

Memorials erected to cowards who shot people in the dark and crawled up laneways to murder in the dark is not only repugnant and obscene, but a daily affront to everyone who went about their ordinary business decade after decade while those gangsters and hoods did everything possible to murder them in their beds or at work. That is what is being glorified across this country. If we were to erect a memorial to every citizen, soldier and policeman murdered by those thugs, there would not be enough land for them all.

What makes those shrines offensive is the glorification of violence and bloodshed. They are tasteless, tactless and obscene. However, what do we expect from IRA/Sinn Féin? In contrast, the memorial to the nine civilians who were murdered on the Shankill Road consists of a street lamp.

My constituency of Newry and Armagh has borne much of the brunt of IRA terrorism. Outside Belfast, Armagh has had the highest number of deaths. Republicans were responsible for 2,140 of the 3,636 deaths in Northern Ireland up to 1999 - around 60% of those murders. They are responsible for all the deaths, because there would have been no deaths but for them. The Assembly must not forget that for every two Protestants that the IRA killed they also murdered one Roman Catholic.

Whom did those heroes murder? People like Frank Murphy, who was murdered while driving a school bus for Drumsallen Primary School outside Armagh; William Elliott, a post office inspector; Henry Dickson, a train driver; and Tracy Doak. I am sure that none of us can forget the 1995 documentary about Tracy entitled 'No Time to Say Goodbye'. There is not enough paper to record the pain and anguish caused by Republican terrorists. It is, therefore, morally repugnant to remember any of those murderers. The Executive and the Minister of the Environment must take action.

The Assembly must do something to represent the innocent victims: people from both sides of the community who have suffered so much at the hands of terrorists; people who across the Province went about their daily duties and worked to the best of their abilities to look after their families and friends. They were stopped with such cowardice by terrorists across Northern Ireland. I speak to many victims who find it soul-destroying to see those memorials and to see terrorists being glorified for the bloodshed and violence that they caused across the community. Action must be taken to deal with those memorials; the relevant Department must remove them immediately.

I listened to Mr ONeill with interest. He stated that he would not support the motion. That is a matter of grave concern. It was of greater concern that he suggested that all victims' names could be on the same monument when he spoke about Downpatrick. I assure the House that the victims that I have spoken to do not, in any way, want their loved ones' names beside those of the murderers who carried out such cowardly attacks. I state that clearly.

Action must be taken on behalf of all innocent people who suffered at the hands of terrorists. The motion is about Republican terrorists who have caused so much distress and anguish and who committed many murders across the Province. The last thing that the DUP wants to see is them being glorified for the terrorist, cowardly, bloodthirsty acts that they have carried out throughout the Province during the past 30 years.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The motion is lopsided: it covers only one side of the story, which is no more than one would expect. Mr Foster is one of the movers of the motion. It seems that he has gone back into councillor mode. He was in that mode the last time that I remember being in such a debate with him. He is obviously spoiling for such a debate.

The amendment says that memorials should "conform" to agreed criteria. What are those criteria? However, there is not as much to argue against in the amendment as there is in the motion. No one to whom equality is important could support the motion. It does not reflect how the Assembly should approach the issue of memorials. The arguments presented so far are not the way to deal with the memorials issue. They can only make matters much worse.

The number of attacks on Republican memorials in Fermanagh and other areas is proof that all we can do is make the situation much worse. Paint has been poured on monuments and cars have been set on fire. One Unionist councillor asked that all monuments be blown to bits - so much for his signature to using non-violent methods. His words were followed by an attack on a monument the following night. There has been one attack only on British war memorials in Moy. If I am wrong, perhaps someone can put me right on that.

It has not been a two-way process. The motion is about one side; it is only about seeing victims as being on one side. That has been the argument on everything relating to victims. We often hear about the conflict of the past 30 years. Anybody who knows his history knows that the reasons behind the conflict go back to the inception of this particular statelet and the way that it was run from the start. Nationalists were entirely left out of the picture and had no part in ruling this part of Ireland. That is the backdrop for all this. It has nothing to do with the past 30 years in particular.

