I support the motion. I also want to look at the amendment proposed by Mr Tommy Gallagher. In it he talks about the need for criteria and referring the matter back to various bodies, including the Executive. It is important for Members to reflect that a criterion already exists; it is called the planning law. Any memorial requires planning permission, and the erection of a memorial without planning permission is illegal. Every one of the memorials that have gone up without planning permission is illegal. That is the law.

I have served on the planning committee at Belfast city hall for many years. Many Members are similarly aware of planning law, because they deal with it on a daily basis in local councils. Development, as defined in article 11 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, is:

"Other operations" is a catch-all term for any physical operation.

The memorials that we are debating are illegal because they do not have planning permission. The question then is what to do about them legally. Action can be taken by way of an enforcement notice against the person or organisation that erected the memorial and the landowner. That action is available to the Department of the Environment. Planning applications were not submitted for many of those memorials, and no one claimed ownership of them, which makes the enforcement process difficult. However, other action can be taken; the landowner has the right to clear his land of anything that people put on it.

The land on which many of those memorials have been erected belongs to Departments. The point has been well made in the debate that Departments have a duty to ensure that the law of the land and planning regulations are enforced. The issue is an emotive and a difficult one, but that does not excuse the breaking of the law by Mr Conor Murphy's organisation in each and every one of those cases.

I have spelt out the criteria. There is no need for the amendment. The matter may be difficult, emotive and sensitive, but those are the criteria, and the process of obtaining planning permission and permission from the landowner must be adhered to. That is the way forward.

I support the substance of the motion for reasons that have already been mentioned in the debate. Sam Foster and Mrs Carson referred to the memorial erected in Belleek to IRA volunteers who carried out acts of murder. It is not located where the IRA volunteers died, but it has been erected at the spot where they carried out that act of murder. Two men travelling in their car were singled out and murdered by the IRA. The IRA/ Republicans put up a memorial on that spot.

Not only were the IRA saying that those men had no right to exist, which is bad enough; they are now attempting to say that they never existed, which is monstrous. That is the reason I support the motion. That act is not simply insensitive, intolerant or inequitable; it is absolutely monstrous. They are looking to eradicate the existence of those men by erecting an IRA memorial on the spot where they died. That is disgraceful and outrageous.

The place for memorials is often in graveyards. That is recognised by the authorities, because planning permission to erect a memorial in a graveyard is not required. Permission is required from the owner, which, in many cases, is the local council. The Republican plot in Belfast is a case in point. Republicans have the opportunity to erect memorials to their dead in that plot, and it is an appropriate way for them to grieve for and to remember those friends and family members that they have lost.

Mr Conor Murphy referred to war memorials in many towns in Northern Ireland. Those are memorials to the dead of two world wars - the two greatest wars in history, in which millions of people died, including many from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland and people from right across these islands.

Those memorials are different from monuments to people who set out to achieve a political aim that they could not fulfil by democratic means. An overwhelming majority of the population rejected those political aims, so the terrorists resorted to terror in an effort to achieve them. They failed, and that is why Members are here today. The Assembly is trying to rebuild society and to deal with its pain and scars. That will not be done by erecting memorials on roadsides and at inappropriate spots that cause great hurt to the community. A graveyard is the proper place for a memorial.

If planning permission and the landlord's permission to erect the memorial were obtained, nobody would object; however, that did not happen in the cases outlined. The erection of a memorial in Belleek was monstrous. The only course of action is to ensure that the landowner and the authorities take the necessary steps. The attitude of Republicans, including those in the Chamber, is a formula for conflict.

Republicans are denying Unionists the right to exist. That is evident in the blocking of roads; for example, Ormeau Road was blocked during an Orange march that consisted of only two or three dozen Orangemen. Those Orangemen's culture, identity and right to exist are being denied. They are being told that they have no right to be there. Republicans have still not learnt that Unionists have a right not only to exist, but to be part of a democratic and free society.

There is no case for the amendment, which should be voted against. There is an overwhelming case for the motion.

