Mr Neeson:

First of all, I should like to congratulate those who visited the United States in an effort to encourage inward investment. I hope that it will bring further success. I myself am going to the west coast later this week at my own expense to promote Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement. The implementation of the Good Friday Agreement is crucial for attracting the investment necessary in Northern Ireland.

Having said that, the schools are on mid-term break, and I must confess that if we were to get a mid-term report, it would say "Failed. Must try harder next term."

The discussions about the Executive and the various Assembly structures should have been dealt with some time ago. Indeed, the whole process should have started some time ago, and I will be very concerned if the 31 October deadline is missed. Were that to happen, I would consider it a breach of the Agreement. It states

"During the transitional period between the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the transfer of power to it, representatives of the Northern Ireland transitional Administration and the Irish Government operating in the North/South Ministerial Council will undertake a work programme, in consultation with the British Government, covering at least 12 subject areas, with a view to identifying and agreeing by 31 October 1998 areas where co-operation and implementation for mutual benefit will take place."

The Agreement is quite clear on this.

Decommissioning is a very important issue and those who attended the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin - the SDLP, Sinn Fein and the Alliance Party - will remember well the question put to F W de Klerk. He was asked whether he had any regrets about the negotiations that took place in South Africa and he said "I regret that we did not concentrate more on decommissioning."

Following the Agreement, responsibility for dealing with the very important issue of decommissioning was placed in the hands of General de Chastelain. During the talks preceding the Agreement we dealt with confidence-building measures also, and we are now seeing those being put into practice as large numbers of prisoners from most paramilitary groups are being released. It is time that corresponding gestures were made by those who hold the guns and weapons.

I want to make particular mention of the disappeared. The whereabouts of the graves of Charles Armstrong, Gerald Anthony Evans, Jean McConville, Kevin McKee, Seamus Wright, John McClory, Brian McKinney, John McIlroy, Columba McVeigh, Brendan McGraw, Sean Murphy, Capt Robert Nairac and Seamus Roddy should be made known.

We have had promises that something would be done about this very important issue, but if Sinn Fein are genuine about building up trust and confidence, I call on them to make a public announcement about this today.

We talk about the silence of the guns and I welcome that silence. Most people in Northern Ireland recognise the contribution this is making to the process. But is this enough? This is a difficult issue, and one that must be dealt with by compromise with those who are directly involved in the conflict.

The report from the First Minister (Designate) and his Deputy promises - by means of bilaterals - intensive discussions on various issues that, I believe, should have been dealt with before now - the question of the structure of the Departments and the North/South issues.

The Deputy First Minister (Designate):

When an Assemblyman is making observations - which he is entitled to do - should he not accurately reflect what was said by either the First Minister (Designate) or myself?

Mr Neeson:

The phrase "intensive discussions" appears in the report that was presented to the Assembly today. The point I am making is that in my view, this should have happened a considerable time ago; in my view, this will now be a lengthy process; and in my view, a much better way of dealing with the issue would have been to form an all-party Assembly Committee similar to the one which deals with procedures and issues related to the running of the Assembly. We must intensify the operation so that we can get agreement on the structures which must be in place and move forward quickly.

Something else which concerns me is the hypocrisy of the political parasites within this Assembly - those who want to see the transfer of powers taking place, those who want to remain within the ambience of Parliament Buildings and continue to receive their cheques at the end of the month. These are the people who are attacking and stabbing in the back those of us who are trying to make progress in the process. That is hypocritical.

2.45 pm

They want power but are not prepared, now or in the future, to take risks as others have done. They must show that they are for real about making this Assembly work and providing the democracy in which the people in Northern Ireland through the Good Friday Agreement and by the elections to the Assembly have now placed their confidence. If we do not move forward there is a serious danger of the Assembly declining into the Forum "mark II". That cannot be allowed to happen.

Mr McCartney:

Is Mr Neeson suggesting that those who are in opposition to a majority ought not to be there? That is a very primitive and curious view of democracy.

Let me move to the main issue. I once prosecuted a dishonest car dealer on the basis that he flogged a car which had a worn out gearbox that was making dreadful noises by filling it with porridge oats. That kept it quiet for a little while but ultimately could not drown out the grinding of the opposing wheels. It is quite clear that the statements made by the First Minister (Designate) and his Deputy are full of porridge, but even that cannot drown out the grinding noise of their differences.

In paragraph 3.5 of his statement, the First Minister encodes his view of the Belfast Agreement by insisting on its "implementation" - and I noted the inflection of his voice - "in all its aspects". He was clearly referring to his party's requirements that the physical surrender and handing over of a substantial quantity of IRA weaponry and explosives be the beginning of an ongoing process leading to complete disarmament.

On the other hand, at paragraph 5.2 the Deputy First Minister (Designate) decries the failure to form the Executive and to hold inaugural meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council and the British/Irish Council as the price paid for the deadlock on decommissioning. And who, according to Sinn Fein, is creating that deadlock? None other than the First Minister (Designate).

So even in this Assembly, with its aspirations to be ecumenical and consensual, we have the First and Second Ministers (Designate) unable to bring a report 'even at this stage' of any substance, because they insist on ignoring, at least in public, the fundamental difference between them. One cannot build a democratic institution upon an arrangement which permits parties inextricably entwined with violent terrorist gunmen into government. One cannot have a Government encompassing members of a party which is supported by a private army that retains the weaponry and explosives to destabilise the state, if their way is not achieved. One cannot have a democratic institution of any worth where one of the parties is exerting the leverage of that military capacity in order to get its own way and unambiguously expresses the view that this process and the Assembly is nothing more than a transitional phase en route to its ultimate destiny of a united Ireland.

