On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I said that Loyalists are the gravest threat to peace and security in Northern Ireland. I further mentioned that at the same time the IRA is the gravest threat to political stability in Northern Ireland.

Perhaps the Member has seen too many elephants in the kitchen.

I welcome the debate. I just wonder why it has taken so long to bring it about. When one looks at the circumstances that have prevailed over the past couple of years, I suspect that we would have been at this position long ago had it not been for some parties in the House deciding to turn a Nelson's eye to events that have been happening all around us.

When the Belfast Agreement was signed, we were told in clear and unambiguous terms that it would be the beginning of a new era. Transparency would be the order of the day, and everyone would understand exactly what was going on. Certainly, some things were transparent. The destruction of the RUC had to be transparent; bringing Sinn Féin/IRA into the Government had to be transparent; and the setting up of the all-powerful, all-Ireland bodies had to be transparent. Those matters had to be seen and understood by everybody.

However, one thing did not have to be transparent, and that was decommissioning. When it came to decommissioning, not only could the Prime Minister not tell us what happened, but the closest that General de Chastelain could come to an answer was to say that "an event took place". That was the only answer he could give. We have to assume that the event was a non-event and that, in fact, the Provos are better armed and equipped today, than when they first started off.

It is amazing what has been said not only here today, but in the weeks and months that have gone before. One wonders why we have had to wait until today to bring the charges that have been brought, when we hear some of the things that have been said. Let us see what has been said over those months.

In April, Mr David Trimble told the 'News Letter' that the Provo killers were still at work. Yet he stayed in Government with the Provos. In the House, on 29 April 2002, he said:

However, it was not enough for him to sign an exclusion motion to put the Provos out of Government.

Speaking on the BBC on 30 April, Mark Durkan said that the IRA remained active, yet that was not enough for the SDLP to put the Provos out of Government. It would not have been politically expedient for him to do that. However, he will find that if the election is called, the Provos will put him out very soon.

Speaking on the BBC on 17 June, the Assistant Chief Constable said:

We then had another quote:

The Secretary of State said that in the House of Commons during Northern Ireland Question Time on 12 June 2002.

I listened intently to Monica McWilliams. She posed a very important question. She asked what happens if the ceasefires break down. At that point I asked myself where Ms McWilliams had been living for the past couple of years. I would have thought that clear evidence was all around us that the ceasefire had broken down.

Let us look at what has been happening. There is the trial in Colombia of three IRA suspects accused of training and passing on bomb-making techniques to the FARC guerrillas. If found guilty, Connolly, Monaghan and McCauley could face a minimum of 15 years in jail. At first they were just innocent sightseers.

TOP

They did not even know them at first.

Exactly. They did not even know where they came from. However, they had to admit that they did know them.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You made a ruling earlier about issues that were sub judice. While this is outside - [Interruption].

Order.

Thank you, Dr Ian.

While this is outside the jurisdiction, I do think that it is in order to do the same here. It is an abuse.

I have previously pointed out that sub judice applies within a jurisdiction, and I gave definitions of what the jurisdiction was. While in some cases people might be doubtful, there is fair agreement that Colombia is sufficiently outside this jurisdiction.

Mary Nelis, in her typical rant, had a lot to say. However, I notice that she forgot to mention something that happened in her home city. In Londonderry, a bus driver is recovering in hospital after being shot and beaten while driving a group of pensioners through the Nationalist Creggan area last Sunday. The Assistant Chief Constable has confirmed that the Provisional IRA was responsible for the shooting. I suspect that Mrs Nelis did not hear about that. Well, she is hearing about it now, and I hope that she takes cognisance of it.

The IRA has been accused of carrying out a brutal attack on a south Armagh student who has sustained injuries that have been described by doctors as the worst they ever saw throughout the troubles. Again, the Provos are not guilty. The police in Belfast have confirmed that the IRA is behind the violence in east Belfast that has been festering for months. The Provos and Sinn Féin know absolutely nothing about that either. You would think that an angelic host was guiding Sinn Féin. Its members sit in here with pious looks on their faces as if they were the epitome of innocence, but all the time, its sinister, dirty, grubby little hand has been in every act of destruction that has gone on in this country.

