Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Today's issue of 'The Daily Telegraph' states

"Miss Mowlam's calculated blindness to what is happening in Northern Ireland goes beyond misguided idealism."

The paper states that there is a

"refusal to uphold the law".

Despite all those warnings the Government have ploughed ahead with returning yet more gangsters to Ulster's streets. Sooner or later some of them will return to murder, and Mr Blair and Miss Mowlam will have to shoulder the blame.

Mr B Hutchinson:

I listened to Mr McCartney with interest. He continually talks about punishment beatings and decommissioning. How can I ask loyalists to hand in weapons when the proposer of the motion claims that the Good Friday Agreement is a sell-out? The Chief Constable expects violence from dissident Republicans, the IRA has not said that the war is over, and Mr Paisley is preaching doom and gloom.

12.00

The challenge is not for me to convince Loyalists to decommission under present circumstances. The challenge is for all parties elected to the Assembly to create the political conditions that allow us to move forward. In 1994 the Progressive Unionist Party clearly stated that any citizen in possession of information relating to anti-social behaviour should report such information to the RUC. Party activists have worked with community representatives and the RUC to find solutions to this problem. The Progressive Unionist Party will work to influence the Ulster Volunteer Force and Red Hand Commandos to decommission their war materials.

If this process works, then decommissioning is a possibility. If it fails, the chance for decommissioning fails with it. The Progressive Unionist Party reaffirms its commitment to the Mitchell principles.

Ms Morrice:

The Women's Coalition has listened attentively to the debate and is acutely aware of the difficulties facing both sides in this delicate, difficult and dangerous journey. The Women's Coalition, like all political parties that have signed up to the Good Friday Agreement, has pledged to use its influence to bring about decommissioning. That is exactly what we are doing. We believe that the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement will bring about decommissioning.

We agree with the former Presbyterian moderator who said that the issue of decommissioning must not be allowed to wreck the agreement. We must get over this hurdle. Seventy-one per cent of the people of Northern Ireland supported the agreement. I was elected in North Down to defend the agreement and will do so with everything in my power.

One of the aims is

"to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement . of the agreement".

That means May 2000 - only 17 months away. If paramilitary weapons are not decommissioned by May 2000, the agreement will collapse. We have waited 30 years, and we have wasted 3,000 lives. We want decommissioning immediately, but we are prepared to wait. Can we not wait for another 300 days?

We can not and must not play into the hands of those who seek to destroy this fragile peace. The only people who will gain should this agreement fall apart are the armed dissidents who oppose it. We, like all right-thinking people in the Province, want to see the guns buried forever. We call on the Republican and Loyalist parties, the camps and the paramilitaries to publicly declare their support for the Good Friday Agreement.

We want agreement on the outstanding issues of departmental structures and North/South bodies. The Deputy First Minister (Designate) asked us to provide him with some suggestions. The Women's Coalition has been disappointed at the lack of proper consultation with the smaller parties in the last few weeks. We have submitted our documents and have been involved in negotiations. However, over the last two weeks, negotiations have been closed. The Assembly should not operate in such a way.

The Women's Coalition agrees that there should be 10 Departments which must be tailored to meet the specific needs and the changing culture of society. Issues such as equality - and I am not talking just about gender equality - social inclusion, children, families, Europe, training, education and public health need to be given pride of place in these Departments - a new place in a new Northern Ireland.

Also, we insisted that issues such as victims, reconciliation and the promotion of a culture of tolerance, which we cannot ignore, should be included in the agreement.

We have listened to the debates and negotiations on North/South bodies. These have been valuable, but we must remember that we are not creating anything new - all this has been done before in Europe. We believe in the value of North/South and East/West co-operation as a means of achieving greater economic and social cohesion on this island and between these islands. We want agreement on the North/South bodies, and we have been encouraged by movement in the past 24 hours.

However, we want to underline the fact that the setting up of North/South bodies and structures is not the only way to achieving greater understanding between the people of this island. Co-operation at a social level should go hand in hand with economic co-operation. We want to see the creation of a North/South body which will encompass art, culture, heritage and language as one. To leave the Irish language in a body on its own would defeat the purpose of the exercise - encouraging North/South dialogue.

Transport does not have to be dealt with in a North/South context, because such issues can be dealt with in an East/West one. We are talking about ports and air transport as well as about road and rail. To encourage understanding, greater effort should be put into the movement of workers, students, teachers and other people on this island. Examples of the work carried out by Co-operation North, the CBI and IBEC should be supported and enhanced.