Neither the First Minister (Designate) nor his Deputy will face up to that.

It is absolutely essential that no party in Government should in any way be connected with any organisation bearing arms that are not within the compass of the State. That is the position upon which I and the UKUP left the talks. The Deputy First Minister (Designate) quoted a very moving excerpt from a piece written by the Czech president; let me quote another even more famous Czech, the dissident and writer Milan Kundera, who said

"The struggle of the people against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting."

Now let us look at some of the "forgetting"on the subject of decommissioning.

The day after the joint declaration was signed - including paragraph 10, which excluded from the democratic process all those who had not put beyond them any contact with or any sympathy with the use of arms - Dick Spring, then the Republic's Foreign Minister, said in the Dáil

"This means that Sinn Fein cannot come into the democratic process and look around to see what it has to offer and then, if it does not offer what it thinks necessary, go back to doing what it does best".

The then Leader of the Opposition, later Taoiseach, Mr John Bruton said

"The arms must be handed in now. Now is a short word but its meaning is clear - without delay, at once, immediately, forthwith."

Those were major figures in the Republic. The British Government said that there had to be a permanent cease-fire, but after a while they forgot what permanent meant. They said that after three months there would be an assumption of permanence - an assumption that was shown to be absolute rubbish by the huge bomb that went off in February 1996 at Canary Wharf. Why did it go off? It went off because the process needed to be moved forward and the way to move it forward was through murder and mayhem in the City of London.

There was a further period of forgetting. We forgot, and the First Minister (Designate) forgets, that when he decided to stay on in the talks after it had become apparent that Sinn Fein was going to be` let in after a six-week ceasefire and with no decommissioning he stayed on, on the promise - and Members will remember the Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam, jabbering on about a parallel process - that when agreement was reached, decommissioning would be accomplished. There was a period of forgetting about that too.

Then we had the Agreement. As a lawyer I share the view of Sinn Fein that there is no term expressed in that Agreement that requires Sinn Fein, forgetting moral considerations, to decommission. All Sinn Fein has to do is to use such influence as it may have to persuade those with whom it is inextricably entwined to decommission within two years - that is all. That is the legal obligation; it may well be that the First Minister (Designate) and the UUP would like it to be something more, but that is all it is.

There is, nevertheless, a powerful obligation. It is an obligation which is the very foundation of democracy and, therefore, I am at one with the First Minister (Designate) in believing that decommissioning is an essential pre-requisite to this Assembly's moving forward or to an Executive being formed. However, it is not in the Agreement.

And why is it not in the Agreement? It is not in the Agreement because had it been spelt out as it could have been spelt out, in the most expressed and simple terms, Sinn Fein would never have assented to it.

In a sense, Sinn Fein is right in saying that the requirement is not there; it would not have signed the Agreement if it had been there and, therefore, it cannot be held accountable. But what does that do? It throws into bold relief the weakness, the vacillation and the failure to ensure that honourable agreements were expressed in honourable, clear and unambiguous terms, and now the Assembly and the forward movement of the process are hung up on that weakness of those who negotiated the Agreement on behalf of the pro-Union people.

Mr Empey:

What about the weakness of those who ran away?

Mr McCartney:

The frequent interjections by Mr Empey show that he took his Viagra pills today.

One cannot fail to admire the skills of the Sinn Fein negotiators. They ran rings around the First Minister (Designate) and his party, whom I described within two days of the commencement of the talks as putty in the hands of experienced negotiators. They have certainly demonstrated the wisdom and foresight of that remark. There is no doubt whatever that Sinn Fein has achieved its objectives, which were: to have its prisoners released; to have a review of the criminal justice system; to dismantle security surveillance; to reform the RUC; and to have serial murderers running about the streets again. So far, not an ounce of Semtex or a single bullet have been decommissioned, and that will not happen until the ultimate objective of Irish unity has been achieved.

Ms Morrice:

I thank the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) for the report, and particularly for the indication that all party consultations will be stepped up from this evening. It is important to get to grips with the vastly important work that needs to be done in many areas to get the Assembly up and running, and to carry out the work which we have been mandated to do by the Good Friday Agreement and by the people of Northern Ireland.

It would have assisted us in responding fully to the Ministers if we could have seen their statements in advance. However, we will attempt to respond point by point.

We welcome the interest that was shown by American investors on the United States trip, and have two points to make on that. First, we underline the need to ensure that inward investment is sustainable, and secondly, that it is encouraged to develop hand-in-hand with the development of local industry. A parallel approach is important.

The Women's Coalition has already presented a paper to the First Minister (Designate) on departmental structures. In that paper we underlined the importance of an integrated approach to governance. The idea of a central co-ordinating department, which was mentioned this morning, might provide that integration, and would be an important modernisation of our procedures. Secondly, the departmental structures must take account of the move from conflict to political stability.

We welcome the progress so far on the areas of the British/Irish Council and the North/South Council and look forward to speedier progress through consultation. Our paper on the North/South Council is nearing completion. We have consulted businesses, environmental bodies, health, education and other bodies which have interests on both sides of the border. We see that as a valuable component of the Agreement that should work to the benefit of communities on both sides of the border.

3.00 pm

The important issue of the Civic Forum was mentioned. We are pleased that the proposal has generated so much interest inside and outside the Chamber, although probably not enough inside. The themes that the Deputy First Minister (Designate) flagged up reflect our own soundings. In particular, we are pleased to see the gender balance, and the geographic mobility of the Civic Forum have been mentioned. Those are important issues.

