Mr Haughey:

I shall try to address the issues in the order in which they were raised.

In response to the intervention by Dr Ian Paisley, may I say that it was not my intention or that of my co-Chairman, Mr Cobain, not to refer the issues in the letter to the Committee on Standing Orders. The question that we considered was whether that necessitated an extraordinary meeting of the Committee, and we decided that it did not. Dr Paisley may disagree with that judgement, but we made it in light of the circumstances.

12.00

Ms Rodgers, the Member for Upper Bann, raised the issue of provision for the Irish language. It is obvious from the debate this morning, and from other debates, that a number of Members wish to speak from time to time in Irish. Indeed some Members may wish to speak in Ullans. There is agreement in the Standing Orders Committee that Members may use whichever language they please.

One of the earliest agreements which was made between the parties who participated in the Brooke-Mayhew talks in 1992/93 was that one's cultural identity could only be determined by oneself, that Members, other public representatives and other citizens in Northern Ireland had no option but to accept a citizen's right to his chosen cultural identity. That was one of the earliest agreements that was made and banked, and I am sorry that this has not been reflected in the behaviour of certain Members of the House this morning. Unfortunately no Standing Order can imbue with natural courtesy and dignity those who appear to be bereft of it.

In response to an early intervention from Mr McCartney, the Member for North Down, I have to agree with him that the provision of facilities for translation is essentially not a matter for the Committee on Standing Orders. It is a matter, in present circumstances, for the Administration, headed by the Secretary of State, and will only become a matter for the Assembly when it assumes authority from the Secretary of State. So, in present circumstances, much of our discussion is largely futile.

In response to Mr Hussey who intervened later in the discussions, I can only say to him that I sometimes have difficulty understanding Members who speak in English.

In response to Mr Close, the Member for Lagan Valley, I thank him for his kind remarks and note his comments on the matter of the change of designation.

Mr Adams also referred to the question of language. May I say to him, as well as to others, that Members may speak in the language of their choice - that has been agreed by the Standing Orders Committee - and a Standing Order reflecting this will be put to the House in due course. The question of provision for simultaneous translation is currently a matter for the Secretary of State, and it may be that the Executive will wish to present proposals and to make budgetary provision for such simultaneous translation in due course.

Mr McCartney, the Member for North Down, then spoke later, and I agree with him again. His point is correct that no objection in principle was raised in the Committee to the provision of interpretation facilities. The only question that has been raised is the question of cost. There is, however, a perfectly responsible difference of opinion within the Committee on the consequences for order in debate as a result of the choice of certain Members to speak in a language that is not understood by all Members. This question will however become irrelevant if simultaneous translation is, in due course, provided.

Mr J Kelly, the Member for Mid Ulster, raised a question which I believe was adequately dealt with by the Initial Presiding Officer.

Mr ONeill, the Member for South Down, then spoke, and I note his comments on the right of free speech. May I thank him for his kind comments in relation to the work done by Mr Cobain, myself and the other members of the Committee.

Mr Dodds, the Member for North Belfast, then spoke, and I would point out to him that there was no barracking of him by me or any other member of my party.

Mr McElduff, the Member for West Tyrone, is correct to point out that provision for the Irish language, and possibly also for Ullans, is a question that properly derives from the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement, and many references to this question are to be found in the Agreement.

I note too the comments of Mr Molloy. The points that he made on this matter were similar to the points made by other Members.

Mr Beggs asked about the cost of installing translation facilities and that should be easily obtained since such a facility was available in the National Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin.

Mrs de Brún raised the issue of language in relation to asking Ministers questions, and that is obviously a matter which the Committee on Standing Orders will need to look at. I thank the Member for raising that point.

Mr Campbell:

I am sure Mr Haughey is not wishing to mislead the House regarding the Committee's discussions about simultaneous translation provision, but it would be accurate to say that no substantive discussion has taken place, let alone agreement having been obtained in principle to it.

Mr Haughey:

I did not say that there was agreement in principle on the provision of a simultaneous translation facility; I said that there was no issue of principle raised in opposition to the provision of simultaneous translation. The only question raised was one of cost. That is an accurate reflection of the discussions which took place.

Mr Peter Robinson raised the matter of courtesy and discourtesy, and I note his comments very carefully indeed.

He also raised the issue of flags and emblems and that is currently a matter for the Secretary of State, whom I have briefed on the discussions involving the Committee on Standing Orders. This issue will only become a matter for the Assembly when it assumes power.

Mr Cedric Wilson asked about the cost to the taxpayer of providing simultaneous translation. Expressions of the cultural identity of our separate traditions do involve occasionally a cost to the taxpayer, and, indeed, it might reasonably be asked whether the provision of simultaneous translation in this House - which Ms Rodgers has pointed out would be relatively easy to install and would not be overly expensive - might not help express the Nationalist cultural identity. This would not be an unreasonable burden on the Exchequer, especially given the cost to the Exchequer of other exercises in cultural expression. It is a perfectly reasonable point to make.

I also note Mrs Nelis's points about courtesy and discourtesy.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Assembly takes note of the progress report prepared by the Committee on Standing Orders.

Assembly: 
Unparliamentary Language

TOP

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Remarks were made by a Sinn Fein Member about behaviour. Although the Member did not name anyone, I ask you, Sir, to give the Assembly a ruling at its next sitting after you have read those remarks because they are serious and cast aspersions on the Chair.

