Neutral Working Environment

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I beg to move

The motion is not about removing any of the symbols or emblems that adorn this Building and estate, nor is it about replacing one history with another. It is about fulfilling a provision of the Good Friday Agreement, which has been ignored to date.

The motion does not propose any immediate action, or prescribe how this Building or estate should be decorated. It simply proposes that the Assembly Commission, which has responsibility for these matters, examines the current range of symbols and emblems; takes account of the section in the Good Friday Agreement that deals with symbols and emblems in our new institutions and reports back to the Assembly in the autumn on how it proposes to fulfil those obligations.

The provisions in the agreement regarding the new institutions were vital in securing the support of both communities for the establishment of the Assembly and other institutions. Nationalists, in particular, had deep concerns about the re-establishment of a Northern Assembly, given our historical experience under the old Stormont. Therefore, rigorous checks, balances, and guarantees had to be secured to ensure our participation in the Assembly.

The concepts of power sharing, ministerial positions, Chairs and Deputy Chairs, as of right under d'Hondt, and the requirement for cross-community support for key decisions all point to the fact that this is a new and inclusive political dispensation in which the rights of both communities, and others, are protected. All who signed up to the agreement have a duty to protect and promote that inclusiveness.

The Building in which the Assembly is currently located is of significant historical importance, and obviously has significant historical attachment for Unionists. The Stormont estate and Parliament Buildings quite clearly reflect to the world the expressed desire of the creators for a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people.

Visitors, staff, and Members approach the Building up the Prince of Wales Avenue, past the statue of Edward Carson, who, contrary to the amendment from the DUP, has a rather dubious connection to the parliamentary history of this Building. They enter the Building under the statue of Britannia, and not one but two union flags on designated days, and then face the statue of Craigavon at the top of the Stairs. The tomb of Craigavon is located at the side of the Building, and there are many other British and Unionist symbols built into the fabric of the Building.

All of this accurately reflects the historical background of this location. As an Irish Republican I have no allegiance to that, but I am not proposing that they be eradicated. I am asking the Assembly Commission to reflect on how the Building and estate can reflect their current position in Irish history, and, in doing so, make this a place in which all people feel a sense of ownership.

I acknowledge the steps already taken by the Speaker and others. The adoption of the flax flower as the symbol of the Assembly was an important first step. The Speaker has been pursuing other steps. The statue unveiled by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the estate, arguably open to cynical misinterpretation, and the planting of 108 trees also highlight the new inclusive nature of our political institutions.

Those developments are very much ad hoc. Four years after we adopted this location, Parliament Buildings and the estate still very much reflect a British and Unionist ethos. The Commission must address this in a structured and proactive way.

The DUP amendment, even more so than my motion, depicts what needs to be done so that our institutions visually reflect the principles that underpin them. Those who are against the agreement, power sharing and the checks and balances that ensure that everyone in the community has a stake in these institutions unsurprisingly want the symbols and emblems of this place to reflect their tradition, and their tradition alone, for all time. They are consistent in their opposition to Nationalists or Republicans having any meaningful share in these institutions, although they are happy to adopt d'Hondt and accept our support on various councils throughout the North when it comes to securing positions.

Anyone who supports the agreement should accept that the dominance of one community over the other has been consigned to the past. Our new political institutions should reflect that reality. I have heard Members from all pro-agreement parties applaud the inclusive nature of our institutions and stress the importance of that in their success to date. We have a duty to reflect that to all who work in and visit this Building and estate by ensuring that there is an equal welcome for all. This does not threaten anyone who supports the agreement, and it does not even threaten anyone who does not support the agreement. I look forward to the support of all Members for the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

I beg to move the following amendment: In line 1 delete all after "to report to the Assembly" and insert:

There is one relatively unimportant matter that we should deal with at the outset: the timing referred to in the motion is obviously totally unrealistic given the few weeks that remain in this session and the several weeks that precede the commencement of the autumn session of the House. For that reason, our amendment would delete the reference to the date. In the wider scheme of things, that is relatively unimportant.

The amendment tries to deal with the issue by looking past the discriminatory and offensive nature of the Belfast Agreement. We seek to go beyond the agreement, which is endorsed by 98% of the Nationalist community and opposed by over 50% of the Unionist community, and what it seeks to achieve. Anything that was built on or arose out of the Belfast Agreement would be tainted and scarred in the eyes of the Unionist community because of how it was structured to benefit one section of the community - and it certainly was not the Unionist section. We want to look beyond that, and for that reason our amendment would also delete that reference from the motion.

I now turn to what we would like to see in any amended proposition. There are several features in Parliament Buildings and the estate. Many of those symbols, statues and emblems pertain to the founding of Northern Ireland, as do many emblems and statues in Parliaments of other countries, for example, in the Irish Republic, Westminster and other parliamentary grounds throughout the European Union and in the wider world. A building of any historic merit will have statutes and emblems that pertain to the origins of the particular state that the Parliament has been established to govern.

Northern Ireland is no different. We had those statutes and emblems, and they are still in place today. They do not reflect the Unionist view of life. That is where we see the deliberate mistake in the proposal for change by Sinn Féin/IRA. It wants to misconstrue the origins of Northern Ireland as essentially and exclusively Unionist in outlook. Unfortunately, it became Unionist because those who said that they would have nothing to do with it boycotted it and attempted to undermine it. As I said, the origins of the state were not explicitly and exclusively Unionist.