New evidence emerged on Thursday 3 October to strengthen police claims that the IRA was responsible for the March break-in at Special Branch headquarters in Castlereagh. In September, members of Sinn Féin youth attacked a police station in Lurgan, County Armagh. No doubt Sinn Féin did not hear about that either. The IRA murdered William Morgan by deliberately running him down with a car -

Order.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Erroneous comments have been made about an attack on a police station in Lurgan, County Armagh. That issue has come up before. There was no such attack on the police station in Lurgan.

The burden on the Chair is already substantial, Dr O'Hagan, without its having to determine the factual accuracy of what some Members say. I do my best, but you are asking me to go further than I possibly can. The point of order is on the record.

I shall bring you my own town of Dungannon, where the biggest embarrassment yet for the Provos is that Barney McDonald, a taxi driver, was lured to pick up a fare in Donaghmore. What happened to him? He was done to death. The Provos have been conspicuous by their silence in their condemnation of that murder. The McDonald family still ask today why the Provos will not admit their involvement and why Sinn Féin has been silent about it.

In April, an IRA hit list was found in Belfast, and proof that the IRA had been -

Order. The Member's time is up.

This is truly a defining moment in our political process. Over the past four years the democrats in our society have been waiting for evidence that those who have in the past been inextricably linked to violence have clearly broken that link. Today members of my party have been criticised from two sides: those who think we have waited too long to collect such evidence, and those who think we should wait a little longer. I believe that we have got the balance right.

Sadly, the evidence is mounting that the change so far has been insufficient. The list of events is as familiar as it is dismal: Florida, Castlereagh, Colombia, street agitation in the city, continued targeting and horrific shootings and beatings. In many of those indicators, things are worse now than they were some years ago.

In saying all that, my party is not being soft on the Loyalist variant of terrorism. It utterly condemns all attacks on the innocent and what may be the development of a sordid feud within Loyalism, which has continued to take lives in recent days. Although the difference between the IRA and the LVF is not a moral one, it is of a political nature. Unlike the latter, the IRA is inextricably linked to a party in Government here. That is why the Ulster Unionist Party now focuses on the IRA, but that is not to ignore the wrong that is ongoing with regard to Loyalist violence.

Sadly, there is much denial about the true source of instability in the political process, and Members have seen much of that denial today. The true source is paramilitary activity. We saw one example of denial from a Fianna Fáil senator, Dr Martin Mansergh, in Dublin yesterday. He likened the events of 4 October, which the House is supposed to be discussing today, to some of the activities of the thugs in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. That is a ridiculous and hypocritical comparison, because democrats in Northern Ireland have been forced to endure from Sinn Féin and the Republican movement a type of behaviour that Governments in Dublin have said they would not put up with.

My Friend will realise that there have been motions from my right and from the Ulster Unionist Party to try to exclude unreconstructed terrorists. Alban Maginness referred to the elephant in the kitchen. Does Dr Birnie agree that Nationalists, represented by the SDLP, must consider their lack of contribution to any effort by other constitutional parties to remove these unreconstructed terrorists from the Government? That is the SDLP's problem, and one that it must address.

All democrats have a joint responsibility to construct a form of Government here that is solidly based and can endure. The Blair Government, the London Government, must act, because Number 10 retains powers over law and order. The British Government are responsible for law and order in Northern Ireland - even if they do not want to be. The Prime Minister's anxiety to contest terrorism internationally, be it in Afghanistan or, perhaps, Iraq in the future, will be the rule of consistency against which we measure his actions here on terrorism and law-breaking in this part of the United Kingdom.

Now is the moment of truth. It is up to the paramilitaries to disband; it will take no less than that. Republican rhetoric often focuses on their mandate from the people of Ireland, and that is usually historically based, going back, for instance, to the 1918 election in Ireland. However, there have been more up-to-date tests of opinion, most notably the vote in 1998 for the agreement in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which clearly endorsed an end to paramilitarism. As suggested by 'The Irish News' in its editorial yesterday, there should be disbandment of all paramilitaries, and, as the Irish Prime Minister, Bertie Ahern, said in February, there can be only one army and one system of justice in any one state.

TOP

The Assembly meets today, not for the first time, in a state of concern, confusion, and pending disarray as it faces possible resignations, talk of suspension and dissolution, et cetera. We represent the entire community. Whatever doubts and difficulties surround us and the process in which we are involved, by working here together we have been able to do good work on behalf of the public. Good work has been done in the Executive, the Assembly, Committees, the North/ South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council.