There have been extremely lively debates on the issue in council chambers across the Province. In the city of Londonderry in the early 1970s, the IRA decided to kill company directors, including the head of DuPont, who was shot dead as he returned from work by gangsters who waited for him outside his house. I know of other company directors in Londonderry who were shot dead by the IRA. The IRA, during those years, felt that it was necessary to "take out" the directors of major companies throughout the Province. The IRA has also murdered young children, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters.

For decades, the Republican movement has carried out a terrorist campaign without shame. In the Foyle constituency the IRA shot dead a young policeman and returned a year later and shot dead his only daughter. This afternoon, Members have heard about people's rights. The Republican movement in the House has tried to equate terrorists' monuments to cenotaphs throughout Northern Ireland.

In my city of Londonderry wreaths that were laid on Remembrance Sunday by many organisations have been torn apart and taken off the cenotaph two hours later on many occasions. We in Londonderry know all about Sinn Féin/IRA's rights, as they call them.

We need to be clear about what the debate is about, and I know some Members equate those monuments to memorials in graveyards. A Republican movement took over a graveyard in Londonderry to erect a terrorist monument, and that movement stayed in the city cemetery for several days. Even today, many Protestants whose relations are buried there cannot go near it. The monument was so high that it was a total insult not only to the many Protestant people there but to many in the Nationalist community. I invite anyone in the House to look at that monument and ask himself whether this is about rights when he sees that monument towering above the other gravestones. A Republican organisation practically takes over a graveyard, threatens the people there and erects a monument, and Sinn Féin/IRA talks to us about rights.

In another instance in Londonderry it has taken over Roads Service land to erect other monuments, and, once again, it has used force. We can have all the planning laws we want, and the Executive can do whatever they want, but those people just take over areas in my city by force and erect monuments. Anyone who enquires about what is happening is threatened.

The problem in Northern Ireland - and it has been so for many years - is that terrorists are happy to threaten and murder people and break the law to erect monuments because they know that they have a weak British Government that will do nothing. There is a feeling among Republicans that they can do anything here, and if they want a monument on any piece of land, they will use whatever brutal force is necessary to ensure that it is erected.

I support the motion. However, I do not know what will happen now, given that there is still an armed wing that is prepared to take over land to erect monuments. There is a serious issue of law and order in Northern Ireland.

I say at the outset that, having listened to Mr Conor Murphy, I know of no spectacle more offensive and ridiculous as the Republican movement in one of its periodic fits of pretentious morality. I support the motion so ably proposed by my Colleague Mr Foster. There is a difference between graveyard monuments and memorials in places where the individuals who are commemorated are buried and monuments in open, shared places of public concourse.

Dublin, for example, has many sites associated with the 1916 Easter Rising. However, the Republican memorial is at the Republican plot in Glasnevin Cemetery. The city is not littered from one end to the other with memorials. Memorials in public places should command broad public support. War memorials to the fallen of forces that represented the legally elected Government of the day are one thing. Custom and practice have meant that war memorials have always been sited in prominent public places - usually town centres.

Monuments for the fallen of an insurgent terrorist force that is responsible for killing many ordinary, innocent citizens in a cold-blooded and premeditated way are offensive to most of the population. If such monuments must exist, they should be confined to the cemeteries and graveyards where those whom they commemorate are buried; they should have the appropriate consent of church authorities. Memorials should not be politically provocative and should not be sited in politically provocative places. It seems that Sinn Féin is hell-bent on deliberately seeking out sites that will be provocative and are designed to hurt. Such sites represent in-your-face Republicanism.

Ordinary planning rules are inadequate to deal with what is essentially a political issue. A judgement on whether a monument is aesthetically acceptable or in some way damaging to local amenities is not enough. Those monuments, by their very nature, are political statements. One is almost tempted to suggest that a solution might be to have such memorials subject to a body like the Parades Commission, because they have the same politically charged nature as many of the parades that are deemed contentious by some people.