Mr Adams:

I will name a Member - William McCrea. When Mrs Nelis was speaking he said - and it was not conversational - "Go back to the kitchen and get out." I consider that to be a sexist remark.

Rev William McCrea:

That is totally untrue. That is the last thing that I will take from the likes of Adams, who represents an organisation that has tried to silence me completely.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. A number of comments and claims have been made about things that have been said. I will study the Record of these proceedings as I have studied the Records of previous proceedings.

I give rulings as close to the time as I can, and I am grateful when Members raise these matters at the time rather than subsequently, and with hindsight, as sometimes happens. But we must look at the record. I have noticed Members making comments to each other on all sorts of different matters which may not even have been related to what was going on in the Chamber. I will study the record.

I will also study and respond appropriately to the particular questions that Dr Paisley raised about references to the Chair.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Further to that point of order, Mr Presiding Officer. Would it not be in order for Mr Adams to withdraw the lie that he told about my Colleague Rev William McCrea?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Dr Paisley knows very well that he sails close to the wind sometimes with the language that he uses, but he is a skilled and experienced man who knows just how close to sail without doing any damage.

Mr Adams:

I noted Mr McCrea's remark. It would be more appropriate if he apologised to Mrs Nelis.

Rev William McCrea:

I will not be responding to anything Adams says, and as far as I am concerned, if he does not know or he cannot listen to the truth, that is not my fault. I did not make the comments that it has been said that I made, but I do not want an apology from Mr Adams. I want the Sinn Fein movement to apologise to the members of my family for trying to wipe them out with an AK47.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I must ask Members to take their seats. Indications that we have had from the Committee on Standing Orders suggest that we should respect each other and respond to each other with courtesy, even when that is difficult.

I have to say, Mr McCrea, that to refer to Mr Gerry Adams as "Adams" is not in keeping with proper Assembly or Parliamentary procedure. We all need to calm down a little and behave more respectfully, as we have before.

Mrs I Robinson:

If my Colleague had made those remarks, I would have been offended because I too am a woman and would have found them totally unacceptable. However, I would have made a mark and responded accordingly.

Mr J Kelly:

There is a mode of address in Standing Orders, and that should be used.

Statements by First Minister (Designate) and Deputy

TOP

The Initial Presiding Officer:

We now come to the Statements from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). I propose to take the statements now and then suspend the sitting for lunch. The statement should be available to Members in the Printed Paper Office immediately after it has been made to the House. After lunch Members will be free to respond, ask questions and make comments on its content in line with the time limits which were imposed when the Initial Standing Orders were debated.

Members who have experience in other places will know that, following a statement there is usually a question-and-answer session. However, given the important issues that are involved here, I am grateful to the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) for agreeing to a somewhat unusual extension of time so that the Assembly can have its say. At the end of the Assembly's consideration of the statement, the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) will have an opportunity to respond, if they wish.

12.15 pm

The First Minister (Designate) (Mr Trimble):

The Deputy First Minister (Designate) and I are grateful for this opportunity to make a statement to the Assembly on a number of matters, namely: the Industrial Development Board's North American Investment Roadshow; the departmental structures; the North/South Ministerial Council; the British/Irish Council; the Civic Forum; and the forthcoming Brussels conference for Assembly Members.

In the first part of the statement I shall report on the North American investment roadshow, departmental structures and the British/Irish Council. The Deputy First Minister (Designate) will then deal with the North/South Ministerial Council, the Civic Forum and the Brussels conference.

The Deputy First Minister (Designate) and I formally launched the North American Investment Roadshow in New York on 7 October 1998. The baton was subsequently taken up by Mark Durkan and Jeffrey Donaldson, who unfortunately had to cut short his involvement due to a family bereavement. He was replaced by Danny Kennedy. I want to thank all of them for the work that they have put in to this important initiative.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced this initiative in May of this year as part of his £315 million package of special assistance to Northern Ireland. The express aim of the Chancellor's initiative is to underpin the economic aspects of the Belfast Agreement.

The North American Roadshow is the culmination of months of meticulous planning on the part of the Industrial Development Board. I acknowledge the personal involvement of the Chancellor - who was with us in New York -, the Secretary of State, Economy Minister, Mr Adam Ingram MP, Dr Alan Gillespie, the Chairman of the Industrial Development Board and the Industrial Development Board's Chief Executive, Mr Bruce Robinson.

The programme also included our attendance at the launch of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board's overseas market initiative in New York on 8 October 1998, also attended by Roy Bailie, Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.

By the end of this programme it is estimated that 1,100 key decision-makers in North America will have been directly briefed on the investment opportunity represented by Northern Ireland.

Three major investments have already been secured during the programme. Firstly, Boston-based Segue Software have announced a world-wide technical support centre in Belfast which will create 45 jobs over the next three years. Secondly, the major American insurance company Allstate Corporation, which has more than 20 million customers, has decided to establish a subsidiary in Northern Ireland which will create 250 new jobs. This will be the first offshore IT operation for the Allstate group. Thirdly - and this will not be in the printed statement because it only came to hand a short time ago - Nortel Networks, the Canadian-owned telecommunications company, has just announced that it is going to recruit 150 hardware and software design engineers at its Northern Ireland telecommunications engineering centre at Monkstown - a £4.7 million expansion which will see employment at the centre rise to 525 by 2001.

One of the really good features of the roadshow was the way in which North American businessmen, such as Ian Craig of Nortel, came to each presentation and spoke very strongly in support of the opportunities and of their very positive experiences in Northern Ireland. That was a very significant part of it.