Those who fear a loss of identity as a result of a North/South structure should consider the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which has been a North/South body for many years. The result has not made its Northern members any less Northern or its Southern members any less Southern.

I call on the Assembly to agree on North/South bodies and Departments before 21 December and to form an executive. That is how we can all get what we want - violence and the threat of it off our streets for ever.

Mr McGimpsey:

I will not dwell on the issuing of reports and on the amendments from the Alliance Party. Suffice it to say that I agree with Mr Mallon's comment that we are working to get agreements on outstanding areas. In my view, the sooner the better, and in my view the agreements should be in place before Christmas.

That brings us to the next stage, which is governed to some extent by Mr McCartney's motion. I have no problems with his proposal. Part (c) of the motion could have been written by any Ulster Unionist. It is exactly what other members of my party and I have been saying for the past 10 months - despite the criticism of those Unionists who have been telling us "No, that is nonsense." It is contained in the agreement, in paragraph 4 of the Declaration of Support:

"We affirm our total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences".

Paragraph 25 of strand one states

"Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means, and those who do not should be excluded or removed".

Under the heading "Transitional Arrangements," it is stated

"Shadow Ministers shall affirm their commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means and their opposition to any use or threat of force."

Part (b) of the Pledge of Office sets out the

"commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".

The chapter on decommissioning recalls the provisions of paragraph 25 - the exclusion or removal of office clause. The agreement is quite clear. Decommissioning is inclusive and explicit and is a requirement of any Member who seeks to hold office in an Executive. It is in the agreement, chapter and verse.

We are moving towards an agreement on strands one and two, and the question that will arise is whether Sinn Féin can take part. I have said publicly that Sinn Féin's present position is one of self exclusion. It cannot retain the capacity to do 1,000 Omaghs, in terms of a Semtex arsenal, and claim to be committed to democracy and non-violence. The holding of such an arsenal is a threat.

Decommissioning is an obligation under the agreement, and it is the demand of civic and democratic society. It is a sine qua non. Sinn Féin must have understood that when it supported the agreement, and must have realised that there would be calls for decommissioning. Under the agreement, the date for total disarmament is May 2000. Not just Sinn Féin but the Provisional movement and Loyalists signed up to that.

Members are looking for a start date for decommissioning and a programme with a verifiable and credible beginning. However, Danny Morrison has said that the IRA will not give up the rust from a single gun. There is no way forward for anyone on that basis.

The armed struggle has failed, the central strategy of which was to make the cost of the Union so high that no British Government would be prepared to pay it. They imagined that in this way they could get rid of the British presence. This strategy ignores the fact that the British presence in Ireland is the Unionist community, the million-plus men and women living in the north-east corner of the island who hold themselves to be British. All the armed struggles in the world could not remove such a British presence. It seems that Sinn Féin is prepared, at least privately if not publicly, to recognise that.

12.15 pm

The agreement contains a consent principle. The inhabitants of the island of Ireland are not a nation in the political sense. They are not now, never have been and probably never will be. Who says this? The people of the island say it. They agree that there are two political entities, which means that there is no right to national self-determination in terms of the entire population, no right to unity of the national territory, and no right to national self-government. The armed struggle has failed, and there is no logic in the maintenance of an arsenal of weapons. The Provisional IRA must have understood that when it moved forward on the agreement. It must have understood that it was signing up to decommissioning.

The hour is late but by no means too late. We are not quite ready for the appointed day - the transfer of powers. Once we get to that point, then we have the crunch. Unless there is movement from the Provisionals the question becomes: is the process to be destroyed because Sinn Féin will not honour its obligations or do we move forward without it?

We have three options: to move forward with Sinn Féin and decommissioning; to wait until Sinn Féin is comfortable with the agreement and its obligations; to carry on without movement. The choice will come soon, and it is up to Sinn Féin. With all that has been invested in this process we cannot allow that irredentist group within the Provisional movement who insist on retaining its arsenal to bring the process down. The consequences do not bear thinking about.

I do not have a problem with Mr McCartney's proposal; it is exactly what we have been saying for the past months - something, of course, that the members of the DUP deny. [Interruption]

If this is a sell-out and a betrayal why is the Member here? He is here because he has nowhere else to go. We are all in the same boat. We all have nowhere else to go.

The situation is that we can go forward with Sinn Féin and the Provisional movement or go forward without them, and the choice rests with the Provisional movement which should face up to its responsibilities.