There are statues in the Dublin Parliament that reflect the origins of that state, and I wait with interest moves in the Irish Republic to put in place new symbols and emblems to reflect the British tradition that existed there before it was forced out and before the 10% became 2%. I have not heard of any. Perhaps they are being made now; perhaps the Dáil is deliberating at great length, as we speak, over what British emblems will be put in place at its entrance. If it is, I wait with interest to hear what they will be. The truth is that I have not heard of any such moves. That gives some sort of context to the suggestions from Sinn Féin/IRA today.

However, we must look to the future. We have looked at what may be examined in the future in terms of the parliamentary history of this Building and this estate, which were not the exclusive preserve of the Unionist tradition. Many Nationalists frequented this Building: Eddie McAteer was the MP for Mid Londonderry from 1953 to 1969; Paddy Maxwell was the MP for Foyle from 1937 to 1953; Joe Stewart was the MP for East Tyrone from 1929 to 1964, and that was some longevity. There are some accusations about people having long terms of office at the moment, but Mr Stewart managed 35 years, and that was no mean achievement. Then there was Senator James Lennon from 1944 to 1972 and Senator Paddy McGill from 1953 to 1972. Many Nationalists were either MPs in the previous Stormont Parliament or in the Senate.

While I am not suggesting that any or all of them should be included, that shows that we did not have an exclusively Unionist Parliament in Stormont for 50 years. If our amendment is successful, I hope that the Commission will examine what possibilities could emerge to reflect our parliamentary history as it affected the entire community. There could be photographs, a statute or whatever. We are not being prescriptive about what ought to be put in place.

The failure to put in place emblems and symbols like that comes up from time to time, and it is presented as showing some form of antagonism, opposition or bigotry towards the Nationalist community.

I would much prefer an earnest seeking of a replica of the parliamentary history of this Building to be put in its proper place so that due cognisance could be given to its history and culture. I would rather have that than the approach of those who put up symbols only to undermine them. We have seen examples of that in some councils in Northern Ireland. I would much prefer a realistic approach that can give genuine recognition to the parliamentary history of Unionism and of Nationalism in this Building and on the Stormont estate.

The motion speaks of the aspiration towards mutual respect, and that seems fine; however, we question the motion's intent. I hope that we all favour truly fair employment, equality of opportunity and, indeed, the mutual respect mentioned in the motion. Nevertheless, we must think about what the motion would mean in practice. Is it about building or destroying?

The mover of the amendment, Mr Campbell, rightly drew parallels with the Dáil and its symbolic, if limited, representations. We need not fear for Parliament Buildings if that is the comparison. Perhaps, ultimately, the intention of the motion, although it is not stated, is to draw a misguided parallel with what happened in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union since 1989 and 1991, where statues of Lenin and Stalin and other representatives of the now discredited Communist regime have been toppled. Perhaps it refers to the removal of statues, pictures and other symbolic representations of British colonial rule in countries such as India since 1947.

The motion's attempt to base that intention on the section on rights and safeguards and equality of opportunity in the Belfast Agreement cannot properly speak on the issue of flags, although the proposer referred to flags flying from the top of this Building. That part of the Belfast Agreement spoke only of symbols and emblems. Legally, it excluded the national flag, which remains an excepted matter for the Westminster Parliament under the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000.

There is a case for adding rather than removing or vandalising historical symbols. Indeed, the proposer of the amendment has implied some ways forward. Therefore we shall oppose the motion and support the amendment.

The objective of the motion is to make Stormont into a location for commemorating the activists and activities of IRA/Sinn Féin. That must not be permitted. That is not to deny a proper mutual respect between citizens of the United Kingdom. However, IRA/Sinn Féin wishes to promote by the use of emblems and symbols what no normal human being would ever consider worthy of respect.

To allow IRA/Sinn Féin to celebrate and commemorate the activities of its activists would amount to permitting the celebration and commemoration of mass murder and terrorism that took place for over thirty years. That is a point that I want to illustrate in detail. Whether this motion would ever be acceptable is going to be determined by a clear understanding of what those symbols and emblems would be commemorating.

IRA/Sinn Féin activists were engaged in many incidents that the IRA/Sinn Féin's use of symbols and emblems in this Building would intend to obliterate from the collective memory of the citizens of Northern Ireland. In Belfast on 21 July 1972 the IRA detonated 20 bombs in an hour and killed nine people. Peter Taylor in his book 'Provos' provides an eyewitness account of what happened. It says:

There was also the Enniskillen bomb on 8 November 1987 that killed 11 people at the cenotaph. Liam Clarke is recognised as a leading expert on IRA terrorism, and in a recent book he states that

The suggestion that that sort of activity or those involved in promoting those activities should ever be commemorated in a Parliament would be unthinkable in any normal political system, but the Belfast Agreement did not establish a normal political system. It established a political system that elevated the perpetrators of the murderous activity of IRA/Sinn Féin into the Government of Northern Ireland. That is the judgement of leading experts on IRA/Sinn Féin terrorists.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I notice that you are listening carefully and nodding your head.