One need only go to any town or village, however small, in the North to see British war memorials in every one. Most of them cost a sizeable amount of money. Recently, £19,000 was spent in Enniskillen to just update the names on a memorial. We in Fermanagh District Council did not oppose that. Who was consulted about the original cenotaphs? Whose permission was asked? Did the original Stormont Government give permission for the erection of those cenotaphs?

Republicans have a right to pay tribute to, and commemorate, their dead like anyone else. There has been conflict over the past 30 years, but, as I said, the conflict has gone on much longer than that. That conflict, as with all wars, was bitter. There is no such thing as clean fighting in a war, despite what the Member opposite almost implied. We need only remember the rape and plunder committed by Cromwell in his early years in Ireland. [Interruption].

It is a reality. The Members opposite seem to have a difficulty in hearing the truth. However, it is the truth, and that is why it hurts. War is war. War was the same wherever it occurred.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Does Mr McHugh equate murder with war? Is he condoning the murders that have been committed over the years?

I consider that to be an intervention, not a point of order. The Member may wish to respond.

The British security forces, in collusion with Loyalists, murdered Nationalists on many occasions. Louis Leonard was murdered in his butcher's shop in Derrylin in 1972. That involved collusion with the security forces. Michael Naan and Andrew Murray were killed in south Fermanagh as part of the pitchfork murders. They were killed by security forces - by soldiers in British regiments, who later admitted it.

There were many other murders in that area. Patsy Kelly from Trillick is one example. There have been many accusations as to which element of the British security forces was responsible for that murder. No one has ever admitted to it. Those are only a few of the murders. Nationalists were murdered, but there seems to be no agreement -

Will the Member give way?

I need to use whatever time I have left, given that we have only eight minutes to speak.

We have always been prepared to acknowledge that there has been hurt on both sides and that there is no monopoly on suffering and pain. Gerry Adams has consistently told Unionists that Sinn Féin, through the peace process, wants to move to a different position. This type of debate does not encourage that.

Observers can only be encouraged by Unionists' asking in the Assembly for something completely different for Nationalists and Republicans who want to honour their dead. This is not for their glorification; this is done simply because they believe they have that right. I agree. Most Nationalists and Republicans quietly put up memorials as a mark of respect, a tribute to their dead, to volunteers who gave their lives for a struggle they believed to be right. They were right. They gave their lives for the right reasons, as did anyone who fought in the British wars. Those people believed that they fought for an honourable cause, and that should be recognised by all sides. Unionists especially should not beat the drum that they are the only ones who are right.

Mayhem and slaughter are seen as the backdrop to history in any country in the world where Britain ruled. I am sure that most Unionists here know their history very well, but perhaps they pick and choose the parts to remember. Most Nationalists, however, know their history exactly. We have had 800 years of history here, and we do not need to be told it. The future position of Nationalists must be based on equality. Éamonn ONeill referred to picking and choosing someone to make a particular statement on a monument in his town. We cannot do that. For the conflict to cease, we must go forward on the basis that everyone has a right to honour his dead.

I want to place on record my opposition to the erection of illegal memorials by Republicans. Those so-called memorials are deliberately provocative. They are designed to mark out territory and further insult the innocent victims of IRA terrorism. In respect of the SDLP amendment, the distinction between innocent victims, both Protestant and Catholic, and those who set out to destroy lives and property must be clear. It is insulting and disgraceful that some in the Assembly and in the community refer to terrorists and their families as victims when they set out deliberately to plan and execute heinous acts of terrorism that resulted in innocent victims. It is disgraceful that Republicans in the Chamber treat with contempt those gallant Protestants and Catholics who fought side by side and died in wars, including the world wars.

