Assembly Business: Dismissal of Ministers

Mr Speaker:

I have received from Rev Dr Ian Paisley, in his role as nominating officer for the Democratic Unionist Party, a letter that I wish to draw to the attention of the House. The letter reads as follows:

Events on 4 October 2002

I wish to advise the House how I propose to conduct the debate, to which two and a half hours have been allocated by the Business Committee. The mover of the motion will have 15 minutes to open and 10 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members will have seven minutes to speak.

I caution Members and remind them that, in criminal matters, the sub judice rule applies strictly from the moment a person is charged until the verdict and sentence have been announced. I mention that because it has clear relevance to the events described in the motion.

Members should also be aware that parliamentary privilege, covering what they say in the Chamber, applies to the law of defamation and not to other matters. It would not, for example, give Members protection in matters of contempt of court. I draw that to Members’ attention.

I beg to move

I am glad that the debate is being broadcast on BBC2. Viewers will see the bareness of the seats and also hear at first hand what the argument should be. I want to put it on record that we are here to discuss a Democratic Unionist Party motion. When I came to the House on Monday, I thought that all parties would want to discuss the matter. However, Mr Speaker, it was only after meeting with you that we were able to get the Business Committee to agree to put the motion on the Order Paper. The people of Northern Ireland should know that this debate is on a motion that originated with the DUP. It is an urgent matter, and the Assembly would have no credibility whatever if, when everybody else was talking about it, we were not permitted to do so. I am glad that the debate is taking place.

Mr Speaker, I refer to the letter that I delivered to you, which you have just read to the House. We had contacted the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and had already delivered a letter to you that would take effect when he and his Ministers resigned. We thought that all Unionists would have united in this matter no matter what their opinions are on other things, but Mr Trimble treated my letter with contempt. We then informed the public that we would act unilaterally, and that is what we have done.

I was amazed to hear the BBC correspondent, Mr Denis Murray, saying that the letter could be withdrawn before Friday. The only reason that the letter is dated for Friday is that the Ministers have to clear their offices and do some business that has to be done so as to leave the offices free for whoever else might occupy them. That scurrilous remark was made to try to blight the credibility of the party that I serve. Of course, we live in a day of religious discrimination, and the BBC is a mastermind of that — I have said that to the head of the BBC in Belfast.

On 26 July, I met the Prime Minister of our country. I had some figures with me. I said "Prime Minister, you go around the country telling people that Ulster is a great place — far better since the agreement was signed, wonderful because of the so-called Good Friday Agreement. However, I will read some statistics to you. From 1995 to 1998, there were 430 shootings. From 1999 to 2002, under that peace process, there were 820 shootings. Again, from 1995 to 1998 there were 123 bombings, while from 1999 to 2002 there were 361. Please note those figures. From 1995 to 1998 there were 156 bombing devices, from 1999 to 2002 there were 699." The Secretary of State had the cheek and the audacity to say that he did not accept those figures, but then I produced the police’s annual report.

Those were figures that he knew, and he made no protest. The Prime Minister, in fairness, told the Secretary of State that if those figures were right, then what he was saying around the country about things being better in Northern Ireland could not be true. I said that those figures were his, not ours.

Let us clear away the mists spread by those who want to tell us that everything is well in Northern Ireland — everything is not well in Northern Ireland. To all intents and purposes, there is no peace process; there is, rather, a war process.

I turn to IRA/Sinn Féin attendance as Ministers of the Executive of the Assembly — right in the heart of the Government. It is well known that the DUP has opposed that from the beginning and that our Members, who were entitled to do so, took their offices but did not attend one meeting of the Executive. Everyone knows that. What we said would happen has happened. We said that the IRA would continue to plan and carry out its acts of terror at will. Since the Belfast Agreement was signed, the IRA has updated its weapons and bombing techniques in Colombia. It has rearmed from Russia and Florida. It has targeted leading political, judicial, security, forensic and Loyalist figures, using updated intelligence files. The police have identified the IRA as the only major line of enquiry into the break-in at Special Branch Headquarters at Castlereagh. The IRA has murdered more than a dozen people since 1998 and has orchestrated violence in north and east Belfast.