That does not mean that I am agreeing with you, Mr Roche. I am listening carefully because I feel that at times you are straying from the motion.

No, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take from what you are saying that you are having difficulty following a very simple argument. If Members are ever going to permit the sort of symbols and emblems wanted by the Member who moved the motion, they must be aware of what they would be celebrating and trying to commemorate. That is why I am giving the examples.

The Belfast Agreement has elevated the perpetrators of this murderous activity into the Government of Northern Ireland. That is the judgement of leading experts on IRA/Sinn Féin terrorism. Liam Clarke, for example, in his recent book on the current Minister of Education states that

That is the sort of activist and activity that would be commemorated if the motion were carried in this Building.

In their book on Gerry Adams, David Sharrock and Mark Devenport - two of the most respected political journalists operating in Northern Ireland - state categorically that Gerry Adams was among the planners of Bloody Friday.

I have already given an eyewitness account of what happened on that horrendous day. These are the IRA/ Sinn Féin activists who have been elevated and legitimised by the Belfast Agreement. The Belfast Agreement, therefore, carries the logic of what the motion proposes. The only way to effectively oppose the legitimisation of IRA/Sinn Féin terrorism - which is what the motion is really about - is to effectively repudiate the Belfast Agreement that requires that legitimisation. The effective repudiation of the Belfast Agreement is the major task that still confronts authentic Unionism, and our contribution today will be to oppose the motion and refrain from supporting the amendment.

I oppose the motion. I have listened carefully to what the previous Member to speak has said, and I endorse most of his sentiments. What are the alleged institutions of this place? It is alleged to be some pale copy of a parliamentary democracy operating upon the usual democratic principles: that it is the right of a majority of people to elect a Government, and if that Government fails to deliver, to discharge them and elect another.

The circumstances in which the institutions of this place came about are the total negation of that fundamental principle. Nevertheless, one must assume that this place would wish to take on some of the attributes of what we term "representative democracy".

An examination of the history of this place, and such symbols as are claimed to exist, would, I suppose, include the statues of Carson and Craigavon as the two most evident symbols of its history. Both men were distinguished parliamentarians, and both supported the democratic process. When Carson gave up his position as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party he exhorted the party to take from the Roman Catholic fellow citizens all that was best in them, to do justice and fairness to them and to ensure that they participated. I see a sneering Mr Dallat, but, of course, Carson was not a sectarian bigot. Craigavon was also a distinguished parliamentarian.

What is proposed by the motion? It is to put down as a marker the parliamentary activity of Sinn Féin/IRA? I could envisage some distinguished Nationalists such as the late Paddy Devlin being represented in this Building. Paddy was a child of the Falls Road, a former IRA man who was arrested and interned. However, I knew Paddy personally, and as he matured he became a democrat in the purest sense. I would willingly support some memento or mark of respect to the late Paddy Devlin.

However, what would be proposed on behalf of Sinn Féin/IRA? Should we have murals depicting their heroic achievements at Kingsmills, when they separated 10 Protestant non-political workers like goats from the single Roman Catholic sheep and gunned them down?

Should we have a depiction of a bread server being shot in the back as he carries bread into his shop? Should we have an artistic representation of a bomb being planted outside Harrods or the Old Bailey, blowing an innocent consultant anaesthetist to destruction and destroying the lives and mutilating the bodies of many others? Should we have a memento of a schoolteacher being dragged out in front of his pupils and gunned down by a hero of the Sinn Féin/IRA revolution? Would those be, in any way, a proper record or acknowledgement of the parliamentary and democratic process of those who claim to be democrats? Democrats they are not.

They have achieved their position as Ministers and representatives in this place out of the gun barrel and the explosion. When a minority political party that is supported by terrorists fails to achieve through the democratic process, because it cannot impose its will or its policies upon a majority in a democratic process, it resorts to violence. A weak and pathetic British Government, in order to protect what they saw as their first-class citizens on the mainland, was suborned into granting it places in Government. Should those who have been instrumental in the murder of over 2,500 of our citizens be memorialised in this place as supporters of the democratic process or even of a pale replica of that process? I think not.

Some Members say that to make a terrorist feel at home, to make him feel equal, to make his dastardly and horrendous deeds a proper subject of memory and to make him feel good about himself, he should be given a place in something that claims to be a democratic institution. I think not. There is no way that the success of armed and horrendous terrorism should be elevated as a power by those who have pledged themselves to the democratic process.

We forget so easily. We forget that Mark Durkan, now the Deputy First Minister, recognised the basis of Sinn Féin/IRA success when two senior officials at Weston Park said to him "The reason that you do not get your plans implemented and Sinn Féin does is that you have no guns". That is not from a Unionist; it is from the SDLP Deputy First Minister. Nonetheless, that philosophy of terror, threat, murder, mutilation and destruction is now offered to us as an objective or success that should be engraved in these institutions. If it is the mind of this House, not only of Unionists but of the SDLP, that such memorials be erected in this Building, the SDLP and the Unionists, and anyone else who supports it, will be giving a spurious validity to the success of murderous terrorism. No matter how they may attempt to finesse it or excuse it by nuance or weasel words, they will be partners in crime.