Those wildcat memorials run deep against the healing process that Sinn Féin purports to espouse. They stir up hatreds, bitter memories, fears and feelings that we all hoped could be left behind. When considered alongside other evidence, such as Sinn Féin's involvement in stirring up community strife in north and east Belfast, its involvement with the terrorists and drug dealers of FARC in Colombia, its active links with other international terrorist groupings - all of which is attested to by independent external bodies, not only Unionist political comment - all point to a real Sinn Féin agenda that is at complete variance with its professed aim of healing Northern Ireland's society.

It is an agenda for perpetuating strife. It is war by other means, and I support the motion.

As my Colleagues have intimated, we will be supporting the motion.

I find the amendment quite offensive. It is despicable that the SDLP should use this opportunity to try to cover again for Sinn Féin/IRA. It is also most regrettable that the Minister of the Environment is not here. Whether he has full or partial responsibility, he should be speaking in this debate, but this is not the first time that that Minister has held the House in contempt, and we know that.

I am quite offended at the SDLP's attempt to amend the motion. Its amendment states that everything after "Assembly" should be left out and the following inserted:

If ever there were a misnomer, a misuse and abuse of a word, it is the use of the word "conflict". That is highly offensive and insulting. In Northern Ireland, a bunch of hoods, thugs and corner boys became murderers, and that is now described as a "conflict" - it is anything but. It is highly offensive and insulting of the SDLP to say that this was a conflict. It was unmitigated terror, perpetrated by those who made every attempt to overthrow the legitimacy of the state. They have shown in the crudest, rudest and most fascistic manner their disrespect for everyone who does not agree with them.

Is it not time for the SDLP to come clean on these issues? Is it not time that the SDLP stopped giving cover to Sinn Féin/IRA? The time has come for that party to stand up and be counted and demonstrate in clear, unambiguous terms that there is clear water between it and Sinn Féin/IRA.

What about the LVF?

I have no connection with the LVF. If you want to take me up on that point, I am happy to do so. It gives me no trouble whatsoever to condemn that group. I want no monuments to the LVF, and I hope that you understand that. That is not what your party's amendment says.

The debate will take place through the Chair, not across the Chamber.

The amendment says that that party feels that there is a place for these monuments. There is no place to elegise terrorists. I do not care from what side they came. Anyone who knows me in public life - you have not known me long, but you can visit my council and see if I have been ambiguous in my condemnation of terrorism, from whatever quarter. I do not put any ifs, ands or buts into that, as some Members try to. I want no monuments to any terrorists at all. I hope that you, Mr Dallat, fully understand that. If you need it written out in big print, I will do that.

Order. I repeat that I will tolerate a certain amount of cross-chat, but the debate will take place through the Chair and not across the Chamber.

The brutal campaign of terrorism that has been waged over the past 30 years in Northern Ireland must not be glorified in the monuments that are being erected willy-nilly across the country.

They are intended to offend and insult, and that is what they do. They are intended to carry on the war by another means. As has been said, our graveyards are a poignant testimony to what has gone on here for the past 30 years. We do not have to walk far from the Chamber to find the first monument to terrorism. Step out through the Door of the Chamber and on the right-hand side are two memorial inscriptions dedicated to three innocent people who were done to death by Sinn Féin/IRA. Cross the Great Hall to the Senate, where there was a service recently, and there are memorial inscriptions to Senator Paddy Wilson of the SDLP and Senator Jack Barnhill from Strabane, both brutally done to death. It is right and fitting that their memories should be lasting. I appreciate and applaud the fact that there are memorials by which to remember those two gentlemen. I understand that there will soon be another inscription to remind us of what happened. I am not selective in my condemnation, nor as to who should be commemorated.

Do we need to be reminded of the Shankill Road fish shop, Teebane, Kingsmills, La Mon, Enniskillen, Omagh, Glenanne, the Ballygawley-Omagh road, Ballykelly, Narrow Water or Darkley Pentecostal Church? Those are but a few of the atrocities that we have had to live with and to endure, not to mention the gunning down of many individuals who were going to or coming from work, were at their place of work or were working on their farms.