We are concerned about some issues. For example, we noted the reference by the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to the definition of key social and economic and cultural themes that will be addressed by the Civic Forum. Members will want clarification on those and on other areas.

As the Assembly did not have advance notice of the statements, Members have had to sketch over these areas, but we have to address the issues on which the debate has focused. In the context of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, the NI Women's Coalition, like other parties, is disappointed that the 31 October deadline does not appear to be realisable.

Part of our problem, which has been recognised in the statements, is that we have been operating without the inclusive negotiating framework that served us so well in the past. The NI Women's Coalition maintains that parties should not seek to reopen negotiations on any point, but should assist in moving forward at a faster rate.

We acknowledge the fears of those who say it is difficult to do business with people whom they perceive to have some responsibility for weapons and their use. Equally, we think that decommissioning will and must be based on trust, and that we have a responsibility to build that trust together. At this time we need to create the building blocks of political accommodation. The bottom line is that if we want people to adhere to the democratic process, we must assert the primacy of the ballot box and the mandate that it delivers. It is only by strengthening the political process that we can reduce the rationale for the use of force. In that way, we can create an environment in which weapons become redundant.

The people of Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly for the Agreement that we so painstakingly pieced together to be fully implemented. They are crying out for political stability and normalisation. We have it within our gift to signal a significant shift to that stability by forming an Executive as soon as possible. Our community wants to see the fruits of the Agreement in which they have invested much faith. We must not let them down. Our shared goal should be to construct and deliver good governance for the people of Northern Ireland. They deserve no less.

Mr Birnie:

There was mention earlier of the taking of certain tablets. As this is my first speech to this august body, I feel like taking a tranquilliser.

I welcome the statements by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), and should like to focus on strands two and three of the agreement.

It is becoming a habit in political speeches to quote poets. In a 1914 poem called 'Mending Wall' Robert Frost wrote

"Good fences make good neighbours."

That is apposite to the UUP's position on strand two. The UUP are taking a positive and realistic view of its moral obligations under the Belfast Agreement. We have three key principles. We are working according to the best precedents of international law; our approach is soundly based on economic theory and practice; and we take cognisance of principles of public administration.

Let us turn now to specifics. We have had mention this afternoon of fudge and porridge - I hope that the following will be eminently more digestible than that. In terms of international law, there are technical problems in establishing joint bodies. The UUP feels that the most appropriate model would probably be what is termed "the International Organisation Model", roughly speaking the legal form currently adopted by the International Fund for Ireland. There are, for example, problems with the Foyle Fisheries Commission, a cross-border body which has existed since 1952. In a sense there is not one but two commissions, established separately in Irish and British law, and that is the cause of difficulties which are increasingly recognised in both Dublin and London.

Whilst this point has often been exaggerated, there are occasions when there are genuine economies of scale through joint work between the two Irish economies, and it is in those areas that North/South co-operation can be fruitful. We wish to avoid any damage to the efficiency and efficacy of our public administration by creating messy and inappropriate links with the Republic of Ireland.

The implementation bodies are precisely that. They are not the place of executive decision-making. That power rests with the Ministers, who are accountable to the Assembly. The UUP view is that the implementation bodies are most likely to work well, to be feasible, where natural conditions create so-called spill-over effects between the two neighbouring states. We see possibilities in areas such as canals, some aspects of agricultural research and the environment. We will consider all cases on their merits. There will be extensive Civil Service technical-paper evaluation lodged in the Library and all Members should look at those and consider these issues carefully.

As to the broader work of the North/South Ministerial Council, we recommend that amongst its first acts should be the creation of an inventory of the existing areas of co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. In 1996, in a paper in the House of Commons' Library, 117 existing areas of co-operation were listed - no doubt more have been added over the last two and a half years. We would recommend, as an urgent task, a listing of what is currently in place. There should, furthermore, be the commissioning of reputable consultancy studies to consider the cost and the benefits of such existing co-operation.

We will seek to push the Dublin Government so that, either through agreement or arbitration, the frontier in the two areas of territorial sea, Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough, can be established. As the World Bank and other international experts have recognised in cases as diverse as Russia or Brazil and South Korea, the establishment of sound property rights is a fundamental precondition for economic growth. The same is true with respect to shellfish production, an apparently lowly thing, but an important economic activity in the two estuaries.

We are anxious also that the British/Irish Council should start its work at roughly the same time. Paragraph 10 of strand three of the Belfast Agreement suggests that the constituent parts of the British Isles Council can establish bilateral and, indeed, multilateral agreements amongst themselves. The implication of that is that the North/South strand can be nested within East/West relations as well.

I will finish by noting the words of another Nobel laureate, Seamus Heaney, in his acceptance speech three years ago. When he received his award he suggested the establishment of "a net on the tennis court" by which he was referring to relations on this island. What we are working towards, despite the scorn which has been poured on us by some other parties, is a recognition of the ending of the Cold War, as it were, that there has been on this island over the last 75 or so years. We want the two states to exist in harmony, with the good neighbourly relations that exist everywhere else where there is good practice throughout the European Union. The institutions which we create to that end may indeed help some to feel more at ease about their cultural identity, and that is fine from our point of view as well. We are also aiming to maximise the economic potential of the two Irish economies.

I support the statement.

Mr Dallat:

I have listened very carefully to this afternoon's contributions. We had fig leaves from the DUP, and from the UK Unionists we had Viagra tablets. What sort of image is that to send out? How do the 71% of the people who voted for change feel when they hear such contributions in this Assembly?

I want to pay tribute to Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon for the opportunity they have created for me to do something for the borough council that I have represented for 21 years along with Mr McClarty, who is on the opposite Bench. On 9 November we will go to the United States to re-visit five of the cities visited by Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon. That is the first opportunity we will have had for years to do something about the abominable unemployment in Coleraine, which stands at 9.6%.