If Members have any democratic resolution, as I believe many of them do, then it is the duty of the SDLP and every other party to oppose the motion.

I support the motion, which is hardly surprising. I will speak to that motion, although I am not sure which motion some other Members have been speaking to.

Perhaps the word "neutral" is not the best word to describe the purpose and spirit of the motion. I do not believe that anyone is proposing that the historical and cultural artefacts and symbols be removed from the fabric of the Building. I do not believe that Parliament Buildings should become bereft of things that reflect the history of this part of Ireland. Surely, Members do not want to work in a bland, anonymous place that has no character or cultural quality. Indeed, some of the corridors in the Building are absent of anything except the bare walls, doors, ceiling and floor.

Parliament Buildings is part of the public face of Ireland, and, in particular, it is part of the public face of this part of Ireland. The Building is the public face of the Assembly and should reflect the cultural diversity of the people who work here. Of course, when I refer to people who work here, I include Assembly Members - some of whom work long hours on a daily basis, although sometimes the media would have us believe otherwise.

The greater number of visitors to Ireland take the opportunity to visit the Building as part of their itinerary. Their visit will form part of their impression of this island and of this part of Ireland. It will also form an impression of the people who live here. They should not get the impression from a bland, anonymous building that we are a bland, anonymous people who have no sense of the importance of our political and cultural history. Mr Esmond Birnie said that the motion is about subtraction and destruction. That is not what it is about. It is about creating a balance and promoting mutual respect.

The symbols, emblems and statues in the Building reflect the cultural and political identity of one section of the community - the Unionist community. I work in the Building, and I am, therefore, entitled to a balanced working environment. A balance does not exist that reflects the cultural diversity of the people who live in this region and the people who work in Parliament Buildings. The motion is intended to address that imbalance of symbols and emblems as envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement, which was intended to engender parity of esteem and mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities.

The amendment seeks to reduce the motion to the extent that it would call on the Assembly Commission to report on how additional symbols and emblems can reflect the paramilitary history - Freudian slip - parliamentary history of Parliament Buildings and the Stormont Estate, and to have a very narrow focus on its history. The history of this Building, as some Members admitted, has not been inclusive and does not reflect the entire community.

Of course, I have the right to change my mind. We are told that we wish to misconstrue the origins of the state as being Unionist. The British Government imposed partition against the will of the vast majority of people on this island. Is it any wonder that Nationalists chose to abstain and reject the institutions that flowed from that? Parity of esteem and mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities are not reflected in the symbols and emblems of this Building.

The proposers of the amendment are opposed to the Good Friday Agreement and do not want things to change. However, Unionists who supposedly support the Good Friday Agreement - or the Belfast Agreement, if they wish to call it that - should grow up. The Good Friday Agreement was reached four years ago in 1998. It is time that pro-agreement Unionists were out of their nappies and showed their support for the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement by supporting the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Respect features heavily in this debate. I appeal for respect for this jurisdiction, to quote the motion, "in a manner which promotes mutual respect". It would be a responsible gesture by Sinn Féin if it showed respect for the emblem of this state by acknowledging it and not continuously trying to get rid of it.

References are often made to a neutral environment, but it is no longer neutral to me, and the majority of the citizens of this state, when the emblem of the state, the Union flag, is taken away, as in Fermanagh District Council. Indeed, it is extremely hostile to everybody when the emblem of their jurisdiction is not respected and flown with dignity.

It is a preposterous situation when the flag or symbol of a jurisdiction can be removed by a majority vote in a council chamber within that jurisdiction. I am questioning the motive behind the motion. It very much seems that anything British is no longer seen as part of our history but is said to be offensive. That is the kind of scene and agenda that Sinn Féin seeks to promote. If it can happen in Fermanagh, it could happen here.

The Enniskillen bomb has been mentioned. I was there on that day and remember it very well. I was lucky that I was not one of the real victims.

Sinn Féin now says that it seeks a neutral environment. Humbug, I say, just verbiage. How disgracefully hypocritical can one become? All of this is so sad. It is really an attempt to take over and undermine by pretentious means. In fact, it is war by another method because the armed struggle failed in its intent, but it scarred many, sadly. The action of Fermanagh District Council is offensive to many people.

I am not one who wants to flaunt a flag, but someone who respects the flag of the jurisdiction one may be visiting or residing in. The motion refers to the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity section of the Belfast Agreement. Sinn Féin is in Stormont and is very enthusiastic about the workings of the Assembly. It has two Ministers with Executive portfolios, who, acting on behalf of Her Majesty, introduce Bills for approval, with the realisation that a Bill accepted by the Assembly must have Her Majesty's Royal Assent before it becomes an Act.

It is also agreed that, under the terms of the agreement, David Trimble is basically a Unionist prime minister in the Province of Northern Ireland and that Mark Durkan is deputy prime minister. All the signatories to the agreement have accepted that. If any party continues to rail at such an arrangement, then it is failing to fulfil the requirements of the agreement, the full implementation of which it regularly calls for. None can cherry-pick.

It is time to realise what section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states. The words are

I am not aware of any poll having been held to change that or show that the majority of people think otherwise. The continued railing in the Chamber about our status contributes to the regrettable street violence turned to by our divided society.