Mr Farren:

There is an understandable sense of frustration, annoyance and perhaps even anger in the Assembly and beyond at the delay in reaching agreement on institutional aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. As one close to the negotiations over recent weeks, I would have preferred to have come here to contribute to a debate on the progress that had produced agreement. As in many situations when gaps are being closed, the remaining gaps become increasingly more difficult, and in our situation those gaps are informed by age-old fears and apprehensions. Hence our remaining difficulties. I am convinced, however, that the gaps can and will be closed.

The opportunity given by today's debate allows me to stand back from the immediate concerns of those negotiations and remind myself that what was achieved on Good Friday was a balanced agreement that took account of the aspirations and allegiances of our two communities. Hence the agreement's effective recognition of the Nationalist community's aspirations: that community's identity and its desire to see closer relationships develop between the North and the South, especially through the North/South Ministerial Council.

The Good Friday Agreement also recognised and respected the Unionist community's allegiances and aspirations by giving practical expression to its desire for closer relationships between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom through the British-Irish Council.

Crucially, the Good Friday Agreement enshrined the principle of consent as the only acceptable, democratic basis for constitutional change. The carefully constructed balance extends to the manner in which all the matters treated under "confidence-building" are to be advanced. They are not directed, and neither I nor my party interpret them as being directed, towards allaying the concerns of only one community.

On the question of institution building under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, we must seek to progress in a way which continues to reflect that overall sense of equity. In particular, what we have been attempting to address in recent discussions on cross-border bodies is the creation of something for which there is no precedent. Hence some of the difficulties which have arisen.

We want to create a council which will be a political expression of the desire within the Nationalist community for a tangible link with the rest of the people of Ireland. It will also, in accordance with the Good Friday Agreement, provide initiatives for the mutual benefit of people in both parts of Ireland, and it is in this regard that it will probably be welcomed by others outside that tradition. Above all, it will allow, on a daily basis, the promotion of understanding and reconciliation between the hitherto divided people throughout this island.

Pursuing such ends, the council cannot, and will not, be a means of imposing change in violation of the principle of consent. We can, and must, deliver a package of implementation bodies and areas for enhanced North/South co-operation that will address real needs, and address them in a manner that will significantly contribute to the economic, social and cultural aspects of life in both parts of the island.

An endorsement of the emphasis on economic co-operation comes not just from the Social Democratic and Labour Party but from the wider community, and particularly from the business sector. These sources of support should allay the fears and concerns that others in the House may have about North/South implementation bodies. The Confederation of British Industry and IBEC have been referred to. They have made substantial contributions to economically directed initiatives under the remit of the North/South Council.

I recently addressed a major meeting convened by Chamberlink in County Monaghan. More than 250 representatives from chambers of commerce North and South came together to discuss how they might enhance their own and each other's businesses. The message to me and Assemblyman Kennedy from the Ulster Unionist Party, who also addressed that meeting, was that we have to take initiatives, where it is in our remit to do so, that will address the need to promote North/South trade and trade beyond this island.

Last night's 'Belfast Telegraph' highlighted the contribution that has been made by one of our leading economists in this area and welcomed the prospect of the North/South Council's providing enhanced co-operation on economic matters.

12.30 pm

A cheann-chomhairle.

Ní ar chúrsaí eacnanaíochta amháin a bheidh an bhéim taobh istigh den chomhairle trasteorann cuid thábhachtach dár noidhreacht Gaelach. Is é an agus tábhachtach dúinn uile an oidhreacht cheanna agus beidh béim thádhachtach ar an oidhreacht sin taobh istich den chomhairle trasteorann.

I want to see that emphasis on our Gaelic culture, which will be part of the North/South Council's remit, widened and broadened to include the cultural traditions of all our people.

In conclusion, as we consider the immediate issues, I remind Members of the wider implications of the agreement, and of all the obligations which it places on all of us. I refer in particular to the obligations on disarmament and decommissioning. In a previous debate, I said that I do not see decommissioning as merely a requirement of the Good Friday Agreement, and that those who currently possess arms and those who wield influence over them should regard decommissioning as an honourable and necessary contribution to the establishment of a lasting, peaceful democracy.

I believe that we will achieve agreement on the outstanding matters very soon, and that we will be able to provide the people who elected us with an agreement on institutions, and begin to operate those institutions early in the new year.

The sitting was suspended at 12.35 pm and resumed at 2.01 pm.

Mr Kane:

For the past few weeks the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has been trying to jump-start the Belfast Agreement - if, indeed, it ever got off the ground. Tony Blair should have been made aware that, in developing a strategy for the future of Northern Ireland, we have had the benefit of much experience. Almost everything has been tried, at least once. He could now be forgiven for comparing the Belfast Agreement with the group that tried to set up a small, anarchist community, only to find that the people would not obey the rules.

