4.00 pm

Mr Roche:

When the Deputy First Minister (Designate) was congratulating Mr Trimble and Mr Hume on the Nobel Peace Prize, I could not help thinking of the description given by Bruce Anderson in his obituary on the IRA leader Sean MacBride. Anderson's comments on MacBride receiving that award were that it was the most disgraceful episode in the history of a dubious award, and this award is certainly dubious. It is dubious for two fundamental reasons.

First, it is entirely premature. We do not have what any normal, decent citizen would call a ceasefire, and we do not have any possibility or prospect of peace. For example, at the beginning of August, Mr Adams told the world at large, via the Internet, the conditions that would be required to bring about peace. Not one of those conditions exists at the moment. When he said that we did not have peace, he was really threatening that if those conditions - which ultimately involve what he calls the reunification of Ireland - are not met we will go back to war.

What we have is a corruption of what used to be called constitutional Nationalism. In a 'Belfast Telegraph' article a few nights ago, Mr Joe Byrne had the audacity to state categorically that no one has the right to demand decommissioning. In other words, it seems that no one has a right to demand the surrender - I prefer to avoid the word decommissioning - of a terrorist arsenal to lawful authority. If that is the case, it means that the holding and the use of an arsenal, are entirely legitimate.

That is an issue, Mr Byrne, that your party leader and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) will have to address, because when you wrote that article you were not writing it in a personal capacity. You were writing it, if my memory serves me right - and I am not sure of your exact position within the party, but it is well within its upper reaches - on behalf of your party. You were speaking, therefore, on behalf of Mr Hume, who has just received the Nobel Peace Prize, and on behalf of Mr Mallon, who is Deputy First Minister (Designate) of what we hope will be an Assembly and a form of government for Northern Ireland based on authentic and genuine democratic practice. I would like them to address that question in due course.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I would draw your attention - and I have waited so as not to interrupt the flow - to the fact that the proper procedure is not to address a Member directly, but to address him through the Chair; and there are good reasons for that. You are not the only offender.

Mr Roche:

I take your point.

Not only do we not have peace, but one thing which is becoming increasingly clear - and the Leader of my party reminded us today about the use of porridge to quieten a grinding gearbox - is that we have developed a language associated with the peace process which has been designed to obscure the reality of what that process is about. We have reached the absurd stage - and this shows an inexperience of a democratic Assembly - where we had, this morning, a series of complaints about what was really a form of robust debate and entirely typical of the sort of thing that takes place in almost any democratic body.

The day we look for consensus and conformity of view-point in Northern Ireland to the extent that we cannot robustly exchange and disagree with each other, is the day when we will have imprisoned ourselves in some entirely unacceptable form of politically correct language. We are now going down that road.

There is a discourse associated with this Agreement, a form of language which is designed to obscure its reality. The Agreement is simply about the appeasement of terrorism. That is all there is to it. One dimension of that is the decommissioning issue. It is entirely right that we focus on the decommissioning issue and on the release of terrorist prisoners. As a result of this Agreement, the good decent citizens of Northern Ireland are going to be governed by people who have been the architects of terror for the last 30 years, people who bombed, mutilated and maimed the people of Northern Ireland throughout that time.

At our last meeting a Sinn Fein Member expressed his sorrow and regret for what happened at Omagh. I take this opportunity to remind that Sinn Fein Member that the people who were trained in the making and planting of bombs, and the material that was used, came straight from the IRA. I have recently been scanning a number of standard histories of the IRA and books by a number of informers, and I know that we have within this Assembly people who are named, in those books, and people whose function and activities within the IRA are specified, and it does not seem to me that anyone reading those books could possibly take seriously any expression of remorse or regret that those people make for something like the atrocity of Omagh. We have got to get to grips with this. This Agreement is about the appeasement of terrorism.

Contrary to what he would have us believe, Mr Trimble signed up to an Agreement which specified how the issue of decommissioning and the surrender of these weapons was to be dealt with. The first paragraph in the decommissioning section says

"Participants recall their agreement in the Procedural Motion, adopted on 25 September 1997, 'that the resolution of the decommissioning issue is an indispensable part of the process of negotiation'. "

So how was it resolved? It was resolved by

"All participants ... [reaffirming] their commitment to the total disarmament ... [and confirming] their intention to ... work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years ... in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement."

There were a number of points about how decommissioning was to be handled. However, the key one is that any requirement to resolve the issue of decommissioning is, it is categorically stated, only a requirement. If there is any obligation in that section at all, it is only an obligation within the context of the implementation of the overall settlement. If something slows down or stops that implementation then the obligation to resolve the issue of decommissioning, as laid out in the Agreement, stops.

So how is it to be resolved? It is simply to be resolved by using whatever influence parties may have, the key point being that there is no specific reference in the Agreement to parties with associations to paramilitary organisations. All parties are treated as being on a par. That establishes the fiction which is central to the Sinn Fein/IRA position within the whole process that Sinn Fein is entirely separate from the IRA. What the First Minister (Designate) has conceded in this document is the substance of the Sinn Fein/IRA position that Sinn Fein is entirely separate from the IRA. He has also conceded that the decommissioning issue could be resolved by people, in some entirely ambiguous and unspecified way, using whatever influence they may have to bring about decommissioning within two years. Of course it is not a requirement that decommissioning should occur within two years.