The Assembly can create opportunities not just for those in local councils, but for anyone involved in community groups or regeneration programmes to do something for the first time. But we can only do that if we get on with the business of the Agreement and sit down and work together in harmony. One of the oldest of the many quotes here today is

"She would rather light a candle than curse the darkness."

I suggest that we light a million penny candles right across the North and give people the confidence and the hope which was afforded to them in the referendum last June.

I do not want to be negative, but I refer back to the scenes in the Chamber this morning. Let us never have those again, because we cannot quantify how many jobs were lost by the negative and appalling behaviour of some Assembly Members. Let us give hope to the 10,000 young people who leave these shores every year, and have been leaving for the last 30 years. Rather than drive people away, let us invite them back. Let us send the message right around the world that we are in business and are creating jobs by following in the footsteps of the political parties which have gone to the United States and opened the doors.

As Mr Empey said, Coleraine is not alone: Belfast City Council is going; Newry and Mourne is already away. Many others will follow, and the impact must be positive for everyone. That is the message that must go out from the Assembly, and I hope our friends in those political parties who feel the need to deride the hard work done by others will change their attitude.

I am pleased to report that Mr McClarty from the Ulster Unionist Party and I will be accompanied by members from the DUP and the Alliance Party when we go to the United States next month. We will be united. So perhaps, despite the wishes of certain people, everything is not as bad as it might appear. We are going forward - not as quickly as we should - but we will get there.

The Deputy First Minister (Designate) told us this morning to "plant the seeds of trust and water the ground". That is precisely what every Member should be doing, and every word that we utter can help to do that.

3.15 pm

Mr Poots:

On 14 September, we received a report from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). That report contained no detail. Six weeks later, we have a report which includes a little detail. Certainly, there does not appear to be six weeks' work in it.

In this report, in place of detail there is much about consultation, which is referred to in paragraphs 3.1, 3.4 and 3.6. What consultation has taken place thus far with the parties? There have been four plenary sessions of the Assembly. The DUP has had one consultation with the First Minister (Designate), while Mr Adams has had three private consultations.

The public do not know what is going on in the Assembly; nor do the Members. I read the detail of what happens in the Assembly in the newspapers, and hear about it from the media. A few days ago, we were told about the appointment of junior Ministers. I have never received any communication about that. Clearly, the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) want to create a greater role for themselves, as they set out in paragraph 3.2, a greater role than that already set out. That should cause some concern.

The Assembly is supposed to bring democracy to the people, and to create a democratic institution that is accountable to the people. The Assembly was supposed to take us away from the situation where Ministers fly in for a week, conduct their business, and fly out again. Yet, the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) are suggesting a system whereby there will be less consultation with the Assembly, making it less accessible to the public.

The Deputy First Minister (Designate):

The Member mentions consultation, or the lack of it. Is the DUP yet able to make available its detailed proposals on the departmental structures for Northern Ireland, the North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council or the Civic Forum? We have been waiting some time for anything in writing from his party.

Mr Poots:

First, we are waiting for the decommissioning that was promised some time ago by the First Minister (Designate). The DUP is willing and able to provide all the necessary information, but we will do that in the proper way, not by writing letters to the First Minister (Designate) or the Deputy First Minister (Designate). We will do it on a proper consultation basis.

All that the document contains is talk about consultation, but the consultation has not taken place. We need to know how the Assembly is run, and what is being done in this building, but Members are not being consulted on those matters.

The First Minister (Designate) asserts his commitment to all aspects of the Belfast Agreement, and Mr Birnie quoted from a poem by Robert Frost about good fences making good neighbours. That poem also states

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall".

It seems that the First Minister (Designate) does not "love a wall", because by the end of the week, more than half the terrorist prisoners will come out from "behind the wall", and will be back on our streets although not one ounce of Semtex or one bullet has been handed over.

Decommissioning was supposed to be tied into the Agreement and the Prime Minister's pledges. People talk about how 71% of the community backed the Agreement but either the community or the Ulster Unionist Party leadership was misled, because it was said that Sinn Fein would not get into the Executive without decommissioning. It was said that IRA prisoners would not be released without decommissioning. Many gullible people who put their faith in the First Minister (Designate) were misled. It was not the First Minister (Designate) who was misled, it was the community at large.

There is also little or no detail about the British/Irish Council.

The Deputy First Minister (Designate) spoke about the Nobel Peace Prize and congratulated Mr Hume and Mr Trimble on receiving it. In a football match they do not give the cup out at half time; when a person is running the mile in the Olympic Games, he does not get a medal when he has done three laps. Since the Agreement was signed almost 40 people have been killed in the province and over 400 people injured. More and more terrorists are roaming our streets and there is no reduction in the number of bullets and the amount of semtex and other explosives that are available to them. It is premature for both Mr Trimble and Mr Hume to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

In paragraph 5.2 the Deputy First Minister (Designate) attacks Mr Trimble and his party over the disagreement on the structures of government and the North/South implementation bodies - we hear that Mr Trimble and the Ulster Unionist Party would like seven departments while the SDLP and Sinn Fein would like 10. Is there any need for 10 departments? How much will they cost? Is it simply a matter of creating more jobs for more people? With 10 departments, plus Junior Ministers, how many jobs are we going to create and who is going to pay for it all - the taxpayers?

In paragraph 6.1 we discover that the SDLP and UUP have set up a small and exclusive working group to discuss the North/South Ministerial Council. In doing so they have not consulted with the other parties.