The Industrial Development Board has also announced the opening of its fourth representative office in the United States which will be located in Boston.

The real success of programmes of this nature can only be measured over a period of years, just as each of the announcements made in the course of it have had a gestation period running back several months - in other words, before the roadshow began.

Turning to political developments, in our 14 September interim report to the Assembly, we presented a summary of the initial views on departmental structures expressed to us by the parties during the course of a series of meetings in early September. In addition to comments made by parties at the 14 September debate, we subsequently received written submissions from several parties. We have been taking advice from officials in the Northern Ireland Civil Service on the suggestions on departmental structures which have been made by the parties to date.

We have also been giving consideration to the functions of government which should be handled by the First and Deputy First Ministers. It is likely that the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers will have responsibility for providing the Secretariat to the Executive Committee and, possibly, also for the North/South Ministerial Council and the British/Irish Council.

Other functions could be added. For example, in most systems of government it is also normally the responsibility of a central Department to co-ordinate the activities of Government across the span of Departments, and to have responsibility for the management of the legislative programme. These are matters on which we would welcome the comments of the parties.

A further matter of importance is the question of whether junior ministerial posts should be established. The Northern Ireland Bill will provide for that, and will make it the responsibility of the First and Deputy First Ministers to determine a procedure for the appointment of such junior Ministers, subject to the approval of the Assembly. It will be important to have the views of parties, on the desirability of creating junior ministerial posts.

The Deputy First Minister and I have taken time to reflect on the views that have already been expressed to us by the parties in the course of our earlier consultations with them and in the written submissions which we have subsequently received. In doing so, I think it would be right to say that we are conscious of the fact that there is still some distance to travel before a definitive set of proposals on departmental structures and other issues can be arrived at. At the same time, we are both very conscious of the fact that we have been tasked by this Assembly to bring forward proposals on these and other matters. That is a responsibility in which we invest considerable significance.

I should like to take this opportunity to once again emphasise my commitment and that of the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to the implementation of the Belfast Agreement in all its aspects. We are committed to moving forward as quickly as possible to ensure that we discharge our responsibilities - not only to this Assembly but to the community at large in Northern Ireland.

Consequently, we have decided to initiate a further round of intensive consultations with all the parties in the Assembly. The purpose of those consultations is to enable us to complete our work on the possible shape of the new Northern Ireland administration and on the other institutions and areas of activity which the Agreement requires to be put in place. It is our intention to issue an invitation this evening to each of the parties in the Assembly to participate in those consultations.

I would now like to speak about the British/Irish Council. Work is proceeding on that issue also, and it is the responsibility of the constitution unit of the Cabinet Office in London. That is because of the international aspects of the subject matter. I understand that two documents are in preparation. The first of those is a formal memorandum of understanding between the British and Irish Governments. That will be necessary under the Belfast Agreement to bring the Council into operation.

The second document will contain draft procedural guidance dealing with the administrative arrangements for the Council. In addition, preparatory meetings have been held with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man to explain the nature of the British/Irish Council. The islands have indicated their willingness to participate in the Council. Since the new devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales will not come into existence until the summer of 1999, as a temporary arrangement the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales will represent the Scottish and Welsh interests.

We would welcome contributions from the parties on how the work of this important new Council is to be taken forward. Our current assumption is that the first meeting of the Council in shadow form will take place in London at approximately the same time as the first meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council. Again, these and other practical matters can be discussed at the consultations which are to begin later this week.

The Deputy First Minister (Designate) (Mr Mallon): I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the First Minister about the Industrial Development Board Roadshow. I thank all the officials and Ministers who were involved in it and express satisfaction at the news today that Nortel is to expand its investment here. It was a very intensive visit. One of the benefits is that we got an insight into not just what was done but also what might be done and into ways in which the enormous potential could be fully realised. We could learn from that.

We had the satisfaction in Denver, Colorado, of hearing remarkably good news, not about inward investment but about the Nobel Peace Prize for the people of the North of Ireland through John Hume and David Trimble.

We recognise that despite the best efforts of everyone - I say everyone because I believe that people have worked in good faith on this issue, and I was in a position to see it at first hand - the deadline of 31 October will pass without the formation of the Executive or the inaugural meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council and the British/Irish Council.

That is the price we are paying for the deadlock on decommissioning, and it is a very high price. On the day of the referendum the Agreement ceased to belong to any Prime Minister, any political party or any section of the people in the North of Ireland. The people of the North of Ireland took ownership of that Agreement and mandated us to implement it. The will of the people has been denied. We, the representatives of those people, have been denied our proper role and responsibility to form an Executive and to scrutinise its work.

The date on which the machinery of government will come under the control of locally elected politicians remains uncertain. When I consider the many serious problems facing Northern Ireland - problems in agriculture, the uncertainty over hospitals, the decline in business confidence - I feel a deep sense of frustration, which, I believe, is shared by all Members of the Assembly, especially as people realise the enormous opportunity and potential that exist at this time. We can hold debates and pass motions, but if we are serious and want to be taken seriously we must face up to and resolve with urgency the immediate issues blocking the way to the formation of the Executive - not just decommissioning but also the structures of government and the areas for North/South implementation and co-operation. The First Minister (Designate) has already covered what needs to be done as regards departmental structures.

Sixthly, let me now outline what has been happening in respect of North/South matters and propose a way forward.