Those are the facts. Then there is the uncovering of the fact that the IRA had access to documents, information and intelligence through people who were employed by Government. That access was used to give very sensitive intelligence material, which would put lives in danger, to IRA/Sinn Féin. That is a very serious matter — it could not be more serious. I have heard the police attacked, but I have heard no attacks on the people who passed that information.

Recent arrests have proved that the authorities have information that they will bring before the courts. I am well aware of the sub judice laws; however, I am within my rights to say that because it was announced in the press. The security vetting of people in offices in this Building is absolutely ridiculous. A person came into this Building who had been employed by one of the Departments. This person had access to the documents of the Secretary of State and of the lady in charge of security in Northern Ireland. That person was caught red-handed, only to be shifted out of the office to another job in another Department. Think about it: a person was caught and, instead of being sacked, he was shifted to another Department. After that, he was shifted again to work in the office of a Sinn Féin Member.

If that is not a blatant breach of the vetting system, I do not know what is. The Secretary of State should forthwith resign because, although he was told that a person had been caught red-handed printing documents, he allowed those documents to be passed on. That is a serious matter, which must be attended to. If it had happened across the water, there would have been a hue and cry for the Secretary of State’s political scalp. Here, however, it seems to be that, if one is connected to Sinn Féin, one is outside the rule of law.

In the past 12 months, the peace process has resulted in an 80% increase in violence. Shootings have trebled since the agreement was signed. Unsolved crimes have reached a new high. Only last week, the IRA shot a bus driver in Londonderry while he was conveying a group of pensioners. The IRA also beat up a young man in south Armagh, leaving him with injuries that doctors tell us are the worst that they have seen since the troubles began.

Those are the matters that concern the DUP. IRA/Sinn Féin has no right to be in the Government of Northern Ireland — it had no right from the beginning. However, Republicans have now proved that they are in this business for the day on which they think that they will make the last move and take over the Province. I have news for them. There may be a weak-kneed Government in Westminster, and the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party may be weak-kneed, but Ulster has people who are determined that the IRA will not win the war. They are determined that the IRA will not impose itself on our generation or on generations to come. Come what may, we are determined that we shall not tolerate in the Government of this country those who are allied to, and those who direct, Sinn Féin/IRA. And, to crown it all, Gerry Adams tells us that he was never a member of the IRA.

I think of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, who both said publicly in the House of Commons, and were joined in this by Mr Trimble, that those organisations are inextricably joined. If they are inextricably joined, they cannot be parted, yet the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party has told Members that he advised IRA members to join Sinn Féin. If those organisations are inextricably united, members of the IRA are already in Sinn Féin.

No half measures are needed now. We must realise that all the people who have been mentioned are at risk. After the break-in at Castlereagh, millions of pounds had to be spent on the special purchase of evacuated dwellings scheme to re-house the hundreds of people who had been put at risk. What about the 1,000 people who are now at risk?

Surely the time has come for Members to acknowledge that they recognise the gravity of the situation and declare on which side they are. My party is against the IRA’s being in Government. It should be removed forthwith.

The Prime Minister said on the lunchtime news that the agreement is the only way forward. I represent my party as one who wished to work the agreement — it was the best way forward for Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister said that the agreement will work only if all of its parts are made to work. He then mentioned two aspects of the agreement that are often discussed: he said that on the one hand, there is equality and justice, but on the other, there is paramilitarism.

I am often told about equality. I am glad that Sinn Féin is present, because I looked its Members straight in the eye. Over the weekend I listened carefully to Sinn Féin accuse my party of being against the agreement, against equality, against change. Indeed, Martin McGuinness said on Friday evening that we were against having Catholics in Government. I totally reject all of that: none of that is true of my party.