Then there is mention of the Civic Forum. The Democratic Unionist Party believes that there should be no such forum. It would just be another quango, another unnecessary tier of Government. If it is to be set up, it should not just be to give jobs to the boys and girls who could not get elected to the Assembly. It should have as widespread a representation as possible; it should be composed of groups who are not normally associated with such quangos and not composed of the goodie-two-shoes groups that are always in the Government's back pocket.

Mr Mallon also referred to the Brussels trip and to building on the success of the Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation (SSPR). I do not agree that the SSPR has been a success. Many of the jobs and projects that have been created are not sustainable. The leadership of the Assembly, the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) would be better concentrating on trying to achieve Objective 1 status again. I recognise that our economy represents 83% of the Gross Domestic Product and that we are only supposed to have 75%, but the circumstances in Northern Ireland could be used to argue for Objective 1 status. It would be better to do that than argue for an extension of the SSPR.

Mr G Kelly:

A Cheann Comhairle, the First Minister (Designate), as the Leader of Unionism has spoken ad nauseam over the past number of weeks about his interpretation of what other parties' obligations are. He has, on the other hand, said or done precious little to discharge his obligation under the Agreement.

Caithfidh an Chéad-Aire labhairt agus obair ar son an phobail uilig agus ní amháin dóibh siúd a thugann tacaíocht d'Aontachtóirí Uladh.

The only institution established to date, as a result of the Good Friday Agreement is this Assembly - an Assembly which Republicans did not particularly want. But we went along with it, because it was a part of the overall Agreement and the mechanism for entering in to an all-Ireland Ministerial Council.

One reason Republicans did not particularly want an Assembly was the track record of past Unionist Administrations and their obsession with retaining all power for themselves. True to form, the Ulster Unionists have proved that "the leopard does not change its spots".

The Ulster Unionists' reluctance to implement the Agreement is about preventing change. It is specifically about preventing the changes contained in the Agreement which they see as benefiting Nationalists. In effect, Mr Trimble is denying access to the Nationalist elements of the Agreement. It is simply a different angle on the Unionist veto, a continuation of the idea that a Unionist voter is more valuable than a Nationalist one.

He does not want Sinn Fein in the Executive because he knows that he cannot bully or intimidate us. He hopes that if he succeeds in excluding Sinn Fein from the Executive, that it will conform to a Unionist agenda. He confirmed this at his party conference on Saturday when he assured delegates that although they would have to share power with others, it would be administered predominantly by Unionists.

Mr Trimble should read the Agreement and then discharge his obligation under that Agreement instead of quoting non-existent obligations of other political parties. We are told that there will be intensive consultations. We will attend any consultations, but they appear, at best, to be window-dressing. When will they be finished? What is certain is that Sinn Fein will not be engaged in any charade.

It is Mr Trimble and the Ulster Unionists who are in breach of the Agreement which they signed up to. In his Pledge of Office Mr Trimble promised to discharge in good faith all the duties of the office, to serve all the people equally and to act in accordance with the general obligations on Government to promote equality and prevent discrimination and to participate with colleagues in the preparation of a programme of government.

He has completely failed to act in good faith and by refusing to establish the Executive as set down in the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, he is certainly not serving all the people equally, nor is he participating in the preparation of a programme for government. He has dishonoured his Pledge of Office and no political cover should be given to him in this regard. If he will not implement the Agreement, then the two Governments must forge ahead and implement the Agreement.

Under the section on Executive Authority, paragraph 16 states

"Following the election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the posts of Ministers will be allocated to parties on the basis of the d'Hondt system by reference to the number of seats each party has in the Assembly."

That has not happened and is four months overdue.

Paragraph 8 of the section of strand two states

"During the transitional period between the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the transfer of power to it, representatives of the Northern Ireland transitional Administration and the Irish Government operating in the North/South Ministerial Council will undertake a work programme, in consultation with the British Government, covering at least 12 subject areas, with a view to identifying and agreeing by 31 October 1998 areas where co-operation and implementation for mutual benefit will take place."

The Ulster Unionists have prevented any work being undertaken in this area to prepare for that date. This is a glaring breach of the Agreement that Mr Trimble signed up to on behalf of his party. Is this discharging his duty in good faith? I do not think so.

Mr Trimble's obstinacy is not just denying Sinn Fein and our electorate what is ours as of right, he is denying all the people of this island the benefits that they are due under this Agreement. Changes and benefits which the vast majority of people of the island, North and South, voted for in the referenda. The two Governments have an onerous responsibility to insist that Mr Trimble and the Ulster Unionists deliver on the implementation of the commitments that they gave when they accepted the Good Friday Agreement.

If the Ulster Unionists are unwilling to discharge their obligations under the Agreement, then Mr Trimble may be the leader they desire, but a judgement should surely be made as to his suitability as First Minister.

Mr K Robinson:

My party Leader must be doing something right. He seems to be the topic of every conversation and every comment in the Chamber today. I am sure he is feeling very pleased.

May I make a point which Assemblyman Dallat from North Antrim came very close to making. The public perception of the work in this Chamber after this morning's performance must be near nil, and that is very unfair. As we all know, many Members have worked extremely hard behind the scenes and have taken many risks on the road that has brought us all here.

3.30 pm

This is not a perfect vehicle, and none of us would try to pretend otherwise, but it provides an opportunity to achieve some of the things that people wish us to achieve on their behalf.

Mr Dallat told us that he spent a long time in local government, as have many Members. Those who worked in local government, with its three powers of emptying bins, giving people a swim - in the Valley Leisure Centre in my case - and burials - in Carnmoney Cemetery in my area - wished for further powers. One of the powers that we wished for was economic development. We got our wish, and local councils are carrying out much good work in that area.