Following a series of bilaterals with the parties in early September we received a written submission from one party only: Sinn Fein. It is vital that other parties now make their views known to us. I readily accept that in those bilaterals much of the discussion was taken up with the determination of Departments. I ask that all parties now submit in writing their proposals for the implementation bodies.

In addition, the SDLP and the UUP have established a small working group. As Members will recall, we placed in the Library a summary of the technical assessments made by officials, under the authority of Mr Paul Murphy, the Minister for Political Development, of the 12 areas for co-operation and implementation listed in the Agreement.

We subsequently requested copies of the detailed assessments themselves, together with detailed assessments of 11 further areas. We have arranged today for copies of those technical assessments that have been completed to be placed in the Library and shall arrange for the other assessments to be added as they become available.

Officials have had a series of meetings with Irish Government officials from the Departments of the Taoiseach and of Foreign Affairs. These have covered the preliminary steps to be taken in advance of the inaugural meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, including the preparation of a draft memorandum of understanding setting out an agreed approach to the proceedings and operation of the Council, along with the possible venue and outline agenda for the inaugural meeting.

12.30 pm

Meetings have also taken place between officials from Northern Ireland Departments and Irish Departments in order to try to clarify issues arising from the technical assessments undertaken, referred to above, and to allow the Irish Departments to present their views on technical matters associated with possible implementation bodies.

It is therefore clear that most of the necessary technical preparatory work is well advanced. We must now generate the momentum of inter-party discussion on these matters, in particular the choice of areas for co-operation and implementation - and I know that this view is shared by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach.

We are proposing, as with departmental structures, a further round of intensive consultations involving round-table discussions and shall this evening be issuing the appropriate invitations to each of the parties in the Assembly. This will allow us to speedily finalise the proposals that we will ultimately put to the Assembly. The Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and their officials have assured us that they stand ready to help with this task.

If we can get this right and find the best way to associate ourselves with the most successful economy in Europe, then we will have performed a real service to our people - one that is of mutual benefit to the people North and South.

I also wish to deal with the work that is underway with regard to the Civic Forum. We are grateful to all of the parties, almost all of which made written submissions on this matter. We also received a wide range of submissions from outside organisations. Some common themes are emerging, and I wish to give Members a flavour of them.

First, the Forum should complement the work of the Assembly and should not subscribe to the perception that it is in competition with it. Neither should it be aspiring to second-Chamber status. Second, it should have no legislative, executive or administrative powers. Third, it should have a close working relationship with Assembly Committees in particular. Fourth, its members should achieve a broad socio-economic, geographic, community and be age-spread and gender-balanced. Fifth, its core should be about 50 members. Sixth, it should focus on a small number of key social, economic and cultural themes rather than seek to comment on all matters. Seventh, in addition to its regular meetings, it should meet periodically in different venues throughout Northern Ireland. Eighth, it should receive formal responses from Ministers concerning its recommendations.

Our officials are finalising a working document which will take account of this input and will outline the steps to be taken to ensure that that body can be established. On this basis we now see merit in intensifying consultations with the parties to expedite the establishment of the Civic Forum. In particular, advice is needed from the parties on the selection of members, the draft constitution and standing orders, the possible work programme and administrative issues such as its venue and secretariat.

My last point concerns the Brussels conference on European affairs. As part of the transitional programme, most Assembly Members will travel to Brussels next week as guests of the European Commission. This is yet another example of the enormous goodwill and interest being shown in the new politics in Northern Ireland and is continued evidence of the commitment of the European institutions to help us resolve our problems.

During the visit we shall be meeting the President of the European Commission, Jacques Santer, together with the Secretary General, Carlo Trojan, both of whom have done so much for us in recent years. We shall also be meeting with Commissioner Wulf-Mathies, who has played a crucial role as regards regional support and the special peace and reconciliation package.

Other key meetings will involve Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler, Social Affairs Commissioner Padraig Flynn and Transport Commissioner Neil Kinnock. At these meetings we must convey, as the First Minister and I sought to do in the United States, that we are serious about building a new competitive, innovative, vibrant region in Northern Ireland, that we are putting the stagnation and the division of the past behind us and that we can and will be worthy partners in the construction of the new expanding Europe. Each of us on that trip will be an ambassador of hope for future prosperity.

We will, in particular, be working closely with and drawing inspiration from, the sustained efforts of our MEPs, Mr Hume, Mr Nicholson and Dr Paisley, with whom we shall be meeting the key members of the European Parliament, including its president, President Gill Robles. In our meetings the First Minister (Designate), and I will be seeking in particular to initiate a positive discussion on the nature and scope of Structural Fund support post 1999 and on the prospect of building on the success of the Special Programme for Peace and Reconciliation.

Last Thursday I took the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister for his support in these discussions and for any special arrangements which might result. He assured me that he would stay in close contact with us, and I am confident of his good will in this matter.

In conclusion, may I offer a reflection on where we find ourselves today, and notably with regard to decommissioning. Last week the First Minister (Designate) and I had the privilege of meeting with President Havel. Before that meeting I took the opportunity to read his essay on 'The Phenomenon of Waiting'. This is an essay which suits the politics of the North of Ireland, and I recommend it, not just for its content but for the beautiful style in which it is written.