As I said, the Prime Minister referred to equality earlier today. Sinn Féin often trumpets equality, but is it conscious of what the Irish Government and the United Kingdom Government have signed up to? Is it conscious — I see that no one from Sinn Fein is looking at me — of what the premier body, the Council of Europe, has clearly stated about groupings that do not feel at home in a particular country? That means Sinn Féin. Is Sinn Féin conscious of the cultural, linguistic, educational and religious rights advocated by the Council of Europe? Lest someone say that I must speak through the Chair, I am doing so, but that does not preclude me from looking at anyone. In speaking through the Chair while looking at a certain quarter, I say that none of those rights is debarred to anyone in Northern Ireland, be they Unionist, Nationalist, Republican or whatever. Their rights are protected and preserved; the United Kingdom Government have signed up to that. I advise people to study those rights carefully and then tell me that they are denied them.

When Sinn Féin repeats the word "against", it is simply a smokescreen. I represent a party that wanted, and still wants, to work the agreement. We have been let down, and we have been let down big time.

You have been taken in big time.

I shall not countenance those comments at the moment.

That is because they are true.

The problem is simple. I live in a liberal democracy; I am a citizen of the European Union; and I expect the same principles and practices of democracy to abide in Northern Ireland as abide elsewhere in the democratic world. Let us not duck, weave, or prevaricate: let us stick to the simple point. The basic principle of democracy is that one cannot participate in Government while being linked with paramilitarism. Mr Ahern made that clear when he said that he would have nothing to do with Sinn Féin for as long as it was linked with paramilitarism.

Indeed, Mr Gerry Adams, President of Sinn Féin, was clear in Dublin some weeks ago when he said that

There it is in one statement — in one breath: political activism and an army of soldiers. That is the clear, inextricable link between Sinn Féin and the IRA.

Many in the Chamber will remember a certain Jörg Haider from Austria. He merely said that Adolf Hitler had good employment practices. What happened to him? He was ostracised by the whole EU. To use the vernacular, he was "sent to Coventry". Some people say to us that principles are different in Northern Ireland, that we have to allow for paramilitarism. I do not accept that.

I am told that our request for the Republican movement to put war behind it cannot be met. Not too long ago it was thought impossible to have Sinn Féin in Government. That "impossibility" was made a reality. Sinn Féin has been at the heart of Government.

Shame, shame.

It is regrettable that supposedly fellow Unionists — and I emphasise the word "supposedly" — attack me when I am attacking in the right direction.

I understand I have seven minutes. Dr Paisley talks about the weak-kneed Ulster Unionist party leadership. I remind the House — [Interruption].

Silence. I need the space, Mr Speaker. I remind the House — [Interruption].

I shall sit down until I get silence.

Your time is up.

Order. I am afraid that the Member’s time is up.

I have one word to say.

Order.

Smash Sinn Féin.

Order.

The Carson Trail.

The Member will resume his seat.

The House should be rightly concerned about the implications of last Friday’s events — just as it should be concerned about the implications of the recent Ulster Unionist Council motion, which severely dented Nationalist confidence in the Ulster Unionist leadership and its real commitment to the Good Friday Agreement. That motion was an attack on all of the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement and on the new beginning in policing. It was an attempt to reverse the important progress being made in that area.

I said at that time, and I repeat it now; the Nationalist community, having taken a leap of faith —

Will the Member give way?

TOP

No, I will not give way: I only have seven minutes. Having taken a leap of faith in David Trimble, despite its grave reservations about certain scenes on Garvaghy Road in 1995, the Nationalist community felt betrayed by that Ulster Unionist Council motion, which moved it into the anti-Good Friday Agreement camp.

Since last Friday’s events, the anti-agreement Unionists have been rubbing their hands in glee. Nothing could have played more into their hands than to see the total collapse of confidence within the pro-agreement section of the Unionist community, coupled with the confusion and mistrust that now permeates the whole body politic — [Interruption].

Order.

This is a vastly different place to what it was 10 years ago. Yes, there are still problems. Yes, the Loyalist paramilitaries have continued to carry out murderous attacks on innocent Catholics in Larne, Carrickfergus, north Belfast, Coleraine, and everywhere else. That does not seem to have come under the notice of Dr Paisley — [Interruption].

Order.