I congratulate the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) and those who accompanied them to the United States, on this mission. I hesitate to use the word "bandwagon" because it does not seem right, but that is the word that is being used. I am particularly pleased by an announcement that affects my constituency, and especially the Training and Employment Agency on Newtownabbey Council in the Monkstown area.

We have achieved 150 high-tech jobs. Northern Ireland needs such jobs for a variety of reasons. They will allow our under-graduates to work through our excellent education system with the prospect of real and meaningful employment in Northern Ireland. Such jobs will attract more industries to Northern Ireland and, hopefully, will attract back the people whom we have lost over the generations. While I welcome those jobs to my area, I wish to see more of them throughout the province.

I came here with three aims in mind. I want to achieve proper education provision for all, from nursery, through primary, secondary and grammar schools, to tertiary education. We all need to work towards that end. Without that firm foundation, Northern Ireland PLC cannot exist and cannot provide the type of jobs that were announced today.

We all wish to see proper health provision, but this morning we wasted more than an hour and a half in a sterile debate. It is interesting to note that almost all of that debate was in one language, but that is an issue for another day.

We all want proper, sustainable employment, and to achieve that, we must work together, whether we talk about Northern Ireland or the North of Ireland. I do not care what terms people use as long as they present a united front in America, Europe or elsewhere to help to secure the jobs that will provide a sound and stable base for society. Without that, we are whistling in the wind.

I am sorry that I have no poetry to offer. I do not have much time these days to read. All sorts of clichés, including the one about confidence building, have been bandied about. The greatest confidence-building exercise in which we can all engage is to make sure that we achieve the jobs that will keep the best brains here. If we do that, the people who watched this morning's performance will congratulate us and say we have caught ourselves on.

Mr Gallagher:

I welcome the report and its possibilities and challenges.

Paragraph 8.2 refers to the Brussels Conference. I mention that paragraph because of its connection with farming, which is our most important industry.

I would remind Members of the crisis that exists there.

I spoke with the director of the Farmers' Mart in Enniskillen - one of the largest marts in the North - and he told me that two years ago the average price of store cattle was £460 per head. Last week the average price of such cattle was £270 per head. Furthermore, suckled calves were realising £350 per head two years ago while their equivalents last week were barely making £200.

Members will agree that prices have tumbled and farmers are in a very sorry state. I was speaking to a couple of farmers over the weekend - they had been out in their fields, knee deep in water, bringing in their livestock - and they estimated that their fodder will probably last until Christmas. They are watching their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland. At the risk of disappointing the Member for East Belfast, there is no frontier in my constituency - you are more likely to find a gate or a fence. Indeed, in some cases, there is nothing at all to distinguish the terrain. Animals in the Republic of Ireland are making £150 per head more than animals in Northern Ireland.

The Agriculture Minister recently went to Brussels and received a higher allocation of intervention, which brought much relief to farmers. However, the speediest way of alleviating the problems here would be to lift of the export ban. That would quickly open up ready outlets. Paragraph 8.2 says that there will be a meeting between representatives of the Assembly and the Agriculture Commissioner, Franz Fischler. Would it be appropriate to raise specific matters at that meeting? I refer particularly to the lifting of the live export ban.

Mr Morrow:

On being informed this morning that the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) would be making a progress report to the Assembly on the way forward, I took my seat with baited breath. Alas, that anticipation was short-lived, because upon receiving a copy of the report I began to wonder what this was all about. When the people of Northern Ireland see the report I am not sure that they will jump up and down with joy and say "We are going places." A report on the trip to the United States is a poor substitute for telling the people of Northern Ireland about the way forward. A much more comprehensive report was expected, but we are left with just this.

Economic progress will only come when terrorism, or the threat of it, is permanently removed from Northern Ireland. With terrorists being released ad infinitum before a single bullet or an ounce of Semtex has been handed over, the people of Northern Ireland could be forgiven for feeling that this process is entirely one-way. It is painfully obvious that the First Minister (Designate) and his deputy are quite divided on the best way forward. They have failed on a second occasion to tackle the hard issues - they are backing away from them yet again.

Speaking at the weekend to his party faithful and addressing Sinn Fein, Mr Trimble said

"You can take your time; we have all the time in the world to wait for you."

If past experience has taught me anything, it is that Sinn Fein will keep him waiting. He will wait so long for Sinn Fein to decommission that he will become a statue. Sinn Fein/IRA can wait as long as it likes because Mr Trimble intends to wait, no matter how long it takes. Of course Sinn Fein/IRA was always aware of that, and it has a private army at its back, ready to deliver the necessary message at the appropriate time.

Just before Mr Trimble addressed his party faithful, his colleague and Chief Whip, Mr Wilson, was paving the way for yet another U-turn. In the glare of the television cameras he stated

"We should not nail ourselves too tightly to any position."

He was saying "decommissioning could destroy us, and it would be better to get off that hook". Mr Wilson is no fool, and he would not have made such utterances without the prior agreement of his party Leader. If he made those utterances without that agreement, he would no longer be the party's Chief Whip - he would be removed from that position.

Mr Wilson was preparing the Unionist electorate for another U-turn or, as my party colleague Mr Robinson put it, another concoction of fudge is about to be administered. It is better that the message is delivered by someone other than Mr Trimble and Mr Wilson, with no disrespect to him, might just be expendable. However, the First Minister (Designate) is not. Within Mr Trimble's party ranks another splinter group has staggered to its feet. It calls itself Union First. It has to be sorted out and kept at bay. Some of its members are on the UUP Back Benches today.