All that good work is jeopardised by the various suggestions about collapsing the institutions and arrangements. Members have been able to do their good work on the basis of certain working levels of trust, expectations and understandings that have not only been sourced from the agreement but also from the discussions and negotiations that led to the agreement and that took place when there were difficulties in its implementation.

I was listening to the debate on the radio as I travelled from Dublin. There was much talk about distrust and very little talk about trust. Many Members have doubts and questions based on the events of last Friday and based on stories that have been pouring through the media since then. Some people have doubts and questions about the police operation on these premises, never mind doubts about wider activities. The SDLP expressed its concerns and criticisms directly to the Chief Constable, and he was clear, direct and professional enough to state publicly that he regarded the performance here on Friday as being somewhat inappropriate.

There are also doubts about the British Government's handling of the situation, if we are to believe the stories in the papers that seem to be coming from sources close to the NIO. How much did they know? When did they know it? Did they have reason to believe that something serious was afoot, but, for reasons of expediency, did nothing, and now, for different reasons of expediency, have decided to do something about it? Those are some of our suspicions and concerns. People who previously did not want to rock the boat may have decided that it is now time to scare the horses with something. We simply do not know.

There are fundamental concerns about whether Sinn Féin or the wider Republican movement or a paramilitary element were involved in an extensive, systematic exercise to purloin information and to intercept political or other intelligence information. Republicans, Nationalists and Unionists have concerns and suspicions, though they may express them in different ways. It may be a case of everyone advertising his prejudices in this situation, but, in all the finger-pointing, speculation and counter-accusation of the past few days, let none of us get away from the fact that the concerns and suspicions are not entirely unexpected or invalid, given our experiences throughout the process and also given our experiences with each other.

We must therefore brace ourselves for a crash and prepare for the latest stage of the blame game. We must not gloat at the crash, as some anti-agreement people are clearly preparing to do. We must prepare ourselves for the task of ensuring that we preserve the democratic hopes and expectations that attach to the Assembly.

The agreement set up new arrangements and created new guarantees and protections for both Unionists and Nationalists. The agreement is a covenant of honour between Unionism and Nationalism, and the protections and equality that it affords stand now and for the future, regardless of what the constitutional status of Northern Ireland might be.

Whatever happens in the next few days - and I do not want anyone to do anything that cannot be undone - the agreement remains the only agenda for many of us. Its principles, models, protections and commitments remain the agenda. If we are going to restore democratic potential and hope and get back to the prospect of dealing with the cultural, environmental, social and economic issues that we, as an Assembly, have been grappling with, it will be through the model of this agreement.

That is not to say that, in restoring the agreement, we do not all have to look for deep answers to the questions of the last few days. We do not know enough to do what some people want - to exclude Members. I know what the accusations are; we have heard many stories and much speculation. However, we do not have facts or material evidence. We do not know what other people claim to know, and this is not the time to plunge democracy into the unknown.

I have just returned from visiting a primary school in one of the most socially deprived areas of Belfast. The teachers, parents and children who greeted me there were absolutely delighted that I announced this morning that the 11-plus is to be abolished. I was conscious that this morning's debate took place against the backdrop of a seriously crisis-ridden political situation with the Democratic Unionist and Ulster Unionist Parties vying with one another in their threats to withdraw from the institutions.

I was struck by the reality that many children in the state depend on all the Members. I do not exclude the DUP or the other rejectionist Unionists. The children depend on all of us to make the proper decisions to enable us to provide a first-class, modern education system - [Interruption].

Order.

- and we should not lose sight of that. Not only are we responsible for their education; we are responsible for their entire future. We have a responsibility to ensure that the political process works, that it deals with the causes of conflict, removes them and ensures that political leaders move forward together.

I am one of those people from the Republican tradition who want to work with the Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Robert McCartney, the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP and the other parties in the Assembly to make the place where we live a better place. That journey has undoubtedly been difficult for everyone. The process is imperfect, and the peace on our streets is imperfect, but the place we are in today is far better than it was 10 years ago. If we only work at the process, in 10 years from now it will be an even better place.

The debate has been dominated by the events of last Friday when the PSNI raided the Sinn Féin offices in this Building. Did it do that for two disks? I am holding the two disks, which were returned to Sinn Féin by lawyers 30 minutes ago. Obviously, there is nothing on them.

Serious questions have been asked about why that raid was authorised. Behind the almost ludicrous situation - and Mr Hugh Orde apologised yesterday for the way in which the raid was conducted - lies an implicit question about whether he was aware that the raid was going to take place. It also begs questions about what was going on last Friday and what agenda was at play.