Yes, sectarianism is still rife. Yes, people are being brutally beaten in south Armagh and in Derry, as happened recently. Despite that, progress has been made and is still being made, and we can build on that progress. The SDLP is genuinely concerned about the future. Its members are determined to live up to their responsibilities to the vast majority of people, North and South — [Interruption].

Order. Members accept, and are accorded by others, the dignity and courtesy of being heard.

It is proper that they should expect that — is it also proper that they should reciprocate.

We are genuinely committed, and we are concerned about the future. We are determined to live up to our responsibilities to the vast majority of the people of this island who voted for the Good Friday Agreement. Others are jumping to conclusions that they wish, and need to arrive at, for their own destructive purposes. For them, the welfare of the ordinary citizen seems to be a matter of little concern. By the way, the retention of these institutions is a matter of no concern to them.

It was clear last year that these very institutions, which are now being brought down, were crucial for this country during the foot-and-mouth-disease crisis, when, together, we were able to ensure that we did not suffer the devastating consequences that Great Britain suffered. That was because these institutions were in place. I wish to make it very clear that, given the serious implications of the present situation, this is not the time for rushing to judgements or for kangaroo courts.

It is clear that some people in the House are more comfortable with the old certainties and bogeymen. That is not to say that it is not a time for asking serious questions. It is a time for honest answers. I have questions to ask Sinn Féin. Why were allegedly serious and sensitive documents found in the possession of a senior member of Sinn Féin? Can it come clean and respond to the rumours and speculation that are causing such confusion and consternation, especially in the Nationalist community? Was it spying on the British Government or the Irish Government, or on other parties in the House?

On a point of order, Mr Speaker —

Do Members wish to continue and to hear the debate?

Is it in order for the Minister to discuss matters that are sub judice?

I warned Members at the beginning of the debate. I warned them previously, and I warn them again. Members must understand. I hear the Minister suggesting that she asked a question. It was not merely a question. Neither the Minister nor anyone else can expect the protection of the Speaker in this regard because these are sub judice matters, which will be matters for the courts. I can do nothing but warn Members to be careful; they cannot expect my protection in matters that go outside the House. I do my best to give them good advice.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am referring to matters that have been referred to in the press already, which are matters of speculation —

Order. The Member did not use the word "alleged".

Ms Rodgers: I did use the word "alleged". I specifically —

Order.

Mr Speaker —

Order. I listened carefully to the Member, and on one significant occasion I believe that she did not use the word. Please continue. It will not be a matter for me.

Mr Speaker, I said:

Why —

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point remains the same, whether this has been alleged or otherwise. The Minister is asking questions, and making assumptions that documents were found in Denis Donaldson’s possession. She is making an assumption.

I sustain the Member’s point of order. It is not a question of whether they were allegedly serious and sensitive documents, it is that they were alleged to be found in someone’s possession. That is where the Member was wrong, and is wrong again, as Mr Kelly has pointed out. Please continue, Ms Rodgers.

Can I say that the documents are alleged to have been found? I correct myself, and say that everything that I say is with regard to allegations. Allegations have been made, and they have created suspicion. I ask the British Government how much they knew — [Interruption].

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When the Member continually talks about alleged events, refers to the fact that those are in the public realm, and says that these events happened and that items were allegedly found, is she not making an assumption of guilt?

If the Member repeats allegations as allegations and is clear about that, it seems that she is unlikely to fall foul of sub judice rules, but is being extremely unwise. Previously when this matter arose, I said that wisdom was in driving as far away from the edge of a cliff, not driving as close as possible to it. In other Parliaments — for example, in the practice of the Canadian Parliament — the advice is to steer as far away from the question of sub judice, not to come as close to it as possible. I have given the best advice I can, and I have also indicated that in the end I can do little other. It seems exceptionally foolish for people to go where they have no need to go.

I have been asking questions; I can make no assumptions because I do not know any of the facts.

I want to ask the British Government how much they knew. For how long have they known that information? Why were the rest of us kept in the dark if they did know about it? We will put those questions to the Prime Minister tomorrow when we meet with him.