The Republican movement continually contends that the agreement should be fully implemented, so why can Republicans not fully conform to its terms? It comes back to respect. The agreement that was recognised and accepted contained the wording to which I referred. Moreover, it must be realised that we are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not by any privilege, but by right. The geography of the British Isles, with British-Irish, British-English, British-Welsh and British-Scots, makes us all on these islands members of one family. "Parity of esteem" means parity of esteem in, but not of, the system. One sovereignty is evident - that of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. There is no joint sovereignty, as some people seek. Stop trying to change in midstream that which was accepted on Good Friday 1998.

In referring to the situation, I wish not to taunt or to jibe but to spell out the facts of the situation now obtaining. There is a need for honesty in these days of continued strife in parts of our community. Should such violence continue, it will be upon the shoulders of those who fail to uphold the agreement to which they adamantly adhere when expounding their theories.

The Ulster Unionist Party has fully implemented its part of the agreement. We seek peace and prosperity for all in the Province. I come from a working-class background and am aware of the difficulties of trying to live. Sinn Féin constantly perpetuates strife and division and creates physical, mental and emotional deprivation. It is also contrary to the aims of the agreement.

Actions speak louder than words. If equality as a citizen is the demand, Sinn Féin and others must, as citizens, demonstrate their responsibilities to this state. Now is not the time to destroy or disrupt but to work together for the benefit of the state, and mutual respect will evolve.

I refer first to Gregory Campbell's amendment. Although we will not support it, I acknowledge that his intention does not seem to be to do to this Building what others do to the streets of Belfast and beyond. Areas are staked out by one paramilitary group or another in a territorial war against the interests of the citizens and communities of those areas. At least this Building is not going to be reduced to what we have around the North, with flags and bunting and with kerbstones decked out in the colours of one or other side.

His speech was, nonetheless, curious. He said that he wanted real and genuine recognition of Unionism and Nationalism in this Building and invoked the memory of various people who did or did not abstain from the Stormont Parliament. The words in the amendment are

If that is the desired principle, should the experience of Nationalism in this Building and in Parliament since partition not be reflected? According to Mr Campbell's argument, should this Building not record the Nationalist experience under the Special Powers Act of 1922, and such other Nationalist experiences as being excluded from Government, of gerrymandering in council areas throughout the North and of internment as endorsed by the Parliament that once sat here?

If Members wish to seriously reflect the parliamentary history of Parliament Buildings and the Stormont Estate, they must move beyond the personalities who once occupied seats in a former Chamber. They must allow us, in line with their argument, to record the real experience of Nationalism and Unionism in the past 80 years, which was, including for Unionists, inconsistent with good government and good policy.

A second curious element of Gregory Campbell's speech was that he encouraged the other Parliament on this island, Dáil Éireann, to accept the principle whereby that which was British in the history of Ireland should be greater reflected in the symbols and emblems displayed there. If he is prepared to ask the Dáil to reflect Britishness in its Chamber and Buildings, he must accept that the same principle should apply in this Chamber and in this Building. If he thinks that one Parliament should acknowledge the diversity of the people on the island, as he sees it, he should accept that this Parliament and this Building should also reflect the diversity of the people on this part of the island. I doubt that certain Members will accept that that principle should apply here, even though they encourage its application elsewhere.

As always, Robert McCartney gave Members insight into his personal thinking and political culture. He reads his worst fears into any principle that appears to recognise the parity of esteem of political traditions, especially Nationalism. Those worst fears are that abuses of human rights, visited upon the citizens and communities of Northern Ireland by Republican paramilitaries, will be memorialised in this place. That approach is central to Robert McCartney's political philosophy. He reads into proposals that might be sensible and reasonable that which is worst and most to fear. On behalf of my party, I advise Robert McCartney, and any Members who read into the motion their worst fears, that that is not the SDLP's intention. Nor is it the desired outcome that it would want to see from the Commission should the motion be passed.

Mr Roche took a similar view to Mr McCartney. He said that with the Belfast Agreement comes the logic of the promotion and elevation of terrorism in the North. I do not agree. The Belfast Agreement ensures that no part of our community, whether Loyalist or Republican, will feel so alienated, frustrated or damaged that it feels justified in reverting to the use of arms to convey a political message or effect political change. The Good Friday Agreement creates the context, basis and framework in which the logic of terrorism is not fulfilled but in which the logic of democracy prevails.

The motion is about the logic of democracy in a divided society. That logic says that those divided and in conflict must respect one another. That is what the motion is about, not what Mr Roche seems to think.

However, in one way I sympathise with Unionists' points, particularly Mr Foster's. Sinn Féin says in the motion that it wants to promote mutual respect rather than division; it says that that should be done in Parliament Buildings through the use of symbols and emblems. If Sinn Féin accepts that there should be mutual respect rather than division on those issues, let it apply those principles to all symbols and emblems wherever they are in the North. As we know - [Interruption].

Does that include the South?