In it he talks about how our political impatience sometimes tempts us to coercive manipulation, like the child who tugs at a flower in order to make it grow more quickly. We have learned over months, if not years, that we must have interminable patience and accept that there are issues - like the child tugging at a flower to get it to grow - that cannot be successfully forced. Instead, as President Havel says,

"We must patiently plant the seeds of trust and water the ground well. Just as we cannot fool a plant, we cannot fool history. We must water history as well, patiently and everyday, not just with understanding but with humility and respect for each other."

Let us make a fresh start today to resolve the differences between us. Let us redouble our efforts to put momentum into the implementation process.

We are all politicians. It is our responsibility to solve problems. Failure is not an option, and if failure is not an option, success is our only destination. The road map is clear. We drew it up ourselves and called it the Good Friday Agreement. If there are roadblocks, let us find ways around them. If there are cul-de-sacs, let us reverse out of them and get back on the road. Most of all, let us keep at it with that type of patience that President Havel recommended because the potential for the future that we have within our grasp is something that we, the political leaders of the North of Ireland, cannot, should not and must not ever let go.

The sitting was suspended at 12.39 pm and resumed at 2.00 pm.

Mr Empey:

I want to talk about the North American Roadshow in which the Industrial Development Board and the Government were involved. It was of particular significance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw fit to launch this personally.

We have come a considerable distance in recent years in respect of these matters. Not that long ago, when local authorities in Northern Ireland were beginning to get powers in respect of local economic development, we in Belfast undertook an initial journey to North America, and there was a whole hullabaloo in the press about junkets. What people did not understand was that, particularly in North America, people expect to see politicians leading delegations; they do not expect to be interfacing exclusively with civil servants. Consequently, over recent years, we have been able to break down a lot of barriers and make a lot of contacts.

As the First Minister (Designate) indicated, there is a considerable gestation period between initial contacts and any fruitful outcome. The announcements that were made during the trip, and again today, are evidence of that, and some take longer than others. One deal in particular that was announced during the trip had a comparatively short gestation period. But there is no substitute for an individual making contact over there.

I know that in the next month or so a number of other activities will take place in the North American area. My own council is launching a major trip with 42 companies drawn mostly from the Local Enterprise Development Unit client-list, along with others. I know that Coleraine Borough Council is taking a delegation, and there may well be others. This is all necessary activity.

There is a most important opportunity here, and not simply for inward investment: we must remember that the key to solving a lot of our unemployment problems lies with our own indigenous small and medium-sized enterprises. We hope, therefore, that politicians can create situations where local companies can meet with their counterparts in North America, or wherever else, and conduct business themselves.

Neither the Government nor the Assembly nor other politicians can intervene by trying to act as a substitute for business men. Business people have to do their own things together. Our function is to open doors for local business. Local authorities, along with organisations like the Local Enterprise Development Unit, can share some of the costs with business people and provide them with matchmaking sessions. This is better than having them arrive in a particular city and do what is called "cold calling".

This is an enormous task and one that is very daunting. I welcome the report, and I hope and pray that there will be further success to report in coming months.

With regard to some of the structural matters that both the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) referred to, work has been continuing on the structures of government. But what is very often forgotten by both commentators and even some Members, is the enormity of the task. We are being asked to do in the space of a few months what others in Scotland and Wales have been taking years to do. It is very difficult without any experience of being in government suddenly to be confronted with an organisation that has 39,000 employees, 140 quangos and all other sorts of structures and come up with an instant answer. Indeed it is impossible.

We realise that we need to seek advice and that there are certain things that we will have to learn as we go along, which is not to say that we will not ultimately put our own thumbprint on whatever structures emerge. I suspect that what will evolve over a period of time will not be the same as that with which we started.

The question of internal structures is difficult enough but the issues relating to the North/South Ministerial Council and to the British-Irish Council are also fraught with difficulty. It is not that there is not a willingness to get on with them. Some of us are working very hard to get on with them - others, regrettably, are not; some are not doing anything at all.

The fact remains that we are being slowed down, to some extent, by the absence of Assemblies in Scotland and Wales. The Ulster Unionist Party would have been quite content for meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council and of the British/Irish Council to take place. However, that was prevented by others who interpreted the Agreement differently.

Mr Roche:

Can the Member confirm that the Ulster Unionist Party would have been prepared to continue the development of all-Ireland mechanisms under this Agreement, without having reached agreement on either the machinery of government for Northern Ireland or on the democratic credibility of that government?

Mr Empey:

The Member would be better occupied sorting out his own problems, such as the creation of the "Royal Irish Sióchána", as suggested by one of his colleagues!

I am saying that the Agreement stated that consultation would take place between the Irish Government and representatives of the Assembly in order to identify areas for co-operation by 31 October. That seems to have escaped many people's attention.

I believe that we are not far from identifying these areas, and that there will be a proper debate in the Chamber on the extent of those contacts and the matters that are to be raised.

The issue which hangs over the whole process is the commitment of people who are eligible, or may become eligible, to participate in the Executive to exclusively non-violent and peaceful means. In my view that is the core of the Agreement. We will hear later, just as we heard this morning, Sinn Fein representatives trying to throw sand in the air, and saying that the UUP is holding the whole thing up.

Any sensible interpretation of the Agreement will show that it refers on a number of occasions, including in the pledge of office and its opening paragraphs, to the need for commitment to exclusively peaceful and non-violent means. There is an incompatibility between that commitment and the operation and control of a fully armed and active paramilitary organisation.

The UUP, like the whole community, is expecting to see that we have moved from the position we have been in for three decades to a new situation where people rely exclusively on peaceful and democratic means to try to persuade people to acknowledge their point of view. That should be based on nothing other than their arguments and their votes. Sadly, that is not the case.