So Mr Trimble has many problems, not the least of which is that his Deputy First Minister (Designate) is breathing down his neck and saying "David, you had better get a move on because my Back Benchers are getting a little bit impatient too." Meanwhile, the people of Northern Ireland are waiting for the great delivery which was to be made today. Alas, we shall leave the House not a bit wiser than when we first met.

Mr McLaughlin laid it fairly and squarely on the line. His remarks will not go unnoticed by the Unionist community. The Sinn Fein/IRA message as to why there will be no decommissioning is loud and clear. Those arms may be required for another occasion to push the business a little further. Let us not forget Canary Wharf: it had a tremendous effect in centring the Prime Minister's attention on Northern Ireland, and the Agreement was delivered post-haste.

An Agreement that works simply at the behest of those with guns is sure to fail, because even within the ranks of the UUP, there are still those who will say that enough is enough. The First Minister (Designate) is not prepared to face up to that - but he will have to face it in the not too distant future.

Of course, some will say that decommissioning is not that important. What is important is that the guns are silent. We on this side and the people of Northern Ireland say, "If only that were true".

One of the big failures of this Agreement has been the inability to grab the illegal guns. In 1972, when Stormont was prorogued, we were told that a better system of government would be introduced. It was called direct rule. Thousands of people have lost their lives as a result of that better system of government.

3.45 pm

On 15 November 1985 we reached another historic landmark - the diktat was signed. This was to have moved us forward, yet hundreds of people lost their lives.

Then we were told that another agreement had been signed. They called it the Good Friday Agreement. They must all have been speaking Irish that day. What has happened since its signing? Over 30 people have lost their lives. So we stumble from one agreement to another, and all the time we are told that this is a better way forward.

What has been happening? The First Minister and his deputy fumble along, go on a junket to America and talk about economic expansion and development. Now, nobody would decry the fact that jobs may come to Northern Ireland - and they would be welcomed - but the saving of people's lives is much more important than any report that may be produced as a result of this visit to the United States or anywhere else. If Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon cannot face up to it, they should tell the Assembly that they are divided. The world at large knows it, to be so.

Was it not the Leader of the SDLP who coined the famous phrase "Guns should not be on the table, under the table, or outside the door". Everybody applauded that statement. It seemed to be something that people could identify with, but alas it is seldom referred to now by those whom I would call my political opposition. Why? Because it is patently obvious that decommissioning is not going to take place unless and until everything else is in place. So we cannot look forward to decommissionings taking place in the not-too-distant future.

It ill behoves the First Minister (Designate) and his deputy to present a report such as this. We know that they have not chartered the way forward as was their brief, and look forward with bated breath to the day when they can produce a report which they will be justified in presenting to the Assembly.

Ms de Brún:

A Chathaoirligh, is ábhar imní domh nach bhfuil tuairisc iomlán fhiúntach ar fáil ón Chéad-Aire (Ainmnithe) agus ón LeasChéad-Aire (Ainmnithe) , rud a bhí le bheith againn fada ó shin de réir an Chomhaontaithe. Ní thig leis an Chéad-Aire (Ainmnithe) feidhmniú mar Cheannaire Aontachtóirí Uladh amháin. Ba chóir go mbeadh na Rannóga agus na hAirí in áit ag an phointe seo, le go mbeadh an Chéad-Aire (Ainmnithe), an LeasChéad-Aire (Ainmnithe) agus na hAirí iomchuí in ann clár oibre a chur le chéile agus a chur i gcrích roimh dheireadh na míosa seo. Tá ábhar imní eile agam maidir leis an ráiteas a fuaireamar ón Chéad-Aire (Ainmnithe) agus ón LeasChéad-Aire (Ainmnithe) ar maidin. In alt 6.1 deirtear go bhfuil grúpa oibre curtha ar bun ag Aontachtóirí Uladh agus ag an SDLP.

Níl rud ar bith ag Sinn Féin in aghaidh a leithéidí sin - a mhalairt ar fad; fáiltimid roimh theacht le chéile idir páirtithe ar bith. Ní thuigim féin, áfach, cad chuige an bhfuil sé sin luaite sa tuairisc seo. Cuid d'obair an Chéad-Aire (Ainmnithe) agus an LeasChéad-Aire (Ainmnithe) atá san obair seo. Ach an bhfuil siad beirt ag obair ar ár son uilig nó ag obair ar son a bpáirtithe? Má tá siad ag obair ar ár son uilig cad chuige nach bhfuil comhchomhairle fhiúntach leanúnach ag dul ar aghaidh ó thaobh na Rannóg agus ó thaobh na Comhairle uileÉireann? Nuair a bhíonn státseirbhísigh an Tuaiscirt agus an Deiscirt ag teacht le chéile an mbíonn siad ag plé moltaí a tháinig ón dá pháirtí sin nó moltaí a tháinig uainne uilig? Cé atá ag stiúradh obair na státseirbhíseach sin gan an chomhchomairle dhomhain leanúnach a ba chóir a bheith ann agus atá in easnamh go dtí seo?