I want to say to the PSNI that the manner in which the search in Parliament Buildings was carried out was incomprehensible and inexcusable. It was at least refreshing to hear the Chief Constable apologise for that. However, there are still serious questions to be addressed. Who made the decision? Was the Chief Constable informed? Was the timing at such a sensitive point in the peace process a mere coincidence, or was there another agenda at work? Those questions all now need answers.

The implications of all these issues are serious. The question is what we do about it. I ask all parties to recognise, and to stop underplaying, the implications of their own actions. I ask Sinn Féin to address the many questions that may now arise and that must be answered to restore confidence across the board. I refer to the editorial yesterday in ‘The Irish News’, a paper that has been supportive of the peace process and encouraging to the steps that Sinn Féin had taken to move forward. I refer Sinn Féin to that editorial and ask it to pay attention to what it was being asked to do as the Republican movement to restore confidence.

I ask the Ulster Unionists to return to the Good Friday Agreement and to be receptive to any serious move that might be made to restore confidence. This agreement —

Order. The Member’s time is up.

Before calling the next Member, I wish to refresh Members’ memories of Standing Orders. The Standing Order on sub judice — Standing Order 68(1) — states that

(b) in debate".

They should not be referred to in debate. That seems pretty clear. It is neither necessary nor appropriate, and it seems to me that it is in conflict with Standing Orders. I appeal to the House and all responsible Members to observe Standing Orders. They are rather clear. I do not see why people must test the limits of these things.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What you have read out is quite correct in so far as allegations, inferences or statements are made about named individuals who may be the subject of proceedings. [Interruption]. It does not include organisations or parties believed to be involved in that activity.

The Member is absolutely correct. Whoever’s mobile went off is also out of order. The Member is correct. The reason that I drew it to Members’ attention was because it is quite clear that there were references to a specific case and a specific person. However, the Member is correct about the generality. There is no reason for the debate not to take place on the generality. If that had not been the case, I would have declared the motion not competent. I have permitted its competence because it is perfectly possible to conduct a debate on the generalities. That is the context in which it is couched.

TOP

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I express my concerns at the events of the weekend, particularly the activities of the RUC/PSNI. As the Nationalist community has always believed, and as the weekend events have shown, there appears to be an acceptable level of Unionist terrorist violence — acceptable by the British Government and by those who scream the loudest in this Chamber about the IRA. In terms of the RUC — whatever its name — there is sufficient and overwhelming evidence of the cosy relationship between that organisation and Unionist terrorism, even to the point of dual membership.

We have been through this door before. Sinn Féin was excluded from this Chamber during the talks process, on the basis of security briefings and the advice of the Chief Constable and the arrest of three men. Those three men were stitched up to facilitate the UUP and DUP agenda. The media focused their attention on the arrest and the exclusion of Sinn Féin. Those men were accorded a trial by media, and the same thing is likely to happen to those arrested at the weekend.

When those three men were released nine months later without charge, the media in general were notable by their absence. There was no attempt to ask why those men were arrested. Was there a political agenda being worked out? In whose interest was it that those men were arrested? Indeed, in whose interests were the arrests at the weekend? With few exceptions, investigative journalism has died here. We now know that the arrests then were an attempt at the "save Dave" campaign.

We have seen the delight with which the RUC/PSNI raid Nationalist and Republican homes. Sledgehammers, guns and batons, instruments of brutality — [Interruption].

Order.

Those are the trademarks of the RUC, found guilty by every human rights association, by Amnesty International and Helsinki Watch, of torture and intimidation — [Interruption].

Order.

The RUC has not gone away. They may masquerade as the PSNI — the darling of the SDLP — but in reality they "are you see" the organisation that is the tool of Unionism.

Yesterday, members of this so-called new police service forced their way into the home of a prominent Fermanagh Republican, Kevin Lynch, at 6.30 am on the pretext of collecting an outstanding fine. They then brutally attacked this man and his pregnant wife in front of four very frightened children, and beat him into a jeep. They refused to accept a settlement of the fine. It seems that they are taking their lead from the heavy-handed actions — [Interruption].

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Was it clear in your mind, when the Member made that allegation, whether it was an allegation or, in fact, a statement about what happened to the Fermanagh Republican?