It is a scandal that terrorist families have received Government support and funding, while many innocent victims, including those who laid down their lives in defence of freedom and democracy, have received no compensation and are not even permitted to honour their loved ones. Mrs Thelma Johnston's son David was in the RUC. He was brutally murdered by the Provisional IRA on 16 June 1997 in Lurgan, shot in the back by cowardly scum while serving the whole community. A committee of Belfast City Council recently refused Mrs Johnston permission to lay a wreath on behalf of those brave members of the security forces who had laid down their lives. I hope that those gullible and disgraceful Presbyterians who yesterday embraced Alex Maskey of Sinn Féin/IRA meet the innocent victims of Republican terrorism.

Throughout Northern Ireland, however, many illegal memorials are erected by Republican terrorists. It is a disgrace that many councils turn a blind eye to that and refuse to demolish or remove them. Many of those memorials are strategically placed to cause maximum hurt and pain. They are placed on main roads, close to where many members of the security forces and others were murdered and maimed. It is disgusting that some councils, such as Newry and Mourne District Council, maintain memorials to Republican terrorists.

It is disgraceful that Londonderry city council claimed ignorance of the statue of an INLA terrorist armed with a rifle that was erected in a Londonderry cemetery. The INLA is responsible for some of the worst terrorist atrocities, including the Darkley massacre in south Armagh; the murder of 17 people in the Ballykelly bomb in County Londonderry; the murder of the Conservative Party's Northern Ireland spokesman, Airey Neave MP; and the murders of many other innocent people. Many other Republican memorials have been erected illegally in Northern Ireland, causing heartache for many innocent victims.

My problem with the motion is that it calls for the Executive to take action. The Executive includes Sinn Féin's Martin McGuinness, a self-confessed leader of the Provisional IRA. At a Republican memorial rally in Bodenstown on 23 June 1986, 'The Irish News' quotes the same Martin McGuinness - the so-called Minister of Education - as saying

It would, therefore, add to the hurt of the innocent victims to call on Martin McGuinness when he clearly endorses the Provisional IRA's erection of illegal memorials to Republican terrorists.

The illegal memorials must be removed immediately, and ultimate responsibility for their removal should be placed firmly with the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the Northern Ireland Office. The Prime Minister is too quick to remove essential security installations, yet he refuses to remove the illegal memorials to Republican terrorists who were guilty of the most heinous crimes.

One of the worst reminders for the innocent victims of terrorism is IRA/Sinn Féin in the heart of the Government of Northern Ireland. I have spoken to many innocent victims, including some from the constituencies of the Members who proposed the motion. I call on the hon Members Foster and Kennedy to ease the pain of the innocents by removing the Ulster Unionist Party from the power-sharing Assembly with IRA/Sinn Féin. The placing of IRA/Sinn Féin in the heart of Government over the people whom they continue to terrorise compounds the hurt of the innocent victims of terrorism. The innocent victims continue to suffer.

I support the motion for two reasons: the memorials are offensive to the majority of decent people; and they are illegal because they were erected without planning permission. An illegal memorial has been erected in the village of Dungiven, three miles from where I live. It is supposedly in memory of the hunger strikers who took their own lives in the early 1980s, but it has caused much hurt to the family of an RUC officer who was shot dead within 50 yards of it and much distress to the parishioners of the local parish church, which is just yards from it. The church's property has been damaged many times, and its hall has been burnt to the ground.

To add insult to injury, the eyesore has been erected on the only open space in Dungiven's Main Street. It is across the road from Dungiven Castle, which was regenerated as a tourism centre using thousands of pounds of public money. There are those in the Unionist community who do not feel that they can visit that historic site because of the intimidating structure opposite.

People who have been deeply involved in terrorist activity in recent years but who now claim to be democrats have been elected to local councils throughout Northern Ireland. It should naturally follow that democrats should not only support and uphold the law of the land but should be seen to do so. However, it is clear that many who claim to be democrats are not. When I raised the issue of the illegal memorial at the council's monthly planning meeting, the majority of the SDLP councillors did not support its removal and none of the Sinn Féin councillors was supportive, which was no great surprise.

The fact that the Planning Service has not taken any steps to remove the memorial is disturbing. Hundreds of people who pay due regard to the process and follow the correct procedures are refused planning permission. Understandably, they find it difficult to understand why others can build whatever they like, wherever they feel. I urge the Planning Service to review its policy on illegal developments and remove these offensive so-called memorials forthwith.