Cuirim fáilte roimh an ráiteas agus roimh an mholadh atá sa ráiteas ón bheirt ar maidin go mbeidh comhchomhairle curtha ar bun. In alt 3.6 agus 6.6 deirtear go mbeidh comhchomhairle ann agus go dtig leis an Chéad-Aire (Ainmnithe) agus an LeasChéad-Aire (Ainmnithe) ina dhiaidh sin socruithe na tuairisce a chríochnú. Ní shonraíonn sé cá huair, áfach, níl dáta ar bith againn cén uair a thiocfas an ráiteas sin. Mar sin iarraim orthu beirt a rá linn inniu cén uair a bheas an tuairisc iomlán againn. Chomh maith leis sin, mar a luaigh mé níos luaithe, fáiltimid roimh an mholadh go mbeidh comhchomhairle ann agus feicimid ón mhéid a dúradh sa ráiteas sin go mbeidh sé sin curtha ar bun go práinneach. Feicimid go bhfuil práinn le teacht le chéile an Tionóil agus iarraimid ar an Chéad-Aire (Ainmnithe) agus ar an LeasChéad-Aire (Ainmnithe) inniu a rá linn go mbeidh an Tionól ag teacht le chéile go práinneach leis na hábhair sin uilig a phlé.

We are very concerned that there is not a complete final report from the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) today. We should have had long ago as the agreement envisaged. It is clear that the First Minister (Designate) cannot act merely as Leader of the UUP. The Departments and the Ministers should have been named by now so that we would have been able to come together through the relevant Minister as stated in the Agreement. The First Minister (Designate), the Deputy First Minister (Designate) and the relevant Ministers could come together in the North/South Ministerial Council to complete the work programme by the end of this month.

We have another concern about the report. It states that the SDLP and the UUP have established a small working group - that is not a problem; Sinn Fein has no difficulty with any parties coming together and establishing a working group.

However, I am unclear as to why this is mentioned in the report. Is the work of this group part and parcel of the work of the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate)? When the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) are seeking detailed assessments, are they seeking those assessments on behalf of this working group or in relation to proposals coming from all of us? How is the work of the civil servants, North and South, currently being directed in the absence of the proper consultation that should have been taking place amongst all the parties to date but has not been? The report states that there will be intensive consultations now - and I welcome that - but this should have been taking place, and is worrying that it was not.

Paragraphs 3.6 and 6.6 state that this consultation is going to take place so that the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) can complete their report, but there is no indication of when they intend to have that report completed. I am therefore asking the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to let us know when we can expect to receive it.

I welcome the fact that intensive consultations are foreshadowed, but, given the urgency and the approaching deadline, Members should be told today that the Assembly will be recalled to complete these discussions so that we are assured that the proper steps are being taken to have this report completed and presented at an early date.

Mr Ford:

It is regrettable that this debate is taking place only today. The target date of 31 October 1998 was realistic for the establishment of all the bodies which would depend on this Assembly for their functioning. It is now exactly four months since the Assembly election, and that time should have been adequate to complete that work. However, the discussions that were necessary to set up those bodies have failed to materialise.

We had good economic news today from the First Minister (Designate) in his references to the US trip. Mr Ken Robinson of East Antrim highlighted the good news for an area within his constituency and on the boundaries of mine. I welcome that news but, although I regard economic development as a major issue for the Assembly, the first priority has to be to get the new institutions of government into operation and control, democratically and locally, matters such as agriculture, hospitals and business confidence. Those issues were highlighted by the Deputy First Minister (Designate).

I agree that there should be more intense inter-party discussions on departmental structures, North/South structures and the British/Irish Council. British and Irish civil servants have had many discussions on those structures. Papers have been prepared and the technical assessments on the North/South bodies have been lodged in the Library. There have been meetings with officials in Edinburgh and Cardiff -even with officials in Douglas, St Helier and St Peter Port.

In all that activity, the one huge blank area is in the Assembly. We have the democratic mandate, and the principal responsibility of moving the process forward, but we are not doing that. We are failing those who elected us, and that is a criticism not only of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) but of every one of us, because we have not encouraged them as much as we should have done.

Frequently, during the two years before the Good Friday Agreement, we, the local politicians, relied heavily on outsiders such as George Mitchell, Harri Holkeri and John de Chastelain. It is time we learned to stand on our own feet and accept the responsibility that we claimed to want when we stamped the streets at election time.

If the First Ministers (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) are starting a serious process of consultation, Alliance will certainly play its part. It is important to pick up the momentum. We must not lose it. That should have happened a long time ago.

Their statement promised us a period of "intensive consultations" on departmental structures; consultations on the British/Irish Council; "intensive consultations" on North/South Bodies; and an intensifying of consultations on the Civic Forum. The first function of the Assembly is to ensure that those other structures are set in place.

Part of the problem is that we speak different languages here - and I am not referring to Ulster-Scots, Ullans or Irish. I heard that analysis a while ago. Nationalists have a wonderful habit of putting the broad brush picture about. They will slap up a few general principles and all will be right on the night. Unionists tend to speak in the detailed examination mode, and we had some perfect examples.

Mr McLaughlin and Mr G Kelly alleged that the First Minister (Designate) is unwilling to share power. I do not believe that, but the UUP - and not just the Leader - have to show their good will towards bringing the process on board. Their response was shown to some extent by Dr Birnie who gave a detailed analysis of business and technical issues concerning North/South Bodies.

That may be valid, but I suggest to him, though he is not here to hear it, that the approach that parses every sentence, dots every 'i', crosses every 't' and demands a consultant's report before anything is done, gives the impression of foot-dragging.

Unionists must recognise the symbolic importance of cross-border bodies being set up. Decommissioning is symbolically important to them. It is clear that we have missed the 31 October deadline for the setting up of institutions. We also missed the deadline for the Good Friday Agreement - as I recall, by about 17 hours. I had hoped that it would be possible to be within 17 hours of the 31 October deadline, but that seems impossible. We do not seem to do any work until we are up against the wire, and we are certainly against the wire now.

I urge the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), now that they have established the kind of momentum that is reflected in the report, to keep it moving and to ensure that all parties work together to get the structures in place.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>