The Initial Presiding Officer: Please bring your remarks to a close.

Mr Roche:

I will wind up now but wish to come back to this subject. The focus on decommissioning has diverted attention away from the fundamental concessions to the very foundational principles of Irish Nationalism which are contained in the first part of the Agreement. I look forward to dealing with that at another opportunity.

Mr Taylor:

I was delayed this morning. I was dealing with matters concerning the recent fishing tragedy in my constituency. The body of the captain has not yet been recovered.

If I may I would like to add my congratulations to the leader of the SDLP, Mr Hume, and to the leader of the UUP, the First Minister (Designate) Mr Trimble on the award of the Nobel Peace Prize. This was very well deserved in both cases. I have worked with both of them over many years in many different democratic institutions here, at Westminster and in Europe. It is not only a tribute to the time and energy that they have given to try to bring peace to Northern Ireland, but it is also international recognition for what we are all trying to achieve in this part of the United Kingdom and in this part of the island of Ireland.

I notice that one of the leading participants in the Assembly, Mr Martin McGuinness, is not present today. I read this morning that he had been playing football, which seems somewhat courageous at his age. I noted with further interest that it was his left foot which was damaged. This did not come as a surprise to me. Nonetheless, the Ulster Unionist Party wishes him a quick recovery and hopes that we can once again, have his participation in the Assembly.

Members have received the report from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) and I want to commend it to the House. It covers a wide range of subjects, many of which have already been commented upon in this debate. One of the most interesting for us all, irrespective of party, is economic progress and the provision of jobs. I commend what they, together with those who went out to support them, have been trying to achieve in the United States of America. It is good to hear, almost on a daily basis, that further American investment is taking place in Northern Ireland. We want to see this extended to other areas of the world such as South-East Asia and also Europe where there is, as I know from my past work in the European Parliament and now in Strasbourg on the Council of Europe, tremendous interest in what we are trying to achieve in Northern Ireland. They have great sympathy and support for what we are doing in the province.

4.15 pm

It was good to hear about the work that we are doing behind the scenes here - we have been meeting once or twice a week with the SDLP - and Dr Birnie mentioned the North/South co-operation. I am glad that Mr Mallon and Mr Trimble have invited other parties to give their ideas now on the type of co-operation that we want to see between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

I heard some people complaining about and condemning the lack of progress on the North/South issue. Strangely enough, the criticism was mainly coming from people who have contributed nothing to the discussion on this matter. You cannot complain if you do not participate. I do welcome the invitation that has been extended to all parties to contribute to this ongoing discussion which we have been involved in on an almost daily basis here at Stormont.

I also welcome progress on the agreement over the number of different Departments to be created, the departmental structures, the Ministers, Junior Ministers and whatever. There again, other parties have to contribute to this debate, and there is plenty left for them to do. We want to see everyone contributing to this so that we reach decisions which most people can accept.

There is, of course, the issue of decommissioning. I did not understand the language that some people used at times. Those who spoke in Irish confused most Members on the Opposition - if there is an Opposition, in this House. I am not sure yet where the Opposition is, whether it is to my right or opposite me. I come back to the census that we had in 1991. It confirmed - and I look at the people opposite - that only 10 per cent of the population of Northern Ireland understand of the Irish language. That means 10 people out of 108. No more than 10 people here understand Irish, and I saw people looking at the ceiling. The census also showed that only two or three per cent are actually fluent in the Irish language. Three per cent of 108 is three and I can see that Mrs de Brún is one of the three. I am not sure who the second and third ones are, but I come back to my thesis that tonight there will be more people talking Chinese to each other than speaking Gaelic in Northern Ireland.

On the issue of the language on decommissioning we have to be consistent. It has been, and is, an important issue for Ulster Unionists. You cannot run away from the Belfast Agreement. The Belfast Agreement - and I know this having been the chief negotiator for the Ulster Unionist Party at those talks - concentrated in detail on the decommissioning issue.

It was an issue that went on and on and on. People who were involved in the talks know that. Sinn Fein Members know it because they participated in the talks and put their names to the Agreement. That Agreement makes it quite clear that there can only be a shadow Executive once they affirm their commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means and their opposition to any use or threat of force by others - page 9, paragraph 35.

Those in Sinn Fein who are inextricably linked with the IRA, if we accept the word of Mr Ahern, Mr Bruton, Mr Major, Mr Blair and others, have got to say that they are totally opposed to the use or threat of force.

Mr McCartney:

Can the Member confirm that there is no reference in the Agreement to any organisation entering into those obligations other than a party?

Mr Taylor:

The answer to that is that Sinn Fein is inextricably linked to the IRA, and the Member should not try to get it off the hook. It is inextricably linked to the IRA. There are some people, in the DUP in particular, who, like Sinn Fein, do not want decommissioning, and why not? Because they know that if there were decommissioning - [Interruption].

I am making a distinction between Mr McCartney and the DUP - increasingly so, indeed, in recent days. The DUP do not want decommissioning, and Sinn Fein should take that on board. The one way to wreck the process is to ensure that there is no decommissioning, that there is no shadow Executive, no Executive and no solution to Northern Ireland's problems.

Mr Foster:

Does Mr Taylor agree that the only party in the Assembly that is pushing for decommissioning is the Ulster Unionist Party?

Mr Taylor:

Mr Foster is absolutely right because he underlines my point: that should there be decommissioning the DUP would disappear for ever from Northern Ireland.