The First Minister, David Trimble, finds himself in the same predicament. Having called for paramilitaries to disarm in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, he now finds himself between a rock and a hard place. The next day, the newly elected army council of the IRA ruled out demands for a handover of weapons. Mr Trimble must have felt that the bee of sorrow had stung his heart yet again - this is the third time this year that the IRA has dismissed calls for decommissioning, and Sinn Féin maintains that it is not in a position to deliver on arms.

The Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam, has said that the political parties agree to all aspects of the Belfast Agreement - all, that is, except peace and goodwill to all men.

Mr Trimble may take comfort in the knowledge that no one means all he says and that very few say all they mean. He should also remember the philosophy that

"fear is the foundation of most Governments"

when deliberating on the allocation of ministerial positions. Will the First Minister confirm that no ministerial body will be appointed which includes Sinn Féin while the IRA maintains its stockpile of arms and explosives? Mr Trimble would do well to remember the words of Mr John Taylor, the then Home Affairs Minister, in December 1972 when he warned

"Enjoy this Christmas. It may be your last in peace. In the new year, you will probably have to resist an imposed solution by the British Government."

Mr P Doherty:

A Chathaoirligh, before referring to the Sinn Féin amendment, I want to pick up on a few comments that have been made by Members across the Floor.

Mr McCartney said that no mandate, no agreement and no Government can set aside democracy. That is complete gobbledegook. How does anyone receive a mandate except through the democratic process? How did the agreement, parts of which we are discussing, receive its endorsement? And how, other than through the democratic process, are Governments elected?

Unionists in general are in danger of believing their own misinformed propaganda. For the record, I repeat what Mitchel McLaughlin said earlier: there is no such party as Sinn Féin/IRA.

There is a party known as Sinn Féin, which sought, and got, a democratic mandate in the Assembly election. Dr Paisley quoted from newspapers; he quoted amusingly from a book wherein he nearly got friendly with the Pope; and he quoted from an alleged IRA constitution. I suppose that he would know more about that than anyone else. The claim that Sinn Féin speaks for the IRA appears nowhere in any of our literature, and our constitution in particular. If any Members would like a copy, as they are given to quoting from constitutions, I will make one available. Sinn Féin speaks for Sinn Féin and for the people who vote for us. Unionism needs to abandon the negative mindset of continuous misinformation.

To return to the motion before us, I noted Mr Trimble's statement that it was "not impossible" that by 21 December he could bring forward some sort of report. We do not want "some sort of report". We want a final report, and we call upon the First Minister (Designate) and his Deputy to provide it, not later than 21 December. Mr Mallon has said that it could be done in half a day, and I believe that. Mr Trimble said that he was negotiating until 11 o'clock last night, and I know that to be true, as some members of our delegation were here until 11.20 pm. The situation is agreed in principle; there are only the fine details to be worked out.

If Unionists have the political will, they can have closure on this issue in half a day. I urge them to show courage and get on with implementation of the agreement. They are fond of quoting paragraph 25 and saying that it has to be supported. That is true, but paragraph 16 of strand one also has to be supported, as does paragraph 8 in strand two. Let me reiterate that Sinn Féin supports the agreement - every single paragraph. We do not support some parts of it and ignore others. We support all of it.

Recently Mr Trimble said that he - and I think he meant both himself and Unionism collectively - put a great price on the precise use of words. Sinn Féin also puts a great price on the precise use of words. There are no excuses left for Unionists to refuse to implement the agreement. They need political courage, vision and a sense of history. In this unique situation that has been created with the Belfast Agreement, they should have the courage to implement it. They have the authority to do so.

Mr McFarland:

In the light of the new relationship brought about by the agreement, I do not wish to unnecessarily annoy Sinn Féin, but I hope that this venture into reality will not elicit from the Member for North Belfast, Mr Kelly, another threat that the views of the Ulster Unionist Party might bring about a renewal of IRA violence. He, of course, uttered these words at the weekend.

I understood that the guns of the IRA were silent and that the IRA had joined the constitutional road that was the way forward. Surely the assurances of Sinn Féin as to the direction of the Republican movement cannot be worthless.

In the early 1970s the IRA was in a mess, with individual battalions conducting unco-ordinated operations, and Sinn Féin was a Cinderella organisation with little direction. In the late 1970s the IRA reorganised into its cell structure. A strategy document, which was found by the Gárdaí in the Dublin flat of Seamus Twomey, the then IRA Chief of Staff, made it clear, as reported at the time, that

"Sinn Féin will come under the army at all levels".