That means anywhere on this island. We know that in Republican symbols and emblems to those whom they call their dead there is little that promotes mutual respect rather than division. How have Republicans promoted mutual respect in the expression of their war memorials, as they put it? Where in flouting the law by erecting illegal memorials have they shown mutual respect rather than division? Where have they, through constructing memorials that elevate those who visited grief and grievance on so many across the political divide over the past 30 years shown mutual respect rather than division? Sinn Féin may feel that its people have lost greatly, but where does it acknowledge in its memorials that it has also inflicted greatly? In failing to acknowledge that, how does that party promote mutual respect rather than division?

For our purposes, the SDLP supports the amendment - [Interruption].

The motion.

The SDLP supports the motion. In doing so, the party does not go down the road of Mr Foster's - [Interruption].

Twice the Member said that he supports the amendment and then he said that he supported the motion. Will he clarify his party's stance? That may be helpful to those Members on either side of the motion who will wind up the debate.

The Member knows the answer to that question, and I am sure that he will say in his response that he knows the answer.

In supporting the motion, I shall outline its real intentions. Some Members have read their worst fears into it; some have promoted it but have done so selectively, as Sinn Féin has demonstrated. In supporting the motion, we are trying to ensure that Government buildings express equality, independence and impartiality. We are trying to design Government buildings that create, and are seen to create, confidence in the administration of Government. They should proclaim parity of esteem and inspire public confidence in equality of treatment. Those are the best intentions behind the motion, and I commend it to the House.

In winding up on the amendment, I should like to deal with a few points that the previous Member raised. I am glad that towards the end of his speech he clarified whether the SDLP would yet again fall in behind Sinn Féin.

The "Most Oppressed People Ever (MOPEs)", as Ruth Dudley Edwards called them, have treated us to another diatribe, but the Member has clearly not dealt with the salient points of the motion. We are told that inclusiveness is the real spirit behind the motion; we are told that Unionists who are concerned that this will be an open door to terrorist memorials in this Building are merely expressing their worst fears.

The concern of Mr McNamee, one of the supporters of the motion, is that the amendment has a narrow focus, yet it would cater for a degree of representation for parliamentarians who were constitutional Unionists, constitutional Nationalists and those who describe themselves as of the third tradition in Northern Ireland, be that Alliance or Labour. So if the amendment includes those people, why has it too narrow a focus? Who is not included? Clearly, the representatives of Republican and Loyalist terrorism are not - and our worst fears have been realised.

Mr Attwood was not 100% clear on our view of Dáil Éireann: we do not care what happens there. It is a different jurisdiction and, frankly, if they want to put a 100-foot-high tricolour on Dáil Éireann, that is a matter for them. We were making the point that the Republic of Ireland does not represent the British tradition.

Phrases appear in the motion which make alarm bells ring. Many groups use the word "justice" in their title, and that raises suspicions about their motives. In the old Eastern bloc, any country that used the word "democratic" in its title was the antithesis of that quality. When Sinn Féin/IRA uses the phrases "equality of opportunity" and "neutral working environment", that is the last we will see of them.

Is this a question of a "neutral working environment"? I contend not. The Assembly was set up four years ago, yet the representatives of Sinn Féin/IRA, their staff and supporters have had no problem going round and working in this Building. Every Christmas, a large party is thrown here. So oppressive is the regime to Sinn Féin/IRA that it has taken it four years to remember that Parliament Buildings is supposedly not a neutral environment.

But this is not the real purpose of the motion. This is about cultural imperialism and cultural intolerance. When Republicans are in control, they remove symbols of Britishness, to destroy that tradition. We do not need to look as far as the Republic of Ireland to see that cultural imperialism; Sam Foster spoke about what Sinn Féin has delivered in Fermanagh. Someone once described it as a dog marking out its territory. Where it can, it removes symbols of Britishness, and where it is not in the majority, it falls back on the next option, which is to declare that there must be equality between Irish Republicanism and the state that we are in.

I have no desire to live in a society that destroys symbols, including the symbols around this Building. We do not want to create, as Sinn Féin clearly does despite its protestations today, a Northern Ireland Taliban let loose to destroy the historic symbols of this Building. That is what would happen if the motion were passed. This is a clear attempt to score political points. Sinn Féin has tolerated the situation for four years, and suddenly these issues have to be resolved in four months - is it trying to score some early election points?

The amendment, by contrast, is open-ended by time, and due reflection can be given to the best way in which to reflect the parliamentary tradition of the Building properly. Unlike the motion, the amendment does not aim to attack the Britishness of this part of the United Kingdom, though I have grave concerns that some Unionists have signed up to an agreement which is, bit by bit, diminishing that Britishness.

Irrespective of varying interpretations of the Belfast Agreement, the DUP will not sign up to any system that creates a dimmer-switch form of Britishness, whereby bit by bit it becomes darker and colder for the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. We will not support any motion that diminishes and destroys the symbols of Britishness in the Chamber or anywhere else.

We are told constantly by those who moved the motion that they do not wish to destroy any of the existing symbols or emblems in Parliament Buildings, so why did they object to the amendment's focus on additional symbols? The amendment aims to protect the existing symbols and to show respect to the distinguished parliamentarians who are honoured in this Building. The amendment would not destroy or subtract; it would produce additional symbols.