Sinn Féin/IRA claims to represent working-class people. I am working class. I am neither proud nor ashamed of that. The vast majority of people who were gunned down were working class, trying to earn a living from a hard day's work. Yet those people were seen as legitimate targets and were done to death. Some of them could not afford to buy a car and, as they cycled to work to earn a living in order to bring up their families, the people on the opposite Benches, who are associated with SinnFéin/IRA, gunned them to death. Yet these are the very people we are told must be remembered.

Another justice was meted out in my town at the weekend. I could go on and on, but my time is up. I support the motion.

I want to deal with a comment from the member for West Tyrone, Oliver Gibson, who referred to a weakness in the SDLP in tabling an amendment. An amendment that recognises that there are sensitivities on both sides of the community is not a sign of weakness. On the contrary, it is a sign both of leadership and a readiness to take up the challenge of dealing with difficult issues. In relation -

Will the Member give way?

I will not give way. If Maurice Morrow takes offence from an amendment that recognises that there is hurt and grief on all sides, such comments from an elected representative are an indication that some people in this society have a very long way to travel.

The amendment deals with the problem of memorials and monuments in a logical and sensible way. The motion will not.

The proposer of the motion and the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure referred to the required planning permission for the monuments. Monuments have been erected regardless of planning permission, and, if this motion were passed and the monuments taken down, experience tells us that they would be erected again. Therefore, the amendment, not the motion, will address the problem. If the amendment is passed, it will ensure that the Executive, following consultation, will implement fair and workable guidelines.

It is four years since the Good Friday Agreement, and in that period many people throughout the island, especially in the North of Ireland, have experienced real improvements in their lives. That, however, has not been the case for everyone. There are many bereaved families on both sides, and they must endure daily the pain and loss of a loved one. For them, the relative peace brought by the Good Friday Agreement does not assuage the pain of their loss. Instead, it has brought a heightened awareness and a deep sense of the futility of a conflict that robbed so many of life. For some bereaved families, it is essential to remember the past and to have commemoration rituals.

The amendment recognises each side's need to remember its dead and to commemorate the past. As Members know, a problem arises if monuments are erected in a manner or at a location that offends or hurts others. That is why the erection of the monument to dead IRA men in Belleek, where I live, has become so controversial. The IRA men whom it commemorates were killed many miles from Belleek, but the monument is on the very spot where that organisation murdered two Protestant workmen. The memorial has caused hurt to the families of those workmen and has met with strong disapproval in the local community. For the benefit of those Members who might support the motion, representatives of one of those Protestant families, the Hassard family, have said publicly that they have no problem with Republicans' commemorating their dead. However, they are hurt by the insensitive way in which the Republicans erected the monument.

Northern Ireland has many memorials and monuments, some of which were mentioned, and some of which are controversial. Controversy is inevitable when a divided and hurt community bitterly remembers its dead. It will take time for those memories to fade. It has taken time in every other country that has experienced a conflict such as ours. In the Republic of Ireland, it took 70 years before the civil war could be remembered with a national day of commemoration. No healing can take place while memorials are hijacked for political purposes and there is a complete lack of understanding of the pain and hurt experienced in the other community. With the amendment, we can find a way to undo the damage that has been caused by the erection of some memorials and the way in which the issue has been handled.

My Colleague from Fermanagh and South Tyrone and Conor Murphy asked about the criteria. The criteria have not been drawn up.

However, we know from the consultation outlined in the amendment that criteria will be included that are based on fairness and equality. Ms McWilliams raised the genuine point about who will enforce the criteria, and we need answers to that. I have no doubt that when the Executive are given time to complete their consultations, they will give us answers. However, they must first be allowed to begin those consultations, and the only way in which that they can do that is if we pass the amendment. I ask Members to support the amendment.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is there anywhere in Northern Ireland that supplies yellow marble?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise to you for my non-attendance at the beginning of this important debate. I also apologise to Members and to those who participated earlier. I would also like to record an apology to my co-sponsor, Mr Foster, and thank him for his contribution. Unfortunately other business prevented me from attending, but I am grateful that there have been several contributions. I particularly want to thank those who agreed with the motion.