The relationship between the two organisations was fairly clear at that stage. There followed the evolution of the Armalite-and-the-ballot-box strategy, with Sinn Féin moving onto the political stage that it occupies today while the IRA continued its terrorist campaign.

One has to be in awe of Sinn Féin at local government level. If someone in Turf Lodge gets a burst pipe he calls the Sinn Féin centre. Unlike the rest of us, who take a load of guff from the local plumber and wait about a week and a half to get something fixed, within half an hour the Turf Lodge plumber comes round and the pipe is fixed. How is it, I wonder, that Sinn Féin can have such influence with plumbers? The answer, of course, is that Sinn Féin and the IRA are - in the words of two successive Prime Ministers - "inextricably linked".

Sinn Féin claim that they are separate, but evidence of dual membership is piling up. Sinn Féin's claims of not speaking for the IRA are ridiculous. The paramilitaries from all sides were involved in the talks quite clearly because it was understood that they were able to speak for their respective organisations.

I am encouraged to know that when discussions are taking place with key members of Sinn Féin they are, in reality, taking place with the IRA - straight from the horse's mouth, from those who can produce the goods.

I have some quiz questions for Members now. This came out of recent court cases and newspaper reports. Although Sinn Féin know the answers, they are not excluded as it is in the spirit of the agreement. Which two senior Sinn Féin Assembly Members left the IRA Army Council to go political but rushed back when they lost control to southern command, which bombed Canary Wharf? Which senior Sinn Féin Assembly Member was identified as the adjutant general of the IRA and army council member during the case which Thomas Murphy took against the 'The Sunday Times' in Dublin? Which senior Sinn Féin Member comes from the Belfast Brigade of the IRA and sits on the army council? I could go on, but the flavour of the relationship is plain to see.

I was at the last three days of the talks, and it was quite clear to everyone there the spirit in which they were being conducted. It was clearly understood by the constitutional parties that decommissioning was a key part of that agreement. We were concerned that the words in the agreement were not strong enough, and we received written and verbal assurances from the Prime Minister that, in the spirit of the agreement, decommissioning would start in parallel with prisoner releases. On the basis of those assurances we signed up to it.

Where are we now? In the last two or three weeks there has been an IRA convention. I see from yesterday morning's 'Irish News' that the word on the street is that authority to take the decision on decommissioning was passed down to the seven-man army council. Therefore authority rests, one could argue, on Members of this House.

The IRA may need the space in which to sort out and convince its grass roots, and we are happy enough to give them that space. In the end the requirement of the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the island of Ireland for decommissioning must be met. We need to be realistic. The IRA must prepare for decommissioning. If responsibility for it has been moved down to the army council, if we can get our other structures sorted out in here, then the time must be right for decommissioning, and they really must get on with it.

I am in full agreement with and support Mr McCartney's motion.

2.15 pm

Mr Dallat:

Many things have happened since this motion was submitted by Mr McCartney, including some interesting developments in his party. As Harold Wilson said,

"A week is a long time in politics."

Delays in setting up the structures within Northern Ireland and between the North and the South are unacceptable. The fact that Mr McCartney chooses to exploit such disappointments should serve to warn of the dangers of further delay. Only those with a vested interest in destroying the Assembly benefit from such delays.

Yesterday's four-hour debate on the Health Service showed how urgent it is that we move on and serve the people who elected us. There are many other pressing issues relating to health and social services, education and training, economic development and tourism - to mention just a few - which require the involvement of Assembly Members at the earliest opportunity. The honeymoon period is over, and the hard work must begin.

Members of the public are not impressed with Assembly parties which are bogged down in the past and afraid to move on and face the future. Let us stop exploiting the weaknesses in each other, because that only recoils on ourselves and leaves everyone worse off. The SDLP does not have these problems; it has been waiting, since the downfall of the power-sharing Executive of 1974, to begin the process of partnership government. It has been annoyed by the lack of progress and not impressed by those who gloat over the delays - and this motion clearly sets out to do that. However, as we debate the motion, the work is going on in this building, and success will come - perhaps sooner than our opponents believe.

Sniping from the sidelines has been the favourite pastime of too many politicians in the past. Why do they do it? How many lives has it cost? Who has benefited? Certainly not the 71% who voted for the agreement and now feel very let down by the lack of vision and progress.

We can quote from the past. All of us can do that. Dr Paisley quoted from a book this morning, but what does it achieve? If I quoted what Dr Paisley said in the late 1970s, when he said that he would rather trust the devil than the RUC, would that achieve anything? Certainly not. If anyone doubts my word, let him go to the Assembly Library and check Hansard. But that is not why we are here.