The amendment would allow symbols that recognise only the parliamentary history of this Building. It therefore makes an appropriate distinction between constitutional politicians, and terrorists and gangsters - Paddy Roche, Bob McCartney, Gregory Campbell and others made that point. Given that it is impossible to be a proper parliamentarian and to be linked to terrorism, and that both sides clearly reject terrorism, I fail to understand why the Northern Ireland Unionist Party cannot support the amendment.

The full tradition of constitutional politicians should be recognised in this Building. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that we can recognise the many Nationalists who contributed to the parliamentary life of Stormont. Paddy Devlin was mentioned; Gerry Fitt could be mentioned, and Gregory Campbell mentioned others. Some people who consider themselves to be neither Unionist nor Nationalist made a big contribution to the life of the Parliament. We should, for example, consider how to recognise the former representatives of the Northern Ireland Labour Party. Perhaps we could have a symbol to recognise the Alliance Party, which has existed for 30 years. Given recent events, perhaps we could have a portrait of its last leader. It seems, however, that the Alliance Party has moved ahead of the game, having left the Chamber when we began to debate the motion.

We should reflect the history of this Building in a way that recognises the state that we are in, because despite the best efforts of some Members opposite, we are still part of the United Kingdom. We should do that in a way that seeks to add, rather than subtract, and in a way that respects constitutional politicians rather than terrorist gangsters. I urge Members to support the amendment.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am not surprised but a little disappointed by the Ulster Unionist response. The motion was an attempt to address the Assembly Commission, the body responsible for the matter. The contributions by some Members on the other Benches reflect poorly on their parties' representatives on the Assembly Commission. First, their representatives could not be trusted to debate the matter and provide the Unionist perspective, and secondly, they thought that it was a task too far for the Assembly Commission to complete this review within two months. I have confidence in my party Colleague in the Assembly Commission and believe that it could deal adequately with the matter.

The motion did not prescribe anything. It simply recognised that the Building and the estate are adorned with many symbols of Unionist and British political life, while there is limited, if not non-existent, recognition of the rest of the community in the North. The motion was an attempt to have the Assembly Commission, which is responsible for the Building and the estate, consider the matter, to study what the agreement suggested should be done about it, and to implement a structured approach to deal with it. Peter Weir and Gregory Campbell said that the matter had been raised consistently with the Speaker since the agreement was signed four years ago.

As I acknowledged in my initial presentation, the Speaker has moved to deal with some of these issues. He has made some efforts, but they have mainly done on an ad-hoc basis. We are suggesting that the Assembly Commission, as the corporate body responsible for the Building and the estate, look seriously at this issue. The attitude of people such as Dr Birnie surprises me, as this would be done in a manner consistent with the Good Friday Agreement, which his party supports.

I will now deal with some of the issues raised. Some were very wide of what the debate was about, but you expect that. Mr Roche went into details of people who were killed, but for every time the anti-agreement Unionists raise details of some unfortunate, innocent individual who was killed, people on this side of the House could raise similar graphic details about people murdered by the UDR, the RUC and the British Army. There are victims and pain on both sides.

Mr Campbell said in his contribution that the symbols reflected the founding of the State, and compared that unfavourably with the founding of the State in the South, and Leinster House. If he took the time to go to Leinster House he would see two portraits inside the main entrance - one on either side of the hall. One is of Cathal Brugha and the other is of Michael Collins. Cathal Brugha violently opposed the setting up of the State in the South, and was killed violently opposing it. Michael Collins was also killed in the setting up of the State in the South. Therefore, that is an example and a precedent of where different political traditions -[Interruption].

I thank the Member for giving way. That approach to history is very revisionist. The Member has named two individuals who took different interpretations of what the correct Republican response to the 1921 Treaty was. Neither was defending the inclusion of the Twenty-six Counties within the British Empire after 1921.

I said that Mr Campbell referred to the fact that the symbols here reflect the setting up of the State, and compared that unfavourably with Leinster House. I am saying that in Leinster House there is a portrait of a person who opposed the setting up of that State opposite a portrait of someone who was instrumental in the setting up of that State.

I am aware that a statue of Queen Victoria was dug up in University College, Cork and replaced there - so efforts have been made. Both Mr Campbell and Mr Weir talked about reflecting the fact that some Nationalists attended Stormont during the 50 years of its existence and misrule. Yet, if you look around the Building, there is not a single testimony to their attendance, position, political ideology, and their desire to see unity in this island reflected here.

Dr Birnie spoke about the intent of the motion, and I repeat that the intent is to have this matter dealt with by the responsible Committee of the House in a way that is consistent with the Good Friday Agreement, which Dr Birnie supports. It is not about toppling statues, as happened in Eastern Europe - though having seen some of those statues, I imagine that perhaps the office of good taste had a responsibility for toppling them. I will correct one point that he made about the flags issue being dealt with by the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000. That Order does not apply to Parliament Buildings; the control of the flying of flags on Parliament Buildings is a matter for the Assembly Commission.

Mr Roche anticipated some proposals that he thought I might make. He realised that I had not made them but was not in a position to change his speech, and went on with the normal rant against the Good Friday Agreement. I repeat that I did not proscribe or prescribe the display here of any symbols; I simply asked that a Committee take responsibility for the issue.