We want Sinn Fein to publicly reaffirm what they agreed to as participants in the Belfast Agreement: that they are totally opposed to the use of force or the threat of force. Once that is said openly, we are making progress. We could then move to the timing of the decommissioning, because paragraph 3 on page 20 states that - and I want every Sinn Fein supporter in Northern Ireland to re-read the decommissioning chapter which Mr Gerry Adams, Mr Martin McGuinness, who is now in Altnagelvin Hospital, and others signed their names to -

"All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations."

Not, Mr Hume, general disarmament in Northern Ireland, but simply and solely the disarmament of all paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. Paragraph 2, of the decommissioning section states that there must be

"a workable basis for achieving the decommissioning of illegally-held firearms in the possession of paramilitary groups."

We have a great opportunity in Northern Ireland for co-operation between Catholics and Protestants, Nationalists and Unionists, in building a new society, a new system of government within the United Kingdom and in the island of Ireland. Such co-operation will benefit us all, and I hope that no one will cherry-pick from the Agreement, but will read every chapter, including that relating to equality and language, and also that on decommissioning.

Mr Byrne:

I welcome the report from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). The first joint delegation to the United States by Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon was very welcome, and its symbolism is very powerful at this time. American investors want to come here, but they want to know that there is stability here - political stability in particular.

It is imperative that all these new political structures be put into place. Many Assembly Members have said that they are waiting for other things to happen. The public wants to see the shadow Executive set up. They want to see the North/South Ministerial Council at work. They want progress on all parts of the Agreement.

It is very interesting that Mr Roche accuses me of being against progress on the decommissioning issue. Last week in a local paper, another Assembly Member, Mr Pat Doherty, accused me of pandering to Unionists. My article was fairly balanced, and I was looking for progress on the current impasse.

The people of the North of Ireland, the rest of Ireland and beyond want to see this new Agreement work. We have the endorsement of the people in the referendums North and South. We have international good will for what we are doing, as epitomised in the Nobel Peace Award to my party Leader, Mr Hume, and to Mr Trimble. That international goodwill surely should be a positive force for us to get on with making the new structures work.

A good thing about the joint trip to America, which also included representatives of the Industrial Development Board, was that it addressed the economic issues. Our constituents know about unemployment, and every district council in the North of Ireland is looking for inward investment and economic progress. That will only come if we have the necessary political stability.

The people of Northern Ireland have endorsed change; they want change; and they want us to reflect that change. They want us to get on with making the new structures work. Much time and effort was put into reaching the Good Friday Agreement and having the referendum and the Assembly election. We have all been elected as a result of the Agreement; the public want us to get on with it.

Change is never easy, but we should not be afraid of it, and the Leaders of the parties deserve our support in getting on with that process. I want to see progress made in breaking this logjam, and so do the people. The decommissioning issue should not stop everything. There is an onus on everybody to get over this impasse. I am convinced we can get around it, and the public wants us to get around it. Therefore, we must support those political Leaders who are signatories to the Agreement.

We have also had abundant goodwill from the European Union. I do not accept the idea that the Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation was a token gesture. We are very thankful, in this part of the world, for the funds that we have got from Europe in the past. And we will all be looking for Structural Funds in the future.

What sort of signal do we want to send to our European partners - that we are ungrateful for what they have done for us? But more importantly, our fellow members of the European Union are positive and constructive about what we have achieved and about what they want us to achieve in the future. They know the pain of conflict; they have had it in abundance in the past. There have been two world wars, but they have made progress since then.

Mr McCartney:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Byrne:

With respect, no. The public wants us to make progress on all these fronts. I have referred to it as incremental progress. Every one of us in every party has a duty to contribute to that incremental progress.

Mr Berry:

I noted with interest that Mr Taylor wished Mr McGuinness "all the best" in his recovery. The next thing we will be seeing is Mr Taylor passing around a "Get Well" card! All I have to say about Mr Martin McGuiness's leg is

"Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."

I listened very attentively to both these statements. It is quite clear that the North American Investment Roadshow is just a roadshow - a roadshow to a united Ireland. We are talking about departmental structures, the British/Irish Council, the North/South Ministerial Council, the Civic Forum and the Brussels conference, but there is no sign of any statement about decommissioning. At the time of the referendum, Mr Trimble and his cohorts were going around telling us that nothing could move forward until decommissioning took place. We saw, quite clearly, at the UUP conference in Londonderry, exactly what is going on.

4.30 pm

Speaker after speaker from the pro- and anti-agreement camps of the Ulster Unionist Party repeated that Sinn Fein Ministers must not be allowed into the Northern Ireland Government until the Irish Republican Army had begun to hand in its stocks of Semtex and weapons.

Mr Reg Empey, the Ulster Unionist negotiator, said "We have done our bit; we are doing no more." It is quite clear that Mr Trimble has fudged this whole issue. Who is Mr Trimble helping? Mr Trimble is helping to bail out the British Government. We were told time and time again that this so-called Good Friday Agreement - the Belfast Agreement to my mind - would bring peace, but it will not deliver peace. All we have to do is to think of the recent shootings, the recent punishment beatings, and so on. These men have the cheek to tell the people of Northern Ireland that there would be peace when this Agreement was signed.