One thing is sure: the past is the past and it is gone for ever. There is no going back. That simply is not an option - not now or at any time in the future. This time the wreckers and the begrudgers cannot win. Of that I am sure because slowly, but surely, there is a sense of community developing from the bottom up, and they know it. Much of this positive action has emerged gradually from economic regeneration groups, peace and reconciliation boards and a whole variety of community-based activity. We are in a much different position now than we were in 1974; there is a community out there solidly committed to backing the Assembly's efforts to move forward.

Many Members are involved in these activities, and they know that the day of the politician who thought for everyone and made all the decisions on his own, mostly to protect his own self-interests, is gone. People are no longer prepared to put up with the claptrap of mistrust and dissension. In such a world, arms and explosives, like the behaviour of failed politicians trapped in the past, become irrelevant. They do not count any more, and holding up the work of the Assembly over such an issue makes no sense at all.

In a new environment where there is developing trust, all guns will disappear, both mentally and in reality. In a new society built on partnership and trust there will be no place for weapons of war, no urge to feel the need to defend, because the greatest weapon of all is the ability to trust each other. To date, there has not been enough of that. We need to move forward, and we look forward to working with people in other parties who are as committed as we are to ensuring that the future is different from the past, that it is built on trust rather than fear, and offers hope rather than despair.

I believe that before this week is over, there will be agreement, and the people of Ireland - north and south - will be able to have the Christmas present they have all wanted for over 30 years. That is the real business of this Assembly. We are ready and willing to finish the business rather than waste time on motions which emphasise failure rather than hope for the future. Pantomimes belong to the schools and theatres outside - the Assembly is in the business of making this country work.

Mr Dodds:

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate.

Some of us were beginning to wonder when we would have the opportunity to debate such issues again, and it is no thanks to the initiative of either the First Minister (Designate) or his Deputy that this debate is taking place today.

I congratulate all those responsible for ensuring that it is taking place. Members should have the opportunity to debate such crucial issues. I was perturbed to hear the First Minister (Designate) indicate that come the date specified - 18 January - we may once again be listening to another interim report, although I noted the remarks of the Deputy First Minister (Designate), who was not looking forward to that prospect at all.

Amazement is added to my concern when I consider that Mr Taylor, as deputy leader of the UUP, has already said at a press conference that 10 Ministries have been agreed. I fail to understand, therefore, why we are not hearing details of that today. Mr McGimpsey said that we might have some agreement before Christmas, and I sincerely hope that if there is such an agreement, the Assembly will be reconvened to allow Members to debate these issues and consider them properly rather than having to wait until another day.

The main thrust of this proposal centres on the fundamental issue of decommissioning - an issue which has been fudged time and time again - and I am glad that we have the opportunity to debate it once more. It is a fundamental democratic pre-requisite that any party seeking to take part in the democratic process - never mind taking part in democratic government - should be completely committed to democratic, peaceful methods and should be prepared to give up weaponry, illegal armies and paramilitary gangs.

We are in this situation because during the talks process which led to the agreement and in the agreement itself the issue of decommissioning was never really grasped. It was fudged and put off to another day. The difficulties we are facing in getting others to move on that issue is the result of the fudging that has taken place in the past. Those who now demand the handover of weapons and were prepared to sit and negotiate with IRA/Sinn Féin whilst they held on to their weapons, are in a difficult position.

They say that it is essential - and I agree with this - that to be committed to an exclusively peaceful and democratic process means that there must be no weapons on the table, under the table, or outside the door. That was the same requirement for entry into the talks process to begin with, yet IRA/Sinn Féin were admitted into the talks process, were seated at the talks table, were allowed to complete the talks process, and not one Armalite or a single ounce of Semtex was handed over. That is why Members on these Benches lack credibility on the issue of decommissioning. The very demands they make now they previously made during the talks, and yet it was fudged, and IRA/Sinn Féin were admitted.

We are told that decommissioning is an essential component of the talks and the peace process. The word "essential" is used but we never see any movement on the issue. Despite the concessions, the paramilitaries and their representatives are not even prepared to begin movement on what the people of Northern Ireland demand.

The DUP has been consistent and clear throughout. We do not rely on the Belfast Agreement, and those who use it as the basis for demanding decommissioning are relying on a false premise. It should demand that decommissioning begins before IRA/Sinn Féin get into government, and before terrorist prisoners are released. The tragedy is that the agreement does not demand such a move. I have read it carefully and it does not say, as was claimed in the debate, that decommissioning has to be completed within two years. It states that those who signed the agreement will

"use any influence they may have to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years".