That is not, as far as I am aware, a matter against which charges have been preferred. Therefore, the previous point does not apply.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. We all saw the heavy-handed actions of the RUC/PSNI raid of our party offices in this Building on television, and Denis Bradley, vice chairman of the Policing Board, went on television and on radio saying that that was not right. But was it right to sledgehammer in the door of a house of young mothers with two children at 4.30 in the morning? Was it right that she woke to see men in ski masks with guns standing over her bed? [Interruption].

Order.

Is that right? Is Denis Bradley saying that that was right? Those who have given this unreconstructed police force political cover have to make important choices. Will they continue to back a clearly politically motivated police force that can brutally assault a father and terrorise a mother and children, raid homes, collude with Unionist terrorists, and cover the backs of the "no" camp in this Assembly?

One could clearly see — as Bríd Rodgers said — the glee on the faces of Unionist politicians as they lined up on public television to accuse Sinn Féin, and individuals who have not been convicted of anything, of violating democracy. What democracy are they talking about? [Interruption].

Order.

What democracy are the RUC storm troopers who raided this Building talking about? Do Members have any understanding of the political ramifications of the RUC’s conduct? Its actions, in raiding our office, are more in keeping with Chile and the coup d’état that toppled Allende. The motion before the House expresses deep concerns. Have those Unionists, who will use the activities of the RUC/PSNI who raided our offices and arrested people in order to destroy the Assembly, any concept of what they are doing? [Interruption].

Order.

World opinion, notably of the raids, but also of the PSNI/RUC’s double standards and its unwillingness to investigate the leaking of politically sensitive information — [Interruption].

Order. If for no other reason than the welfare of the poor Lady’s throat, will Members please listen, even to what they may not wish to hear.

Go raibh maith agat. Let me look at other examples of politically sensitive information being leaked. Chris McGimpsey of the UUP revealed that an impeccable NIO source leaked to him a stolen document that detailed the sensitive talks between the British and Irish Governments. Security sources passed details of the policing report to the BBC —

Order.

There was no investigation there. Details of the Police Ombudsman’s inquiry into the Omagh bombing were leaked, but there was no investigation by the PSNI/RUC. The raids on our offices were a clear indication that political policing, whatever the police’s name, has not gone away. That policing is directed at the destruction of the best attempt at peace on this island for more than 100 years. As a leading American has stated, there is no place in a democratic society for staged raids on the offices of a democratically elected party. Go raibh míle maith agat. [Interruption].

Order. These matters have come before the House in a special sitting because they are matters of gravity. Clowning around is not the best way to deal with them. Some of the Members who jump quickly are perhaps finding that that applies to Colleagues. I ask the House to treat the matter seriously.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It should be pointed out that 50% of the new force belongs to the Roman Catholic faith. That needs to be put on the record as this debate is going out over the media. As for keeping one’s temper when such slanders are being made against the police force —

Order. Dr Paisley will take his seat. He is aware that the point that he makes is not a point of order; therefore, I shall not rule on it. I am aware that some have grave feelings about what is happening. However, others are dealing with it with a degree of mirth and jollity that is inappropriate to the debate. I think the Member would not disagree with that.

I was surprised by the wording of the motion, which, given the level of rhetoric in which the DUP has indulged over the past couple of days, seems to be remarkably bland. Alliance Members are concerned about actions, not only last Friday, but in the weeks and months preceding that day. I say that as a strong supporter of the agreement, which presented, and still presents, the best opportunity we have to promote peace and stability to build a liberal, pluralist non-sectarian society. Our concern is to protect and defend that agreement, and to ensure that it does not collapse.

The agreement’s principal aim was to remove both the use and the threat of violence from our politics. Four years ago, people could accept that there was an imperfect peace. They could accept that in the context that we were moving in the right direction, towards normality, over time. However, it seems that what we have today is an imperfect peace which is getting worse; it is becoming more imperfect. That is not what people voted for four years ago.