There is no sign of peace, and there will be no peace until we deal with the real problem - Sinn Fein/IRA. This whole process was set up for them. That is clear from what a Sinn Fein representative said today "David, if you do not implement the Agreement, then the two Governments will". Not a bit of wonder Gerry Adams, the Leader of Sinn Fein/IRA said "Well done, David". It is clear that David has been caught in the net by Sinn Fein/IRA, and he is letting the British Government off the hook.

If there were to be another referendum tomorrow it would clearly show that most of the people in Northern Ireland are against what is going on today. This agreement was set up to appease Sinn Fein/IRA. What did they get out of it? They got a Christmas box - prisoner releases, the scaling-down of security, a British/Irish Council, and the North/South Ministerial Council, and all of this was provided without decommissioning. And what did they give? They gave nothing.

What about the ordinary, decent people out in the streets of Northern Ireland who believed these men - these so-called educated men who told them that they would deliver peace, that decommissioning would start right away and that nothing would move on until decommissioning started? They have been deceived. Sinn Fein/IRA are quite clearly calling the tune, and they are calling the tune here in the Assembly.

It is disgraceful that we have such dead-head Unionists who are prepared to sell this province out to Sinn Fein/IRA and to the Nationalist community. I think especially of the statement Mr Trimble made at the Londonderry conference when he said that he would give the IRA time to start decommissioning arms beyond next Saturday's deadline. I am also reminded of what Mr Sam Foster, the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone said earlier, that the UUP was the only one that was trying for decommissioning. The UUP is doing U-turns; they are appeasing Sinn Fein/IRA, and they are surrendering time and time again. What are the headlines? "Trimble will extend the weapons deadline". What did he tell us at the time of the referendum? He said that nothing could move and no progress could be made until decommissioning took place.

I do not know where Mr Sam Foster has been, but it is clear that he must have been sleeping. But when you get to a certain age things do happen - your hearing goes, and you start nodding off.

Mr Trimble along with his co-called dead-head Unionists have surrendered to the republican movement and Sinn Fein/IRA, and there will never be any decommissioning. The DUP wants decommissioning. I consider it an insult for John Taylor, the Deputy Leader of the UUP, to say that it does not. I want decommissioning; I want peace, but I do not want peace at any price. The only way there will be peace in Northern Ireland is for there to be no surrender to Sinn Fein/IRA.

The only way to have peace in Northern Ireland is for the Government to deal firmly with terrorism, and the only way to deal firmly with terrorism is the way you deal firmly with a weed - you take it out. I am calling for our Government especially to deal firmly with terrorism because the people of Northern Ireland are sick to the teeth of being deceived time and time again by so-called leaders, so-called Unionists and so-called Assembly Members.

The only way that we are going to have peace is if the Government move in and decommission Sinn Fein/IRA - that is the only way we are going to have peace. It is quite clear to those living in the Newry and Armagh area Sinn Fein clearly does not want peace. Intimidation after intimidation after intimidation is going on in my area - that is no sign of peace. Tell the people on the border areas, tell the people that are being beaten up, tell the people who are suffering punishment beatings that there is peace - that is an insult!

As for Drumcree, yes, we want peace and we want to get down the Garvaghy Road in a peaceful and dignified manner. I am not responding to Sinn Fein/IRA. It is cheap for Sinn Fein Members to talk about blast bombs when they have been blowing the ordinary, decent people out of their homes and out of their properties for years. I have said it before and I will say it again that we condemn what happened at Drumcree and at Corcrain with the murder of Const O'Reilly. We totally condemn that. Nothing can justify what happened, but it is cheap for Sinn Fein/IRA Members to shout about blast bombs when year after year they sent men to attack Mr McCrea's home with an AK47. It is cheap for them to shout about that.

The only way that we can decommission the arms is for the Government to deal firmly with Sinn Fein/IRA. Let us have another Loughgall where the SAS moved in and wiped out a full terrorist organisation in the Tyrone area. The only way that we are going to have peace is for the Government to move in and decommission these men. The DUP wants decommissioning to take place and if Mr Trimble [Interruption]

The Initial Presiding Officer:

May I just draw your attention to the fact that we have qualified privilege in this Chamber and it behoves all of us to be a little careful about what we say on these matters.

Mr Berry:

I did not say anything out of hand. Year after year and day after day the news has told us what Sinn Fein/IRA has actually done, and I make no apologies for saying what I have said. It is time for the Government to deal firmly with Sinn Fein/IRA, to give us a few more Loughgalls and wipe these men off the board. That is the only way.

Mr Maskey:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. One of the victims of the Loughgall ambush was not involved in any element of the troubles. He would be described by people like Mr Berry himself as an innocent victim. Mr Berry is calling for Loughgalls regardless of whether people view the SAS ambush as legitimate or otherwise. One person who was not involved on either side of the conflict was shot dead on that night. So does he still welcome that same attack?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I assume that in calling for that point of order you were underlining my own caution in respect of what we say. I would advise considerable caution so that Members do not get over-excited in their speech, and find their words running ahead of what it is advisable to claim or call for.

Mr Berry:

Once again, I do not apologise for what I said. It is a fact that happened years ago.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I need to draw your attention to the fact that there were things which you called for - not which you referred to, but which you called for - which I consider should be handled with caution.

Mr Berry:

I call on Mr Trimble to stop fudging the issue and give the law-abiding, decent citizens on the streets of Northern Ireland what they deserve: I call on him to demand decommissioning from Sinn Fein/IRA and all the other so-called paramilitaries.