What we want now is activity, and the sooner that happens the better. That is the only remaining obstacle to full implementation of the Agreement. It would be naive to sweep it under the carpet and pretend that it does not have to be addressed, or that it is not included in the core of the Agreement. I look forward to seeing that matter resolved. I look forward to seeing actions as well as words for nothing less will satisfy the demands of the community.

That said, we now have a wonderful opportunity because, returning to the matter which we referred to earlier, namely the promotion of Northern Ireland abroad, on the back of the Agreement and on the back of the award to the First Minister (Designate) and the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mr Hume, there is a welcome for us in the wider international community. People are looking towards Northern Ireland for an example. The members of the European Union are sympathetic - as we shall discover next week. Taking all of this into account, there is a wonderful opportunity to promote Northern Ireland and, as I said at the weekend, I hope that a handful of warlords do not allow their vanity and arrogance to stand in the way.

Mr Farren:

The hopes for economic development that arose, among others, from the Good Friday Agreement could be dashed if our current political logjam remains unbroken. When the tens of thousands of people from both communities voted for that Agreement, they were saying yes to all that it contained, and that included a more secure, prosperous and dynamic economic future.

It is evident from the report that we had this morning from the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) about their recent trip to the United States that in the wake of the Agreement investors are looking more positively at opportunities available in Northern Ireland. Already, significant new investments have been announced with the prospect of several thousand jobs, many of which require high-tech skills - the very kind of new investment that we want to attract.

Over the course of last year, as the prospects for an agreement were emerging, investment was also rising. The Industrial Development Board's recent annual report indicates that a record level of investment was announced in that period. There was news of many world-class companies coming to Northern Ireland, such as Nortel, and new investment promised by companies like the Abbey National, British Telecom and the Prudential. This is evidence of the confidence that investors now have that Northern Ireland is a very attractive location.

It is not only overseas investors who are looking more positively at the opportunities provided in Northern Ireland; local investors and local companies are also planning to expand. In the period running up to the Agreement, 80 companies agreed projects with the Industrial Development Board involving investment of over £700 million, promising more than 7,000 jobs and safe-guarding a further 4,000 jobs. This is the kind of progress that the people who elected us want to see enhanced as a result of the Good Friday Agreement. We must work together to ensure that Northern Ireland becomes an even more attractive location for investment.

As I have been urging recently, we need to examine all aspects of our investment packages to see how that can become a reality, and we must include an examination of the advantages which fiscal discretion might provide, especially with respect to narrowing the huge advantage which the Republic of Ireland enjoys with its low rate of corporation tax - an issue frequently raised with our two Ministers during their visit to the United States of America.

2.15 pm

While much important work has been undertaken, what people see is delay. They see the re-emergence of some of the old rhetoric of blame, counter-blame and recrimination.

There is evidence of delay in agreeing departmental portfolios, despite the fact that much work and discussion on the issue has been undertaken by several of the parties. Delay in establishing the North/South Ministerial Council is also evident. Progress can also be recorded on identifying the areas for enhanced co-operation and for the establishment of implementation bodies. However, if prolonged, these delays will almost inevitably begin to raise question marks over all the prospects and hopes in the Good Friday Agreement, not the least of which are prospects for economic progress. We cannot allow such questions to be raised and must ensure, therefore, that the impasse is broken.

There is a clear responsibility on all who signed the Good Friday Agreement to live up to the commitments that are contained in it, not just in the letter but also in the spirit. Progress has been made on many aspects of the Agreement, and I would single out the progress on prisoner releases. Painful memories are stirred by the highly publicised releases of people, many of whom were convicted of heinous crimes. Despite the painful memories that are evoked by those releases, there has been a general acceptance that they are an essential part of our peace process and of the process of binding the wounds that were inflicted on both our communities over the past 30 years.

The decommissioning of paramilitary weapons must be seen as part of the same process of peace. That process, which is as much a part of the Good Friday Agreement as the commitments on prisoners, on policing, on security and on equality and justice, must be implemented. The requirements include agreement that the resolution of a decommissioning process is an indispensable part of the process of negotiation. By that statement, the signatories accepted that decommissioning had to be resolved.

Secondly, the signatories accept that the schemes that are to be developed by the independent International Commission on Decommissioning together with the two Governments, represent the basis for achieving decommissioning.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the signatories all confirmed their intention to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission and to use any influence that they may have to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following the endorsement of the Good Friday Agreement.

This third commitment requires demonstrable action to show that parties are working constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission and are using whatever influence they have to advance decommissioning. Such action must be evident to us all. It is not sufficient merely to indicate that nothing can be done when there is no evidence of what is being tried.

Clear evidence that parties are doing all that they can to bring about decommissioning in the period laid down would, together with an early start to the process itself, provide the needed reassurance of a total and absolute commitment to an exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences on political issues.

It would also show our opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose to which the Agreement has committed us all. An absolute and total commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means allows for no equivocation on the question of decommissioning.

I recognise that taking the gun out of Irish politics is a daunting task but if, as the paramilitaries own pronouncements suggest, there is a genuine desire among them for peace and for the establishment of a lasting democratic society in Ireland - one that will evolve by agreement - they will have to accept that decommissioning their weaponry is essential and is, from their perspective, an honourable part of creating that democracy. The Good Friday Agreement is the best chance that has ever been provided for the achievement of that democracy. It has received an overwhelming endorsement from the people of Ireland, and it must be allowed to progress in all its facets if we are to realise that democracy.