If Members examine the way in which the process has moved forward, and the way in which policing has not moved forward in line with the full terms of the Good Friday Agreement, they will not be able to escape the reality that the old RUC vanguard is still in the PSNI with its own agenda. It has been working flat out to undermine the Republican contribution to the peace process - [Interruption].

Order.

Why does it do that? It does it because it cannot accept the type of change that has come about thus far. It does it because it cannot face up to the reality that more change is required. Legislative amendments are required to bring policing legislation into line with the Patten Report to deliver the fully accountable and representative policing service that this community needs.

If anything proves our case, quite apart from all our submissions, it is the events of last Friday. They show that we still do not have the accountable and representative policing service that we deserve. We should also face up to a further analysis: those represented by such people as Alan McQuillan cannot abide the type of political change that has taken place through the Good Friday Agreement. They sympathise with and are loyal to rejectionist Unionists, and they are beavering away continuously to undermine the Good Friday Agreement.

Is it in order for a commander in the IRA to target Alan McQuillan, the Assistant Chief Constable of the PSNI, as he has done in this debate?

The Member is not raising a point of procedural order in what he is saying.

Of course, that brings us to the heart of the present difficulties. The reason that we are in difficulty today is the Ulster Unionist Council meeting of two weeks ago. At that meeting, the Ulster Unionist Council effectively slipped into anti-agreement mode at the behest of Jeffrey Donaldson, David Burnside and those rejectionist forces that cannot abide equality. Mr Donaldson's mentor is Lord Molyneaux. I often recall his very significant words, hours after the first IRA cessation in 1994, when he described it as the most destabilising event since partition. I also remember how Willie Ross, probably one of the most honest rejectionists on the Ulster Unionist side, was asked why he did not like the Good Friday Agreement. He said very clearly on television that it was because Unionists were in the majority and he believed that the majority should rule. He said that he was opposed to power sharing and all-Ireland institutions. Now we have seen - and I take no satisfaction whatsoever from it -

Will the Member give way?

I cannot give way; I do not have the time. It saddens me to see the leadership of the Ulster Unionist Party effectively throwing in its lot with the rejectionists, vying with one another to see who can get out of these institutions the quickest. That is a betrayal of our children. It is political cowardice of the worst kind.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Order. I shall take points of order in a moment.

Of course, those people -

I am afraid the Member's time is up. I shall take the point of order.

Can you confirm that this Assembly is constituted under the Belfast Agreement, which is dependent on the Mitchell principles, and that if a party fails to adhere to those principles, the agreement and the party's presence in this Assembly are in question?

I am afraid that I cannot oblige the Member in what he says precisely. The Assembly is constituted on Acts of the Westminster Parliament which clearly identify how the matter to which he refers - that of the exclusion of a party which does not enjoy confidence - can be dealt with. I believe it is in section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

The events of Friday last were, objectively speaking, not the most significant of the past four years. Even if the charges made in this case were proven and sustained, it would be clear that much more significant events have taken place in this process over that time.

No one could say that Friday's events were more significant than the IRA's murder of 13 people during its so-called ceasefire. No one could say that they were more significant than the shooting of 160 people during its ceasefire. Nor could anyone say that they were more significant than the paramilitary beatings of 250 people during its ceasefire. Nor could anyone say that they were more significant than the IRA's gunrunning from Florida, for which its members were found guilty in the courts. Nor could anyone say that they were more significant than training narco-terrorists in Colombia. Nor could anyone say that they were more significant than breaking into the Special Branch headquarters in Castlereagh. Nor, indeed, were they more significant than their attempts to cause difficulty along the interfaces in Belfast and the shooting of five of my constituents in the Cluan Place area. They were all major events. Therefore, while it is significant, it is in line with many previous events.

Friday was the straw that broke the camel's back, and it was a reality check for many people. Perhaps it is the imminence of an election that brought fear into the UUP and a recognition that it must do something different.

I want to respond to some of the points raised in the debate. The SDLP's position is one of pious hypocrisy. Its members stand up with lily-white hands and attempt to blame everyone inside and outside the Chamber for the difficulties that now attend the peace process. Throughout the process they had the power to deal with those who were inextricably linked to violence, but they did not. They had the opportunity to sign and support an exclusion motion, but they did not take it. How many people had to be killed by the IRA before members of the SDLP would act? They never had the guts to take on the Provisional IRA's representatives in the House. They need not come before the House now and cry crocodile tears over the breakdown of the institutions. They had the power to do something about it but were silent. It ill-becomes the leader of the SDLP to lecture the House and tell it that there will be no agenda other than the failed agenda that is going down the tubes. The people will decide what the agenda is. The days of dealing with pushover Unionists are past. In future, Unionists will be of firmer stock.