I can almost hear the argument: "We have used all the influence at our disposal and we will continue to do that ad infinitum." There is no demand in the agreement for the completion of decommissioning within two years.

It is the clear demand of democracy, and of the people of Northern Ireland, that those who want to gain positions in government and play a full role in the democratic process must be unarmed, and should not have at their backs those who are engaged in intimidation, racketeering or punishment beatings. It is also the demand of the Prime Minister. In Northern Ireland and in his own handwriting, he pledged to the people that terrorists and their frontmen would not benefit from the agreement unless violence was over forever, done with for good. It is the Government's responsibility to see that Sinn Féin/IRA and others do not benefit from the agreement unless decommissioning is completed.

The House has been lectured by Sinn Féin spokespersons about a new start, a new beginning, looking to the future, as if the arms issue applied only to the past. I remind the House that Mr Kearney, who was murdered in the New Lodge area in my constituency, died as a result of the use of IRA guns only a few months ago. Guns are still being used on the streets of Northern Ireland. They are not becoming irrelevant, they are being used to murder and inflict harm on people, and to exile and threaten them. Decommissioning cannot be put off. It has to be tackled now, and it has to be dealt with once and for all.

The First Minister (Designate) said that there had to be a credible beginning to decommissioning. Some Ulster Unionist spokespersons equate the commitment to

"exclusively peaceful and democratic means"

to the beginning of decommissioning. They have accepted that, when IRA/Sinn Féin begin to decommission, they will be committed to "exclusively peaceful means". But it is about more than just beginning. It means the completion of decommissioning, giving up weapons in their entirety, the dismantling of terrorist organisations. I welcome the fact that there will be a united Unionist front on the motion. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made it clear time and time again that the IRA and Sinn Féin are inextricably linked, yet paragraph c of the motion says

"any party inextricably linked with a paramilitary organisation retaining arms cannot give a total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic means".

There has to be substantive and meaningful decommissioning, not a token gesture. However, I fear that we are being prepared for some sort of token gesture that will, in some way, allow movement.

2.30 pm

The people of Northern Ireland, who have seen the release of over half the terrorist prisoners, who see the RUC under threat from paramilitary gangs whose organisations are still fully intact, are watching all these moves being made, and they will not be prepared to settle for some form of gesture. They want something substantial and meaningful which will show that people are divorcing themselves from violence and terrorist activity once and for all.

The DUP is happy to support the motion. I welcome the fact that the Unionist side will be presenting a united front and representing the clear demand from the people of Northern Ireland that the days of paramilitary organisations and those who believe in the use of force, be over. If they wish to reap the rewards of democracy, they must be fully committed to the means of democracy.

Ms de Brún:

Is ionsaí oscailte ar Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta an rún a tháinig ón Uas McCartney. Tá an teachta ó Dhún Thuaidh ag iarraidh an chuma a chur ar an scéal go bhfuil sé ag iarraidh cúrsaí a bhogadh chun tosaigh. Act ní hamhlaidh an scéal ar chor ar bith.

Tá an tUas McCartney go hiomlán in éadan an Chomhaontaithe, go hiomlán in éadan an phacáiste ar vótáileadh ar a shon i Mí Bealtaine seo a chuaigh thart. Chomh luath agus a d'aontaigh na páirtithe ar phacáiste éigin agus fiú sula raibh reifreann ar an cheist, chuaigh an tUas McCartney agus a chuid comrádaithe gcionn le sraith cruinnithe a eagrú chun cur in aghaidh an Chomhaontaithe. Is cuid den fheachtas sin an rún atá os ár gcomhair inniu.

Cáineann an tUas McCartney Sinn Féin go láidir agus é ag moladh an rúin. Ach níl an rún seo dírithe ar pháirtí s'againn amháin. Tá sé dírithe in éadan na bpáirtithe uilig a tháinig le chéile chun dul chun cinn a dhéanamh trí chómhra agus comhréiteach.

Níl páirtí s'aige sásta beart a dhéanamh ar son na síochána ó thuaidh. A mhalairt ar fad - tá siad ag iarraidh bac a chur ar an ghluaiseacht i dtreo buansíochána agus comhoibrithe. Tá siad ag cur in aghaidh comhionnanais agus bunú institiúidí inar féidir linn uilig comhoibriú ar mhaithe lenár bpobal uile.