We can all recognise the sensitivities of people who have lost family members. However, with proper planning approval, there is enough space in cemeteries to erect appropriate memorials. It is incumbent on all elected representatives to ensure that these illegal structures are removed. I support the motion.

I shall address some technical points before I consider the more emotive issue of how to deal with this difficult subject.

It would be a good idea if the Executive were to consider the issue, because it will not go away. The Executive should consult the agencies that are cited in the amendment, and also local councils.

Depending on where memorials are erected, they are likely to cause offence. The Women's Coalition is a cross-community party that is made up of Nationalists, Unionists and others. Since Jane Morrice and I were elected to the Assembly, we have tried to understand the perspectives of the opposing sides. We always question ourselves on whether our actions give due consideration to human rights. Are we being inclusive in what we say or do? We may get it wrong at times; if people are brought up in one community, they do not always understand what it is like for the other community. Do we provide equality of opportunity, or are we acting in a discriminatory way?

The test has been difficult, but the same test could be applied to how we remember the dead. The agreement states that there is a right to free political thought and a right to freedom and expression of religion. In this country political identity and religion are often mixed up. The agreement also refers to the right to freedom from sectarian harassment. Although we are debating memorials to the dead, and given the Minister for Employment and Learning's earlier statement, I am concerned about the creation of murals that are dedicated to the living before they are dead.

I shall give you an example of how difficult it is for Departments to reconcile their responsibilities. If a memorial is built on public land, the Department that owns that land is responsible. Councils have had to deal with that problem. If a mural is painted on a wall, the owner of the property is responsible. Lamp-posts and street lights are the responsibility of the engineering and lighting division of the Department of the Environment, and pavements are the responsibility of the Roads Service of the Department of the Environment. I made many phone calls this afternoon, and it takes several hours -

The Member referred to the Department of the Environment. Will she acknowledge that those responsibilities were transferred from the former Department of the Environment to the Department for Regional Development?

I acknowledge that it is completely confusing, and I am glad of the intervention.

One area is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, and another area is the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development. It is good that the Executive may have an opportunity to address the matter. The situation is absolutely ridiculous, the height of nonsense. The Planning Service says that if a memorial is erected without planning permission and is considered unacceptable, it must determine whether formal enforcement action is appropriate.

I may not vote for the amendment. I would like to know who would be responsible for the enforcement of any guidelines that may be adopted. The Planning Service does not apply much enforcement with regard to what is being erected, or where it is being erected. The same Planning Service then says that there are no permitted development rights for memorials or monuments in Northern Ireland, irrespective of size or classification - there is no legislation in place. That may be something for the Executive to address.

Planning permission is required for the erection of any monument or memorial outside a cemetery. Inside cemetery walls is where they ought to be; if they are being erected anywhere else, they are offensive. It may be that local residents, depending on which community has the majority at a particular time, do not see them as offensive, but if we take the principle that we are dealing with a double minority, then the memorials will offend someone. The Executive should address the fact that legislation is not in place for memorials or monuments outside cemeteries.

I have listened to the debate, and I am disheartened by what I have heard. Ours is a damaged society - the conflict has been a terrible one - but until people get out of denial that there has been terrible hurt and desperate murder committed and take responsibility for that and commit themselves to doing something different in the future, we will go round and round in a vicious circle.

I have much sympathy for the Ulster Unionist motion - the issue needs to be addressed. Memorials are being erected all over the place, and those from the other side need to seriously consider what those memorials mean to people as they are passing by, particularly the relatives of those who have been murdered.

People who are writing sectarian scribbles on the walls of east Belfast should seriously consider how offensive and dangerous they are to people walking past them.

It is time to remember and to change. We are not ready to put up memorials around the country willy-nilly. The Executive should take the issue seriously - although no Minister is present to respond to the debate. When the Business Committee met last week it asked the Executive to decide which Minister would take responsibility. I see that they could not come to any agreement on that matter. Where does the issue go after we have debated it today?