Mr P Doherty:

I would like to join Mr Taylor in extending best wishes on a speedy recovery to Martin McGuinness.

Earlier, when we were debating other issues, and when my colleague, Mr Molloy, was speaking, the First Minister (Designate) got rather annoyed. He got heated and flustered. He pointed his pen and said "Obligations, obligations". He did not elaborate - but I intend to.

Later, Mr Beggs spoke about the likely outcome of a survey of those who spoke English. If such a survey, with a slight amendment, were carried out within the UUP to find out who understands the English language, and particularly the language used in the Good Friday Agreement, the First Minister (Designate) would understand his obligations.

I see that he has left the Chamber. He is afraid that I may point out his obligations. They are to implement the Good Friday Agreement. He has to do that not only to satisfy the will of the people of the Six Counties, but also the will of the people of the whole of Ireland who voted in a referendum to have the Good Friday Agreement implemented. It is the will of the people that that be done, and if members of the UUP read the Agreement they will see that decommissioning is not tied to the Executive or to the setting up of North/South Ministerial Council. There is no precondition.

We entered negotiations in September 1997 on issues that concerned all the parties. Some parties opted out, as is their democratic right. Some parties, the UUP in particular, stayed in and negotiated. They fought their corner, and strung it out for six months, but they eventually agreed to the Good Friday document, which contains sections on the setting up of an Executive, and the establishment of the North/South Ministerial Council by 31 October. There is also a section on decommissioning - but that is not a precondition. All participants were to use any influence that they might have for the implementation of the overall settlement.

Mr Taylor:

The Member mentions the Executive, but I think that he is talking about the Shadow Executive. It states that there has to be a Shadow Executive by 31 October. From which page in the Agreement is he reading?

Mr P Doherty:

Page 20 covers decommissioning, and Page 12 covers the Executive. There is no precondition in the decommissioning section. The date of 31 October is under the section on the North/South Ministerial Council.

Although Mr Taylor may read English, he may not understand it. Mr Taylor and the First Minister (Designate) do not understand their obligations. There is an obligation on the First Minister (Designate), which he has a few days left to fulfil. He may yet fulfil that commitment by finding the courage to do what he is obliged to do by the Good Friday document. He has been entirely selective in his approach to decommissioning. He has never mentioned any weapons, other that the weapons of the IRA, in any of the interviews that I have seen. He has never mentioned those of the British Army, the RUC or the so-called licensed weapons. He even opposed the Dunblane legislation being applied to the six counties. Could he explain that?

The First Minister (Designate):

I draw the Member's attention to Mr Taylor's contribution, which showed that the decommissioning section is quite clear. It involves a commitment to the disarmament of paramilitary organisations, and refers to illegally held weapons. The comments about the army and police are wholly inappropriate. The Member should read what he signed up to.

4.45 pm

Mr P Doherty:

I can read, and I can have my own interpretation of what is paramilitary and what is not. I understand the context in which the First Minister (Designate) views the RUC and the British Army, but he did not answer the question I posed about the Dunblane legislation. Why did he oppose that legislation being brought into the Six Counties? It was because he is focused, selectively, on one section of the community.

There is a clear obligation on the First Minister (Designate) to implement the Good Friday Agreement. Mr Mallon's report states that decommissioning cannot be forced yet Mr Trimble seems to be trying to do that very thing - and he is doing it out of context because he is not implementing the rest of the Agreement and is pursuing a narrow Unionist agenda.

The First Minister (Designate):

In replying to the debate, I shall try to touch on some of the points that have been made. I apologise to any Member who is omitted from my comments, but I propose to choose some particular ones.

Mr Berry made a rather amusing speech in which he referred to my colleague, Mr Foster, who heard the speech in question. Mr Berry did not read it and did not hear it and his comments on it were wholly inaccurate. I recommend that he read it, after which perhaps he will realise that he has made a fool of himself.

Some Members spoke of their desire to see the statement earlier. We were conscious of precedents, and by making the statement available the moment we sat down, we were keeping substantially within established practice in other places. The break for lunch gave everyone the opportunity to study it. Therefore, there is no substance in those comments.

Mr Farren spoke about the Industrial Development Board, and referred to differentials on corporation tax. It is true that some people in the United States referred to that, but when we badgered the Industrial Development Board about it, we discovered an excellent answer which the Industrial Development Board has not bothered to use. At first sight, 10% corporation tax seems attractive, but people do not realise that pre-set-up expenditure is tax deductible for companies in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom generally, but not tax deductible for companies in the Republic of Ireland. The grants that are available in Northern Ireland are tax-free whereas the Republic of Ireland's grants are taxable.

Furthermore, capital expenditure is also deductible. The consequence of those deductions is that companies setting-up, depending on the amount that they invest and the expenditure that they incur, do not pay any corporation tax for several years. A nil rate of tax over the first few years of company operation is a significant advantage, and the Republic of Ireland's 10% rate applies only to profits that are retained and reinvested. That shows that the alleged benefits are not as great as they seem. The Industrial Development Board should have been making the position clearer on a matter that people have been referring to year after year.

I think that Ms Morrice spoke about consultation starting tonight. Perhaps I should make matters a little clearer.