As the Deputy First Minister (Designate) put it so eloquently this morning, "We have no option but to succeed." We in the SDLP look forward to participating in the initiatives that were announced this morning and that are to be taken later this week towards hastening that success.

Mr P Robinson:

At its first meeting on 1 July 1998, the Assembly charged the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to present to the Assembly proposals on a range of matters. They were required to bring that report to the Assembly by 14 September. On 14 September they delivered a report that was distinguished by the absence of the smallest grain of a proposition within it.

Their failure then and now to do the job we set them has nothing to do with lack of advice. On their staff there are 31 party hacks and civil servants paid for from the public purse, and another half dozen are winging their way to join them within the next 10 days. So 117 days later we are no further on than when we first sent them off to do a simple job. For the task they were asked to perform was simple - almost perfunctory.

The failure of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to execute the Assembly's charge is not due to the difficulty of determining how many posts there should be for the distribution of ministerial responsibility. Rather it is due to the fear of what would happen should they do so. This problem has its roots in the deviousness of certain leaders during the referendum campaign. They found out that the Unionist people would not buy the Agreement they had cobbled together, so they determined to disguise the terms they had negotiated.

They told the Unionist community that terrorists would not be released from prison until decommissioning had occurred. They lied. They told the Unionist community that the RUC would not be endangered by the Agreement's provisions. They lied. They said that all-Ireland bodies would be consultative and not executive. They lied. They said that all North/South bodies would be completely accountable to this Assembly. They lied. They said that the Agreement barred Sinn Fein from taking up Executive posts until decommissioning had taken place. Again they lied.

The Assembly is facing the dilemma over the formation of an Executive precisely because the Agreement did not resolve the question of decommissioning in the way the First Minister (Designate) has claimed. The delay in his producing for the Assembly a report containing substantive proposal is a testament to his ineptitude during the negotiations. If he wanted the Agreement to exclude Sinn Fein - [Interruption]

I thought I might have to dangle a little more bait before somebody would bite.

If he wanted the Agreement to exclude Sinn Fein from an Executive unless the IRA decommissioned its illegal weapons he should not have signed up until it did. He should have had it in the Agreement in clear and unequivocal terms that without guns being handed in the formation of an Executive would proceed automatically without Sinn Fein. He did not do that. That is one reason why I and a majority of Unionists voted "No" in the referendum. The dilemma faced by the First Minister (Designate) is therefore of his own making.

What are his options? The first option is that Sinn Fein could come to his rescue to save the united Ireland process that the First Minister (Designate) is fronting. If it does, it would be a token decommissioning, a fig leaf to loosen the wheels. It would not engage in substantial decommissioning or in a scheme for total decommissioning because its only power comes from the barrels of those guns. Without them, Sinn Fein would not be courted by Presidents and Prime Ministers as being important to the process, and it would not have the electoral clout to extract the concessions that it wants. This route would bring only temporary relief to the First Minister (Designate), and those around him know that.

The second option for the First Minister (Designate) is to seek to exclude Sinn Fein from the Executive through the provisions of the Bill that allows the Assembly to exclude those who are not committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods. However, under the undemocratic system that has been established, he needs SDLP approval for such a move, and he has no chance of getting that.

The third option is that of an honest man, who would admit that he had made a mistake and accept that he had entered unwisely into an agreement that could operate only to the disadvantage of those he represents. He might, while cursing his bad judgement, seek to make amends and extricate himself from the self-created mess he was in. A lesser man, however, rather than admit that those who warned him throughout the process were right all the time, would carry on with the farce. That only leaves one option - fudge and plenty of it. No matter how much he protests to the contrary, that is the route he will take. His past leads me to that conclusion. His present stiff opposition to entering an Executive with Sinn Fein compares with his equally stiff opposition to entering talks with Sinn Fein. History records how he crumbled then.

Already, the minions of the First Minister (Designate) are preparing the way for his retreat. His close and trusted Chief Whip was setting course for a climb-down when last Saturday he said

"it is never, in my opinion, a good tactic to nail yourself too firmly to the post. It just may be that on decommissioning a mistake has been made in regard to being so firm. There must be room for manoeuvre."

The 'Belfast Telegraph', in reporting those remarks, concluded

"Mr Wilson is a staunch supporter of Mr Trimble and it is unlikely he would have made his view public without consulting him."

I would go further. It is inconceivable that Mr Wilson would have made such comments if he felt that they were at odds with the views of the First Minister (Designate). We have had no substantial report today because the fudge is still cooking.

Mr McLaughlin:

Go raibh maith agat a Cheann Chomhairle, Members will note that there were separate statements this morning. We should record not only general frustration and disappointment at the lack of progress, but the bad practice that is emerging of submitting statements at the last possible moment. That is unprofessional, and from the outset we must set our faces against such practices.

Next, we will be expected to accept that deadlines can be ignored. The statement contains clear evidence of continuing work, but attempts to camouflage the lack of real and inclusive engagement by, particularly, the First Minister (Designate) with all the Assembly parties.

I turn to the statement on the Industrial Development Board roadshow. The report to the Assembly raises a number of questions. First, there is the matter of the composition of the roadshow. Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon were there representing the Assembly in their capacities as First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate). Neither the Assembly nor the other parties, to our knowledge, were consulted about who should take their places. The roadshow was not, nor should it have been, a party political junket. Who decided that members of the UUP and the SDLP should replace Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon?