I support the motion. As I listened to Members' comments I thought about canvassing in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where we do not need memorials along the road. We can see the crossroads where someone was shot in the back; the tarmac patch where the bomb exploded and where several people were murdered. We cannot forget that.

I agree with Ms McWilliams that we have to look forward. Here we have an instance of coat-trailing by one side of the community trying to perpetuate the problem.

We have so many insensitive IRA monuments erected in public places, causing great distress to the families of people murdered by those named on the monuments. It is claimed that those named on the monuments were on active service. The term "active service" implies a recognised army or battle situation - not the actions of a sordid terrorist organisation that ambushed and murdered unarmed civilians going about their day-to-day business. The weasel words of "active service" are used to try to cover the fact that IRA members were actively seeking innocent members of the public to murder. Thankfully, many people were saved from further outrages by the security forces.

Remembrance is an important part of our healing process. It ensures that those who went before us, and their contributions to society, are not forgotten. We have monuments to the dead of both world wars, and I emphasise that they commemorate people from both communities. I am a proud Enniskillen person, born and raised in the town. I recognise people from all parts of the community. During the world wars, it did not matter whether someone was a Roman Catholic or a Protestant. People were proud to serve in the two regiments, and their names are on war memorials. Please let it be recorded in Hansard that it was not a sordid campaign.

There are memorials to the dead from both communities in both world wars. There are also monuments to tragedies, but our most common memorial is the headstone of the family grave. Those memorials are dignified and respectful, but to equate a traditional monument with that of an illegal terrorist organisation is repugnant and insulting to all ordinary people. The victims' families have to pass such monuments on the roadside, and it brings back terrible memories each time. The pain endured by the families does not lessen with the passage of time. In Fermanagh and South Tyrone there are too many roadside IRA monuments.

I am concerned by Sinn Féin's inflammatory actions and words. Its members involve themselves in public displays of contempt and hatred, which only further divide society. This is the same party that talks so much about equality and peace. A Sinn Féin Member from Fermanagh and South Tyrone stated in a BBC report that the positioning of a monument at a Belleek crossroads was justified. The same person admitted that those mentioned were on active duty. She also stated that the RUC and Royal Irish Regiment monuments were in public places.

Monuments to the Army, the RUC and the Royal Irish Regiment are kept in churches, graveyards, security buildings or on Government property. The only truly public memorials are war memorials to commemorate - and I say it again - both Protestants and Roman Catholics who died in two world wars. They are poignant reminders to the public of the terrible price paid for fighting fascism for the common good. The IRA is simply an extension of the evil that plagued the world more than 60 years ago. Churches and graveyards are a testament to the price that we paid to ensure that madness did not destroy our freedom.

If terrorist groups wish to have memorials, they should consider asking whether they could place them in the graveyards and churches of their own denomination or allegiance, where they will not cause offence. They should consider that; there are already some in graveyards and burial grounds.

All plaques, memorials and monuments on public sites require planning permission. I call on all the Departments to co-ordinate their efforts to ensure that these illegal memorials, with their pseudo, copycat trappings of conventional war memorials, are removed from our roadsides, forestry plantations and historical graveyards.

I support the motion. At times we have been guilty of missing the main point of this debate. I do not call these objects "memorials". They are wayside platforms for the promotion of the political activists who have supported terror in this country. This is another part of the IRA/Sinn Féin terror campaign. It is a form of political and institutional terror and a way of dominating the landscape.

Every one of these memorials, as they call them - I call them the political platforms for the activists turned political terrorists - are for the draft dodgers, the quartermasters, the suppliers, the finger pointers and all those who have been part of a unique campaign of genocide, particularly in the west of the Province. Let us not forget that the IRA strategists who control Sinn Féin have not changed their great ambition. They view this as part of their campaign to deliver a Republican, united Ireland. This is simply a stepping stone. We have seen how they have changed their tactics over the years.