Mr McCartney made a similar contribution, and it was interesting that he referred to democrats such as Carson and Craig. It is unfortunate that the Unionists who took over the Ulster Unionist Party after him did not adhere to the words he quoted from Carson - perhaps we would not be in the mess that we have been in for recent years. It was interesting to hear him talk about them, because both Carson and Craig were quite willing to resort to violence when democracy did not suit them. When he was talking about Craig it struck me that John Kelly, whom they accuse of gunrunning, should be quite at home with the statue of Craigavon on the Stairs, because he was also a gunrunner. So these are the parliamentarians - [Interruption].

Order please.

Allegedly. As they say on 'Have I Got News for You': allegedly.

Your Colleague from Mid Ulster, John Kelly, will be pleased with that ringing endorsement and the admission that he was a gunrunner.

I said that John Kelly has also been accused of gunrunning. [Interruption].

Order.

That illustrates that the parliamentarians whom the Ulster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists hold dear were willing to engage in gunrunning and subversive activities in challenging their own Government of the day. They resorted to violence when democracy did not suit them. It ill behoves them to point these out as examples of people -

Is there any evidence that they murdered anyone?

I am sure that the guns that the same gentlemen imported through Larne were responsible for quite a few murders at the time of the inception of this state.

Sam Foster said that people should be honest. I shall be honest with him: we oppose the existence of this state. Therefore we oppose the imposition of the Union flag. I, as an Irish Republican, am being honest. We have always demonstrated clearly our intention and our desire to see the end of this state and the creation of a new Ireland. There is no surprise in that. Mr Foster was perhaps trying to provoke us by talking about our Ministers as "Ministers of the state" and "seeking Royal Assent", but he merely proved how much Sinn Féin has moved to accommodate Unionists in implementing the Good Friday Agreement and by taking those steps.

He made an interesting comment that we all should note: he said that David Trimble was a Unionist Prime Minister and that Mark Durkan was a deputy Minister. David Trimble must have held that job description privately because that is how he has acted since he was elected, rather than follow his official job description, which is to act jointly with Mark Durkan as First Minister and Deputy First Minister for all the people of this region.

I agree with some of the points made by Alex Attwood on the amendment. Unionists are happy to commemorate one or two individuals who may have participated in Stormont over the years, but there is absolutely no reflection of their political ideology, their identity or the experience of the Nationalist people as a whole.

The issue of war memorials is difficult. There are sensitive issues, and I urge people to be sensitive in erecting any memorial to anyone who was involved in the conflict or who lost his life in it. We must be sensitive, and I would not be opposed to an attempt to agree proposals on a way forward. Republicans say consistently to me that the SDLP objects to those, yet it would rarely, if ever, object to war memorials being erected to people in the British Army or to windows being installed in the city hall to the RUC or the UDR, people who have had -

If the Member examines the record, on every occasion when there was a proposal in the chamber of Belfast city hall to install a window, for example to the Royal Irish Regiment, the British Army or the RUC, the SDLP is on record as opposing it. Does the Member accept that? [Interruption].

Order.

I accept the Member's correction. I am not a member of Belfast City Council, but my experience of other councils is not the same. Recently, at Craigavon Borough Council, Mr Attwood's party supported such a proposal.

It was interesting that Peter Weir, as a member of the Democratic Unionist Party, referred to Dáil Éireann and said that his party does not care what happens there. The Democratic Unionist Party constantly cites the experience of Southern Protestants as being of huge interest, yet it has no interest in how the institutions of the Southern state reflect the totality of life there.

Mr Weir made another interesting remark in saying that when Eastern bloc countries use the title "democratic", one knows that they are the very antithesis of democracy. Nevertheless, he moved from a party that does not have that word in its title to one that has. The point is well made that those who must state to the world that they are democratic often have some way to go to be so. He also said that - [Interruption].

I can hear some chittering going on, but I shall try to address my remarks -

Order. [Interruption].

Those who do not wish to hear are those who squeal the loudest.

Peter Weir made some remarks that our proposals - I hasten to add that we did not make any proposals, we are referring the issue to the Assembly Commission - were akin to dogs marking out their territory. It must have been a very expensive dog that marked out this piece of territory. All the money was poured into all the symbols that reflect the British and Unionist ethos.

He raised the issue of the four-year timescale. That has been raised consistently with the Speaker. It is on record as being raised in the Chamber, and it is certainly on record as being raised at meetings of the Assembly Commission. The timescale for the Commission to report back is achievable. It may be a reflection on Jim Wells or Bob Coulter or on the Members who think that that is not enough time for the Commission to get their heads around a piece of business. Members on this side of the Chamber who sit on the Assembly Commission feel that it is well within their capabilities.

The issue is one of embracing a genuinely new beginning to politics on this island. The Building and the estate, for better or worse, embody the hopes of the vast majority of the people of this community in the North for a shared future, free from the conflict of the past. Everyone has a stake in that future and their identity - Unionist, Nationalist, Republican or other - should be welcomed and reflected in our institutions.

The proposal identifies a way that we can discuss and agree that shared future together, through the responsible body in the Assembly. It should be supported, and we should look forward to the Assembly Commission bringing a report to the Chamber in the autumn that we can all debate.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.

Adjourned at 6.04 pm.