Tonight a letter will be issued to the other parties inviting them to send representatives to a meeting on Thursday when the consultations will take place. Mr Neeson referred to bilaterals, but the invitation will be to a round-table meeting which all parties will attend. There may well be some matters which would be better pursued in bilateral and some collectively - we will judge that as best we can in the circumstances - but we are starting with a general meeting, rather than proceeding by way of bilaterals.

Having picked Mr Neeson up on that point, at least I should credit him for quoting the Agreement accurately - quite the opposite to the comments we have just had from Mr Doherty. The 31 October date in the Agreement refers only to identifying and agreeing areas where co-operation and implementation for mutual benefit will take place. This identification and agreement happens within the transitional period, and nowhere in the Agreement are the transitional arrangements precisely described.

The transitional arrangements are somewhat flexible. I notice that Mr Kelly also made that mistake. He quoted at some length from paragraph 16 and the succeeding paragraphs on Strand 1 which relate to the operation of the Assembly after the transfer of functions, but they are not relevant to the transitional arrangements. A number of Members have been making the mistake of reading paragraphs as applying to a transitional period which, in fact, they do not. That has been the cause of some of the confusion among Sinn Fein Members.

I found Mr Kelly's comments interesting. While he and other Sinn Fein Members were criticising us for allegedly not doing things, Mrs de Brún criticised us for doing things. She complained about the fact that the SDLP and the UUP had set up a working group and had sought assessments and other things. She asked who was directing this.

The answer is quite simple - I am, along with the Deputy First Minister (Designate). We are carrying out the task charged to us by the Assembly of putting ourselves in the position where we can bring forward proposals - we are working on this. It is quite unrealistic to expect us to do all the work ourselves, and that is why we have asked some colleagues to assist. And that is why we have sent matters off for technical assessments to other Government Departments.

Mr J Kelly:

Does the First Minister (Designate) accept that he is reciting from section (d) of the pledge of office, which is

"to participate with colleagues in the preparation of a programme for government"?

The First Minister (Designate):

We are not, and that is something that we will turn our mind to as soon as is practicable. It is unrealistic to expect everything to begin and to happen immediately and simultaneously. People should bear that in mind. During the transitional period we will be engaged in quite a complex process, and we will be trying to do in six to eight months what Wales and Scotland are taking several years to do. Mr Ford's comments on this point were quite inappropriate. He said that four months was enough time to do all these things. That is an unrealistic comment. We are engaged in this matter and are studying it; we have not yet got to a programme of government, but I think we have done very well to have got as far as we have on the matters to which we have given priority. I would also like to draw attention to what the Deputy First Minister (Designate) said: that, following the bilaterals that we had in September, only one other party gave a written submission with regard to North/South matters.

With regard to departmental structures it was several weeks before written submissions came in from other parties, and most of the people we met in those consultations said that they would follow up their oral comments with detailed papers. We waited weeks for those papers. After receiving and looking at them, we sent them off for technical assessment to Government Departments. As those assessments are returned we can and will advance the matter. Anyone who doubts the amount of work involved in this can go to the Library and look at the paper on North/South matters that has been lodged there.

The working party has been looking at those matters. A number of areas were identified and proposals were put forward by ourselves and the SDLP. These were all then sent for technical assessments, which have just been received and are in the library. I hope that those coming to Thursday's meetings will consider them because we would like to see the discussions focussing on some issues.

I mentioned two of them in my opening remarks, namely the matters which should be within a department of First Minister and Deputy First Minister. There is also the question of Junior Ministers, and I know that this was a matter of some controversy during the last consultation period. But there is now a provision in the Bill requiring us to consider whether we implement this, and, if so, how. So I would like to see some focus put on that.

I would also like to see Members focusing on the proposed areas for co-operation on the North/South axis, and the technical paper in the Library will be of help in this.

I hope that we will also soon be able to have a meeting collectively with representatives of the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Office. They have been consulted and there has been contact at official level.

Furthermore, I would not abandon hope that we will meet the target set out in Strand 2, paragraph 8 of the Agreement; that of identifying and agreeing areas for co-operation by the 31 October. It is possible for us to meet this target because we are not far away from it in some areas. If we could meet it in substance, then whether or not there has been an inaugural meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council would be another matter.

Mr C Wilson:

Does the First Minister agree, as I believe many of his Back-Benchers and his party's rank and file do, that any party inextricably linked to a paramilitary organisation which is retaining arms cannot give a total and absolute commitment to an exclusively democratic means of resolving political differences, nor could it oppose the use or threat of force by others for such purpose?

There should be Unionist unity on this matter. This is surely a position that the First Minister (Designate) can endorse. It is mentioned on the first page of the Belfast Agreement at paragraph 4 under "Declaration of Support". Would Mr Trimble confirm that it is his understanding that Sinn Fein/IRA and those others representing and fronting paramilitary organisations cannot meet that criteria and that they cannot give that commitment without formally winding up their operations?

The First Minister (Designate):

It is rather ironic that Mr Cedric Wilson has clearly not read what I said on Saturday. Had he done so he would have known that I quoted from exactly the same passage as he has just done and to the same effect as himself.

Mr C Wilson:

Is the First Minister (Designate) confirming that he agrees with my statement?

The First Minister (Designate):

When the Member looks at what I said on Saturday, he will find that I had already said it then. Consequently would the Member agree that it is a desperate shame for his Leader to say "I share the view of Sinn Fein", which is what he did with regard to this specific matter?.