The venom that dripped from the lips of the now absent Mary Nelis during her rant only demonstrated that she is politically incontinent. She said that documents are leaked everywhere - a point taken up by the MLA for North Belfast, Gerry Kelly. They suggested that because documents are leaked here, there, and everywhere, that is just as bad as running a spy network at the heart of the Government and stealing Government documents. There is no equating the two. Parliamentarians throughout the world receive leaked documents. They do not, however, set up a spy network to get them. Indeed, none of the documents involved was being put into the public arena. They were listening to what was being said in Government circles and using that information to plan strategies that gave them a distinct advantage in negotiations.

The best that the Alliance Party could do was blame the DUP for moving a motion that was "too bland" - the harshest insult my party received during the debate.

Mr McCartney pointed out that the IRA had used the code name "naïve idiot" during its spying on the Northern Ireland Office to describe the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair.

The Assembly has its own naïve idiots. One of them stood up and admitted to that during the debate. Mr Nesbitt said that his party considered the Belfast Agreement to be

He went on to say:

With tears welling up his eyes he continued:

The members of the UUP trusted the IRA and the Prime Minister and his pledges - that is why they were let down. Every politician has the responsibility to make a political judgement before he or she enters into any agreement. The political judgement that UUP members made will be the one that stands over them, and it is the one that they will have to answer for at the polls.

The political judgement that the UUP made was that the IRA could be trusted. The political judgment that the UUP made was that Tony Blair could be trusted. Mr Nesbitt said:

The reality is that UUP members were warned, yet they walked into the agreement with their eyes wide open.

Mr Nesbitt says that those who are linked to terrorism cannot have a place in the Government. What a truism. It seems strange that it took four years for that to dawn on him. We told him that in the run-up to the referendum. We told him that during the Assembly elections. We have been telling him that for four years, as we have tabled exclusion and no-confidence motions in this House, but he and his party were not prepared to listen then. Of course, those who are inextricably linked to violence cannot be in the Cabinet of Northern Ireland, but the UUP voted for that.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In talking about polls, will Mr Robinson not accept that it was DUP interference - [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order, order. Please continue, Mr Robinson.

The Minister of Education managed to choke back the tears when he told us how he had met some young schoolchildren and how we had a responsibility for their future. Of course, he also has a responsibility for the past and the present. As a commander on the army council of the IRA, he took all the decisions to kill people over a number of years in Northern Ireland. He decided to send people to Colombia, the Northern Ireland Office, Castlereagh and Florida. He has a very real responsibility for the circumstances that we now face, and he cannot wash his hands of that.

The one constant feature of the Sinn Féin/IRA rhetoric is that it can point the finger at the Northern Ireland Office, at Unionists, at the RUC and at the PSNI, but it never looks at its own sins and the evil within its organisation. Its members are the guilty men; they are responsible for perpetuating violence in Northern Ireland, and there is no need for - [Interruption].

Order. One would almost think that people do not want to hear what others are saying.

There is no need for Francie "We'll go back to what we do best" Molloy to try to lecture anybody in this House, because the IRA has gone back to what he thinks that it does best.

The Ulster Unionist Party must now face up to the reality that no spin, briefings, revisionism, smoke or mirrors will change the fact that its members were taken for fools. They trusted the IRA, and the IRA let them down. John Taylor had the gut feeling that the IRA was genuine, but it turned out to be nothing more than indigestion.

The DUP was right. Its position has been vindicated, yet it took four years and an impending election for the Ulster Unionist Party to face that reality. The Belfast Agreement has been a fools' charter for Unionism. Never again should Unionists trust the Provisional IRA. Never again should Unionists support those who have destroyed the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Never again should the Unionist community place its future in the hands of the Ulster Unionist Party. That party bears the responsibility for the elevation of the Provisional IRA and the damage that has been done to the Union.

I will end where I began: Friday 4 October was not a more serious incident than those that we have witnessed over the last four years. It only lifted the veil and shook reality into this failed and discredited process.

There seems to be unanimity in the Assembly. [Laughter].