In recent months and years we have witnessed a determined campaign by Republicans to create memorials in the Northern Ireland landscape that offend decent, law-abiding and God-fearing people. The memorials are placed deliberately and provocatively close to commercial centres and places where people are known to gather. They honour individuals who may at best be described as highly dubious, but more accurately as bloodthirsty murderers.

The groups that erect the memorials do not care about the real emotions of the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives to the so-called Irish patriots whom the statues honour. It often seems that determined efforts are made to maximise the victims' hurt by placing the memorials close to the scenes of the atrocities that those so-called heroes carried out, and we heard evidence of that earlier in the debate.

Those who erect such memorials should be condemned, deplored and exposed as sectarian coat-trailers of the worst kind. I draw a distinction, and right-minded people draw the same distinction, between those whose names are honoured on war memorials and other such tablets in recognition of their service to their country. They carried out their duty as members of the security forces or the emergency services against those who chose to wage war in darkness and to kill without mercy or pity for victims who were given little or no chance.

Memorials are being erected to Republicans in places that bear no relevance to the events that occurred. Recently in Newry, a new memorial dedicated to the IRA hunger strikers was unveiled in a public park. The park is owned and maintained by the local authority. Members of a well-respected local Protestant business family provided the park in good faith to acknowledge their contribution to their community. The imposing nature of the monument is one thing, but it is worth remembering that none of the 10 hunger strikers came from Newry.

Why should the memorial be erected there, close as it is to a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet and adjacent to the major shopping centre in Newry? There can be only one reason - to offend and intimidate.

The other possible reason is that the erection of the memorial is proof that the unjustifiable Republican war is now over and that, to convince the grass roots that the partitionist settlement agreed to in the Belfast Agreement by Sinn Féin is worth having, with Stormont and Sinn Féin Ministers of the Crown administering British rule in this part of the UK, a few token monuments should be erected to keep the hardliners happy. How cynical can you get?

Whatever the truth of the matter, these monuments have no place in any decent society that wishes to move on from the conflict and war that nearly destroyed it over 30 years. Whether the monuments are erected in Newry, Castlewellan, County Down, County Fermanagh or anywhere else, they are unacceptable.

The issue is cross-cutting in terms of ministerial responsibility. In addition to the planning and environmental issues put to the Minister of the Environment, I am aware of memorials on land and property owned by the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Examples are the memorial on land adjacent to the Newry bypass, which is presumably owned by the DRD, and the new and impressive defence wall built by the Rivers Agency of DARD at Kilmorey Street, Newry, which contains a memorial tablet to IRA volunteers. I hope that the Ministers responsible will, on receipt of the Hansard report of this debate, take action to remove offensive objects from their Departments' property.

I was gratified by Monica McWilliams's acknowledgement that Unionists had every right to be offended by these memorials. I am grateful for the support of my Colleagues Joan Carson and Tom Hamilton and other Members of the House such as Paul Berry, William Hay and Oliver Gibson.

Conor Murphy seemed to think that Unionists were being inconsistent by objecting to the election of Alec Maskey as Lord Mayor of Belfast. The context in which Belfast City Council operates has to be remembered. The place was almost flattened by the activities of Sinn Féin/IRA during the troubles. Witnessing the activities of Sinn Féin/IRA representatives fostering, and continuing to agitate, civil disturbance in parts of Belfast, it is no wonder that Unionist members of Belfast City Council considered a representative of Sinn Féin to be unfit for the high public office of Lord Mayor.

I remind Sinn Féin that there is no correlation between world war conflicts, commemorated by memorial tablets and monuments which properly indicate service and sacrifice in a worldwide conflict, and the actions of terrorist guerrilla warfare, which can never be considered as war in the true sense.

Several Members mentioned the roadside memorials at Kingsmills and Teebane. Those are memorials to innocent workers and victims who were mercilessly murdered and who therefore have the right to be remembered.

I reject the SDLP's amendment. Once again, the SDLP is trying to cover for Sinn Féin on this issue, which is regrettable. Mr Gallagher asked that guidelines be provided. The best guidelines would be provided by the Planning Service and the Departments, whose Ministers should not allow the erection of such monuments on Government property.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Adjourned at 6.07 pm.