I was delighted that Gerry McHugh admitted in his speech that it was murder; that is the first time I have heard a member of his party admitting that what was carried out was murder. However, he went back to the old Republican phrasebook when stuck for a little ammunition and talked about 800 years of British misrule. I will pose him some questions. Who murdered at the rate of 27 to one in the Irish civil war of 1921-22 - was it not the so-called Irish who killed the Irish? Will he tell the Assembly whether the 10 who were exhumed by the Southern Government and re-interred recently in Glasnevin Cemetery were pro-treaty or anti- treaty? Had they survived their jail term, would they have been murdered by their own?

It is interesting that Mr McHugh made one slip in all this, supporting the erection of terrorist platforms by the waysides so that almost weekly they could have another campaign to make sure that the Young Turks and the older troops would be ready, accessible and amenable. That is what they are about. Therefore I would never dignify the activities of the IRA and its campaigns of murder with memorials. My constituency has too many bitter remembrances of those occasions. I could mention Teebane and Ballygawley Road, one, two, and three - they are all multiple murders. Most people have forgotten Teebane. I could mention the Royal Arms Hotel murders, the Knocknamoe murders and, of course, the Omagh bomb murders.

This was not just a terror campaign of genocide - it has moved on to domination. Believe it or not, I was surprised at the SDLP, which has again shown tremendous weakness. That party is always urging us to take leadership and move forward. However, Éamonn ONeill said that Sinn Féin treated equality with contempt; that theirs was a "themselves alone" programme. Having admitted that Sinn Féin is all about "themselves alone" and that Sinn Féin treated equality with contempt, that Mr ONeill lacks the courage or wisdom to support the motion displays a terrible weakness in SDLP thinking

We must be wise to the real issue. Terror comes in many forms, such as the physical form of murder; there have been 97 murders in my constituency. It can also come in institutional forms. It can come in the form of the stoning of school buses or of quiet, insolent contempt for everything that is Unionist.

What threat is a small Orange lodge of 22 members to a massive Republican community? The church is in Carrickmore. Twenty-two local farmers and labourers going to a Sunday service - what threat could that pose to the massive Republican stronghold of Carrickmore? It cannot be tolerated; that is what Sinn Féin means by equality. Similarly, Mountfield is a Republican stronghold; out of seven councillors, it produces four Sinn Féin members. What threat would a wee Orange lodge of 27 members be to that community? It cannot be tolerated.

My time has run out. I support the motion.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to make a few comments. I agree with Mr Gibson that the places he mentioned present no threat to anyone. It is an absolute disgrace that anyone would consider them as such. The difference is that I can say that an attack on an isolated Orange hall is absolutely and fundamentally wrong and goes against any Republican principle. I disagree with that entirely.

However, the same people will never speak out about Catholic churches in east Belfast or other isolated Catholic communities that have been under attack. They will somehow always fall back on the notion that such attacks are reactive, that they are a reaction from the community to some greater misdeed that was done to their community. That is the difference. Isolated communities on whatever side should be allowed to live in peace. Mr Gibson, who has since left, should consider some of the actions carried out by people from his community and treat them with the same seriousness.

The motion's tone has set the standard for the debate, which has been largely predictable. It shows how far we must go if we are to engage in any reconciliation process. Sam Foster spoke about people not having any honesty, integrity or dignity. He reverted to that type of language when talking about us. That struck me because the same people who share Committees with us here and who support the d'Hondt principle - that we will take the rightful places that we are entitled to by the number of votes that we receive - will walk out of a council meeting because a Sinn Féin member is elected chairperson.

There is a lack of integrity in Unionist representatives when they can do business with Sinn Féin and support the elections of its members in Chambers such as this, yet huff and puff in other chambers and walk out when Sinn Féin is elected. When we talk about honesty and integrity, we must look at ourselves first and foremost.

I agree with the sentiments of the amendment. Monica McWilliams -

When the Member speaks about integrity and otherwise at councils, is he referring to me?