Mr C Wilson:

Will the First Minister (Designate) give way?

The First Minister (Designate):

No, the Member has had his intervention.

Mr McLaughlin:

No matter about the degree of agreement on the Unionist Benches, surely this is a matter to be decided by the Assembly, not by the Unionist Members.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am not quite sure that I understand the Member's point of order.

Mr McLaughlin:

The First Minister (Designate) was being invited to offer an opinion as to the suitability or eligibility of any party to the Executive. That is a matter to be decided by the Assembly, not by the First Minister (Designate) or by the Unionist Members of the Assembly.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

No, but technically it would be correct to say that the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) have to make the proposals which then have to be ratified by the Assembly. I would assume from that that both the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) would have to be content with their own proposals.

5.00 pm

The First Minister (Designate):

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I was near the end of my comments, but perhaps it was appropriate that it was Mr McLaughlin who rose on that point of order. I was as confused as you as to what on earth he was getting at. Earlier he said that after six months there is no excuse for further delay. Nor is there any excuse for his organisation's delay in fulfilling its obligations. Under the Agreement it is committed to achieving the total disarmament of paramilitary organisations. It has accepted an obligation to disarm the Republican movement. That is his obligation. He may smile, but that is his obligation which he has failed to deliver so far. There is no excuse for the delay. That should have started some time ago.

We will continue to carry out our obligations, as we have done. However, I have to repeat what I said on Saturday. While Mr McLaughlin fails to discharge his obligations then, in accordance with paragraph 25 of Strand 1 of the Agreement, he is not entitled to office. He should read that paragraph of the Agreement too. That is important. We want to encourage him to carry out his obligations, but he cannot complain if, on failing to carry out his obligations, the consequences prescribed in the Agreement should follow.

This is a digression. We look forward to consultation on Thursday and hope that we make further progress particularly on North/South matters. We further hope that the constitution unit in the Cabinet Office makes progress with regards to the British/Irish Council. The meetings of the two will have to be the same, and we do not want one to hold back the other. They will be in position, I am sure, as the Agreement states in paragraph 7 of strand two,

"as soon as practicably possible".

We will be able to have meetings of both bodies so that two more elements of the Agreement will be in place.

I hope that there will be progress towards the transfer of functions as soon as possible and that we shall be able to do what we had all hoped to do, namely to implement the Agreement by seeing power transferred to the Assembly.

The Deputy First Minister (Designate):

I will refer to some of the points that have been made. I will not be able to cover all of them.

Mr Empey made a very valid point about the role of politicians with regard to inward investment. One of the benefits of the roadshow was that it gave us an opportunity to look at that and to make some assessment of it. It is a very potent role, and one that could be of great use in the future.

Mr Farren emphasised the danger of delay. I agree totally. Inertia is the most fundamental threat to any political process. Thus I believe it is absolutely essential that, this week, we proceed in a serious way with consultations and that we do not allow inertia to happen.

Mr P Robinson:

May I have Mr Mallon's interpretation on the section that deals with reaching agreement by 31 October? The First Minister (Designate) is correct in indicating that the purpose of that deadline is to identify and agree areas of co-operation for implementation. However, it also says that these will be agreed by the representatives of the transitional administration. Therefore, I assume that the representatives of the transitional administration must be in place before 31 October.

Therefore, does the Deputy First Minister (Designate) see himself and the First Minister (Designate) as being the representatives of the transitional administration under the terms of the Agreement?

The Deputy First Minister (Designate):

Mr Robinson knows full well what my answer to that question is. He knew the answer to that question before he asked it. I have very strong views on the issue and I expressed them in a very firm way two or three weeks ago.

One of the most interesting aspects of this debate is that we are seeing the beginning of the playing out of the fact that just because we are trying to co-operate as different political parties, it does not mean that we are any less Unionist or any less Nationalist, nor does it mean that we do not have our own firm views about things. It would be impossible for us to cease to be political so that we could work the political process. That, to me, is the most interesting part of it.

We are trying to come to terms with that reality but we will never do that if we take a legal, quasi-legal or technical interpretation of the Agreement or the legislation. Each of us could argue, very validly and logically, from many points of view, about that question and many other questions in the Agreement, and that has already happened in relation to decommissioning.

The other interesting theme is that it is almost as if the problem of decommissioning is an inter-Unionist problem, given the way in which it has been played out in the Assembly today, but, of course, it is not. It is not a Unionist versus Nationalist argument; it is not a Unionist versus Republican argument - the vast majority of Nationalists on the island of Ireland want decommissioning. That view has been stated by Fianna Fail, through the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, by Fine Gael, by the Irish Labour Party, by the Progressive Democrats, by the SDLP, and all through their Leaders.

It is worth posing one question to avoid the inter-party element on this. I can see how difficult it would be to make a response in terms of decommissioning because it is demanded by Unionism. Set Unionism aside for a moment - and I do not mean that in a disparaging way. Do it for the Irish people, in the name of the Irish people who have asked for it and who want it as dearly as anyone sitting on the Unionist Benches.

Mr McLaughlin asked when we can expect a full report. In my view, very quickly. It is possible to come to a conclusion about the number of Departments and their functions after one day of solid work. There may not be the number or the functions that every party would like, but a call has to be made on it sometime. One day could clear that up. We could make decisions, very quickly, about the implementation bodies and the bodies for enhanced co-operation. That could be done by the end of this week as well. It might not bring about what everybody would like, but decisions could be taken.