Many people have commented on the presence at the roadshow of Mr Jeffrey Donaldson, who is not a Member of the Assembly. Who chose him? Who cleared it? Was it agreed by any party in the Assembly, other than the UUP? Does the Assembly agree that this was a matter for consultation with its Members, notwithstanding the interests of Mr Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

2.30 pm

Although it will be necessary to study in detail today's statement by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), Sinn Fein notes the comments in section 3.2 on the responsibilities of the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers. We have concerns about delegating too much of the decision-making authority of the Assembly, and we will comment on that in writing as we return to this matter.

We welcome the commitment in section 3.6 to intensive consultations with all of the parties in the Assembly. Of course, this should now be established practice, and it is clear that this is one of the failures of the process, thus far, which must be rectified. This section on intensive consultation is silent on when it is intended to conclude the consultation process and submit a detailed report for decision to the Assembly. It will not have escaped anyone's notice that today's meeting of the Assembly should have been considering this report in order to meet Saturday's deadline. Will either the First Minister (Designate) or the Deputy First Minister (Designate) indicate to the Assembly when we can expect a finalised report?

Sinn Fein has honoured and continues to honour the commitments it made in the Good Friday Agreement. It has acted in good faith throughout, both inside and outside this Chamber. In recent weeks its members have held meetings with the British and Irish Governments, Mr Trimble, Mr Mallon, Mr Hume, Gen de Chastelain and other parties in the Assembly. All of these meetings - some of which had to be arranged on our own initiative - are evidence of Sinn Fein's desire to see the Good Friday Agreement implemented in full.

We are making a contribution to the workings of the Assembly and have put forward a number of proposals that reflect this fact. We have proposed in a detailed submission that the Executive should administer 10 Departments, which we have identified, and that there should be all-Ireland bodies for job creation. We have also proposed a merger of the Industrial Development Agency and the Industrial Development Board, and we have made proposals for the Irish language, for tourism, for training young people for work and for implementing Europe's programme of financial aid for this island.

We have also identified a number of other areas for discussion and development. We have given our views on the role of the Civic Forum, and we note the reference in today's statement on it. The proposal for this body, contained in the first draft report submitted by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), was totally unacceptable, but the section in today's statement on the Civic Forum is still far too narrow.

The Forum must have a meaningful and dynamic role. It is an essential part of the new political dispensation for building a new society, and we believe it could assist us in entrenching equality, inclusiveness, openness and community accessibility in this new era. It should be complementary to the workings of the Assembly.

All the work that that has been done is being put in jeopardy by the stance being taken, particularly, by Mr Trimble. His comments at the weekend show clearly that he is in breach of the commitments he made on Good Friday, and while I want to address my remarks specifically to Mr Trimble I also wish to address those others who have signed the Pledge of Office.

Perhaps the difficulty is caused because Mr Trimble is confused about his separate responsibilities as First Minister (Designate) and Leader of the UUP. When he pronounces as the Leader of the UUP that he will continue to behave in an obdurate and discriminatory manner on the civil rights of a significant section of the Nationalist electorate, he must be aware that such behaviour is incompatible with the Pledge of Office.

We all know that Mr Trimble faces opposition from within his own party as well as from some of the other parties within Unionism. During the past week Mr David Brewster, a senior member of the UUP, has made it clear at a number of media interviews that he and many others in his party are fundamentally opposed to the concept of inclusive power-sharing, even if we could find a solution to the problem of decommissioning.

Mr Willie Thompson, in a debate last Wednesday evening in Dublin, went on record when he stated that he believes that decommissioning has the capacity to destroy the Agreement - and if the Agreement falls, Mr Trimble falls.

It is in this context that we must also welcome the remarks of the UUP's Chief Whip, Jim Wilson. There is a dichotomy in mainstream Unionism, and I hope that others too will address that issue.

It is clearly stated in the Good Friday Agreement that Sinn Fein has an automatic right to places on the Executive and on the all-Ireland Council. That right stems from our electoral mandate and from the demonstration that we are delivering our commitments to the Agreement. Neither Mr Trimble nor anyone else can deprive Sinn Fein and its electorate of that to which they are entitled.

Furthermore, Mr Trimble cannot decide - he does not have the right - to exclude Sinn Fein, or any other party for that matter, from the Executive. So flying kites and trying to find some kind of centre-ground agreement simply will not work. There are no preconditions in the Good Friday Agreement - none. All the institutions outlined in that Agreement are interlinked and interdependent. If there is no Executive, there is no Assembly. It is as simple and as straightforward as that.

Mr Trimble is operating under a delusion if he thinks that he can keep Sinn Fein out or delay the implementation of the Agreement. His position as First Minister (Designate) is dependent on his fulfilling the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, and that is dependent on his adopting an inclusive approach to the sharing of political power - a novel experience, I understand, for Unionism. But he cannot be First Minister proper unless there is an Executive, and there cannot be an Executive unless Sinn Fein's rights are accepted.

The overwhelming number of people on this island voted in May for that Agreement. Their wishes cannot be set aside because of internal difficulties in Mr Trimble's party. These are difficulties that he has to overcome.

If the parties fail to agree, it will ultimately be the two Governments' responsibility to implement the Agreement. We do not accept for one moment that the 31 October deadline - some five days away - should be allowed to slip by. We are six months on from the signing of the Agreement. There can be no excuse for further delay. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>