I listened with interest to what Dr Paisley said in his opening remarks about his lecture to the Prime Minister at the end of July. It is a great pity that the Democratic Unionist Party has absented itself from discussions with other parties, because had Dr Paisley been at Hillsborough with the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister on 4 July, he would have heard me make exactly the same point — that the Prime Minister’s bland assurances of matters being better than they were ten years ago are irrelevant. The question is: are things as people expected four years ago? No, matters are worse.

We cannot have a process where these uncomfortable truths are conveniently swept under the carpet for the sake of expediency and maintaining the process. People know what is going on, and they are not being fooled. Confidence is being drained away from the agreement. The lack of trust in the actions of Sinn Féin is not just a reaction to the arrests of last Friday. It is the culmination of a litany of activities over months and years. We have seen acts of violence — including murder by paramilitaries from both sides of the divide — sectarian attacks and the so-called punishment attacks on people from the perceived background of the perpetrators. We have seen an increase in organised crime, frequent riots in many sectarian interfaces and the ever-spreading flags and graffiti promoting illegal organisations.

Those matters should be of grave concern to the House, because so many of them have come from those who are ostensibly pro-agreement parties. But those who ought to know better than to allow other people not to live up their obligations have fudged and winked at them.

The Alliance Party, more than most, has tried to work to make the agreement come into place and to consolidate an inclusive process. It has been prepared to work to bring people into that inclusive process. The Alliance Party has attempted to encourage Republicans to engage in normal democratic politics, but it is not possible to overlook actions which are detrimental and destabilising to the process, wherever those actions come from. On the one hand Republicans seem to be trying to look forward, but on the other hand there is evidence on the streets that they are seeking to move backwards. They are clinging to the violent past, and they cannot have it both ways.

The Alliance Party has never been frightened to stand up and make difficult decisions for the sake of the process. It tabled indictments against the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party in the post-Drumcree 1996 situation. It tabled indictments against the Ulster Democratic Party and Sinn Féin in early 1998 — when others conveniently ignored the opportunity — in order to improve the integrity of the talks and to give integrity to the process that made the agreement possible. That agreement would not have been possible without introducing a measure of integrity.

Aside from any judicial process, there is an ongoing political process that requires political judgements on our behalf. The agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provide a basis for exclusion from office of Ministers and parties that are not abiding by exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 states that it is the duty and the responsibility of the Secretary of State to make determinations on the status of ceasefires and to table exclusion motions in the Assembly when the grounds are there to justify such a move.

In July 2002, Dr Reid publicly warned Sinn Féin about Republican involvement in violence and preparation for violence. That was the so-called yellow card. It was justified on the basis of information which was then in the public domain. Since Friday, more developments have come to light in the statements of the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State now fails to act, confidence in the integrity of the process will drain away even further. If the Government do not table an exclusion motion, or if they do and it is unsuccessful, the only viable option that remains is to temporarily suspend the institutions, and that suspension must be treated as an opportunity for a review of the agreement to refine its structures and to restore trust and integrity to the process.

The review is envisaged in the agreement and in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It is not the renegotiation demanded by those who have nothing to negotiate and nobody to negotiate with. It is a necessary correction to the workings in the context of the agreement.

The issue before the Assembly is whether anything can be done to save the institutions as they stand. It is time that Sinn Féin stopped listening to its own propaganda and started listening to the honest views of agreement supporters from across the community.

Republicans complain about the behaviour of Unionists, most notably since the Ulster Unionist Council meeting, and I share their concerns. Pro-agreement Ulster Unionist Party Members have failed to defend the agreement as they should have. They have run frightened of the Democratic Unionist Party, and they have run frightened of members of their own party. However, Republicans must also recognise that those who genuinely support the agreement, in spite of everything, have grave concerns about their actions over recent months.

It is not simply a matter of what may or may not have happened last week; it is about the ongoing violence. This is not about sectarianism, and it is not about not wanting Catholics in the Government. It is a real and genuine concern at a catalogue of continuing violence.

The collapse of the Assembly would dash our hopes for a generation; it would gravely threaten jobs, investment and the chance of better governance for Northern Ireland. If that is the threat that faces us, the least worst option is suspension and a review.

TOP

<< Next >>