While the First Minister (Designate) and I took some criticism, some of it valid, some perhaps not - we are not always perfect - we have not allowed ourselves to make decisions under the Agreement that we could have made, to the detriment of other parties.

Part of the reason that we do not have as full a report as, perhaps, Members would have liked, and that it was not presented as quickly as it might have been, is that we have been assiduous - between ourselves and with ourselves - in ensuring that this be done in the most democratic way. The irony is that in trying to be as democratic as possible, it looks as if an undemocratic issue, decommissioning, is preventing the speed and authority that there might otherwise have been.

Mr Maskey:

The Deputy First Minister (Designate) is correct in saying that Sinn Fein has acknowledged that some work has been done, but does he not agree that a lie is given to that when it has taken up to two days before the deadline of 31 October for us to have the second all-party meeting of the Assembly? I do not think that this is being taken seriously.

The Deputy First Minister (Designate):

I could turn the question if I wanted to be a smart alec. I could say to Mr Maskey "You tell us when the final report will come out. You tell us when it will be done". I have stated, on behalf of the First Minister (Designate) and myself, that we could draw up the departmental structures and the implementation bodies in the areas for enhanced co-operation very quickly - that could be done. The question is this: how soon can that report be implemented? I know those in the Chamber who are not preventing it from being implemented and I know what issues are preventing it. I could well, with some validity, say "You tell me when it might be implemented."

I will proceed to a point already made by the First Minister (Designate) in relation to the questions asked by Mr Neeson. It is not confined to bilaterals - but that point has been well made.

I regret that Mr McCartney is not present. I would like to have had some further information on the struggle of memory, on the matter of forgetting, by Milan Kundera. I would have thought that in a divided society to try to retain memory as the primary source of inspiration was not the most productive way of proceeding. Yes, there are things which we never forget, but to base our political philosophies, our political way of life, and our political drive on that which we want to retain in memory, rather than look to the future, is not something that is a very inspiring type of philosophy. That is, apart from being full of porridge oats, a nice piece of imagery. But how full of porridge oats was the verbal submission made by the United Kingdom Unionist Party, or its paper on the Government Departments, the North/South Council of Ministers, the British/Irish Council or the Civic Forum? Could I recommend some porridge oats. Get them on the paper. At least then we would be able to assess them.

The points raised by Ms Morrice are valid - rightly she would have preferred to have had the statements in advance. As far as possible we will try to ensure a little more time in future. There was a logistical problem, and we accept responsibility for that. I hope that we will have the full report next time and that we will be able to issue it as quickly as possible. Ms Morrice is correct in terms of the development of local industries.

Mr J Kelly:

Will the Member give way?

The Deputy First Minister (Designate):

I will give way if the intervention is on the point being made, but not if we are going to hop on a guided tour through the Agreement again.

Mr J Kelly:

Does the Deputy First Minister (Designate) agree that nowhere in the Agreement is there a stipulation that decommissioning is a pre-condition to setting up the Executive?

5.15 pm

The Deputy First Minister (Designate):

For the umpteenth time I will say it; there is no such stipulation in the Agreement. I cannot find any and if you find it, let me know and I will put a big signpost out. That is my public position and I do not have any problems stating it here as I do elsewhere. I have discussed this fully with the First Minister (Designate) and he knows my position on it.

If the claque at the back is finished we might get back now to the matter in hand.

I note the comment about local industries and I absolutely agree that in searching for inward investment we should not lose sight of the fact that our economy will actually rest on the strength of our indigenous, local industries, and we should encourage them.

I am tempted to finish on a poetic note. Dr Birnie made reference to Robert Frost and said

"Good fences make good neighbours."

I have to take him to task on that because in reality Robert Frost was challenging the thesis that good fences make good neighbours. Assemblyman Poots confirmed that when he quoted the subsequent line:

"Something there is, that does not love a wall".

I believe that this is crucial to what we are doing here, not just in North/South terms, though it is important there too, but among ourselves, and in the sense that if we do not break down the walls mentally in terms of our political positions, our ideologies and our intolerance - and we are all intolerant - we are not going to be able to work together successfully.

I was very taken with the point made by Mr K Robinson that working together involves the accommodation of difference. That does not mean the subsuming of differences in somebody else's political philosophy. It is the working together despite the differences that is crucial, and that is the only approach which can sustain us as we go through what is going to be a very difficult period. This is a difficult period now, but it will be overcome, and I hope we do it ourselves, without the help of others. Then there will be the next crisis and then there will be the one after that.

What we can do is to carry out our mandate: decide on Departments, decide on the implementation bodies, decide on the areas for enhanced co-operation, decide on our forum, and decide on the British/Irish Council. If we bring forward our proposals, we can say at any given time that we have done what we were charged to do so that when we are in a position to go ahead, we can do so immediately. That surely is the benefit of our discussion today.

I commend the report from the First Minister (Designate) and myself to the House, and I make the very substantial pledge that if we all sit down and use our collective talents, we can get that body of work together very quickly, effectively, and efficiently and have it ready. Then we can move to the next crisis and solve it and then into the crisis after that and solve it. I have always predicted that the first five years of the Assembly will be a matter of rolling negotiations and rolling crisis management. That is what we have to do, and the sooner we start to do it, the sooner we finish it.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>