I heard Mr Foster's opening remarks on the monitor. If I heard correctly, he questioned the honesty and integrity of Republicans and Republican elected representatives. In this institution, his party and Unionists support the right of Republicans to the positions to which they are entitled, and they have voted in support of that and d'Hondt. However, recently in Belfast City Council, members of his party, including Ministers who benefit from the d'Hondt mechanism, walked out of a council meeting when Sinn Féin got its just entitlements as the largest party on that council. When talking about honesty and integrity, one should look to oneself first and foremost.

I agree with the sentiments of the amendment. It talks about "agreed criteria", and that term is not defined. Monica McWilliams raised questions about the amendment. An agreed set of procedures for erecting monuments is something that we could go along with.

There was some irony when Éamonn ONeill said that the behaviour of Sinn Féin in Downpatrick was hypocritical because it flew in the face of supporting the equality provisions. The irony is that the monument was erected to an unarmed person who had been shot dead by the RUC. He was left to bleed to death in the street, and that was a breach of his human rights. However, the MP for the area at the time said that he felt that the RUC had acted appropriately in the action it took, in allowing an unarmed man to bleed to death in the street. That is a challenge to its support of human rights, which it has lauded over the years.

The Unionists who proposed the motion object to the erection of illegal monuments, and that is what the motion is focused on. On the one hand, I can see that that might be the case. A monument was erected in my village in 1991. Planning permission was sought, a lay-by was built and agreed by the Department of the Environment, and there were no objections from local Unionists.

However, when Republicans in Newry sought the agreement of the council some months ago to find a site for the erection of a monument to commemorate the hunger strikers, Danny Kennedy lodged very vocal objections, even though the people involved had worked with the council to try to identify a site and had located the monument on a site that the council had suggested, not one that they themselves had chosen. That begs the question: are people really worried about whether monuments are legal or illegal or about the fact that there are monuments at all?

Members have said that the location of monuments is insensitive. Gerry McHugh made the point that there are monuments to those who fought in the British Army in every town centre. From the roof of Woolworths in Newry, less than 50 yards from the cenotaph, the British Army shot dead three young men in the early 1970s. No one, as far as I am aware, has objected to the location of the cenotaph in the middle of Newry or has tried to have it removed. It stays there and people are entitled to have their remembrance. However, it is a monument to those who served in an army that murdered people on the streets of that town. Newry is a largely Nationalist town, and no one has objected to the cenotaph.

There is a tradition that people are sensitive to how remembrance is conducted. The media are all obliged to wear poppies in November in remembrance of the British Army, regardless of their political, religious or personal affiliations. I ask the movers of the motion how they think Jean McBride, the mother of Peter McBride, feels when the people providing a service to her are obliged to wear poppies to commemorate the British Army that murdered her son and re-employed those who were found guilty of that murder.

There are sensitivities on the other side to people they consider to be legitimate war heroes, as there are to people engaged in legitimate war on our side of the fence. All the sentiments expressed by Paul Berry could be expressed by someone from a Republican community about the RUC, the UDR or the British Army. They could all reflect the same sentiments of people murdering those who were trying to go about their business, who were innocent or who were not even involved in conflict. Murders have been covered up.

There is talk of sensitivity and monuments being located in sensitive areas. There is hardly a town centre in the North that does not have a monument to those who have fought and served in the British Army.

Will the Member give way?

I have very little time, and I cannot give way. However, I will address a point made by Joan Carson. There are monuments at roadsides as well as cenotaphs in towns. There is one on the way to Kingsmills, not far from where Danny Kennedy comes from, and there is one in Castlewellan to UDR members who were killed there.

That does not stop the Unionists who talk about sensitivity from travelling round the South. There is hardly a road or town in the South where there is not a monument to someone from the IRA who was killed during the war of independence. Nationalists and Republicans erect monuments in a different way to Unionists, who erect cenotaphs in town centres.

I have run out of time. We need to address a process of national reconciliation. Unionists seem to be fixated with the idea that they are right and that there is a necessity to prove that they are right. That means running down anything that Republicans try to do. That will not lead us to national reconciliation. I accept that we should be sensitive as to how we commemorate our dead. Unionists must learn that the commemoration of British Army war dead is a very sensitive topic for people on my side of the fence.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>