Is sa chomhthéacs sin a chaithfimid breathnú ar an rún seo. Is cuid lárnach de iarracht cheannaire an UKUP - ma tá páirtí fós aige - cúlú ón Chomhaontú agus ó obair páirtithe eile atá anseo le theacht ar réiteach fadtéarmach sa tír seo. Is cuid lárnach de throid s'aige in aghaidh an Chomhaontaithe é. Is dá thairbhe sin aiarraim ar Theachtaían eile den Tionóíl gan tacú leis an rún mar atá sé.

Tá sé riachtananch go leanfaimid ar aghaidh leis an obair chun na hinstitiúidí uilig a chur ar bun, an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin, na forais uile-Éireann agus na hinstitúidí thoir thiar. Sin an bealach is fearr le ré nua a thabhairt isteach sa tír seo.

Athníonn leasú s'againn an gá atá le tuairisc ón Chéad Aire (Ainnmithe) agus ón leasChéad Aire (Ainnmithe). sonnraíonn sé go soiléir sa Chomhaontú go mbeidh institiúidí ann "atá in ann údarás feidhmiúchain agus reachtach a fheidhmiú". Is léir go bhfuil Teachtaí éigin sa Tionól seo nach bhfuil sásta na céimeanna riachtanacha a ghlacadh chun sin a chur i bhfeidhm, daoine arbh fhearr leo nach mbeadh aon dul chun cinn ann má tá comhoibiú, comhionnanas nó struchtúir chuimsitheacha ina bhfuil áit do gach duine mar chuid den dul chun cinn sin.

Ni féidir linn cúlú. caithfimid dul ar aghaidh. Caithfimid leanstan ar aghaidh leis an obair chun Cothrom na Féinne bhuní sna Sé Chontae. Is gá leanstan ar aghaidh le saoradh na gcimí, le bunú shéirbhis nua póilineachta agus le hathbhreithniú ar an chóras dlí. Caithfimid aontú anois ar na forais uile-Éireann agus ar na Ranna. Ba chóir go spreagfadh aontú ar na hábhair sin sinn uilig leis na céimeanna riachtanacha eile a ghlacadh - an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin agus an Chomhairle Aireachta uile-Éireann a chur ar bun agus fríd sin na comhlachtaí forfheidhmithe a bhunú. Ghlac formhór na bpáirtithe sa Tionól seo le Comhaontú Aoine an Chéasta - caithfimid cloí leis anois.

Dá thairbhe sin iarraim oraibh tacú le leasú s'againne.

The motion before us today is an open attack on the Good Friday Agreement. The Member from North Down is trying to give the impression that he is attempting to move things on, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr McCartney is totally opposed to the agreement voted on last May. As soon as the parties came to an agreement, and even before the question was put to a referendum, he and his colleagues were out organising a series of public meetings to oppose it. This motion is part and parcel of that campaign.

Mr McCartney roundly criticised Sinn Féin when moving the motion this morning. It is clear that the motion is not directed solely at Sinn Féin. On the contrary, the motion is directed against all the parties who came together to seek progress and to find accommodation through dialogue. He is not trying to seek peace in the Six Counties, he is trying to put obstacles in the way of an accommodation and of real and lasting peace. Mr McCartney's supporters have set their faces against equality, parity of esteem and the establishment of institutions in which we can all work together for the good of all our people.

It is in this context that we need to examine the motion. It is part and parcel of the attempt by the Leader of the UK Unionist Party - that is, if he still has a party - to retreat from the Good Friday Agreement and from the work of other parties who wish to find a lasting settlement. This motion is part of his fight against the agreement and, for that reason, I ask Members not to support it as it stands.

It is essential that we work to put the institutions in place - the Executive, the all-Ireland bodies and the East-West dimension. That is the best way to bring about a new era for us all.

The Sinn Féin amendment recognises the need for a report from the First and the Deputy First Ministers. The agreement clearly states that institutions will be put in place which are "capable of exercising executive and legislative authority". But it is clear that some Members are not prepared to take the steps to see this through. That would entail co-operation, equality and inclusive structures in which there was a place for all.

We cannot turn back. We must go forward and continue the work to make equality a reality here in the Six Counties. We need to move forward with prisoner releases, with establishing a new police service and with a fundamental review of the justice system. We need agreement on all-Ireland bodies and the Departments now. Agreement on these matters should be a spur for us all to take the remaining steps to set up the Executive, the all-Ireland Ministerial Council and, through this, the implementation bodies. The majority of the parties supported the agreement and must stick to it now.

I ask the Assembly to support the amendment moved by Mitchel McLaughlin.

Mr Close:

I would like to make it clear that the Alliance Party tabled its amendments because it is a strong supporter of the Good Friday Agreement and because it is concerned at the delay in the full implementation of that agreement. Our action should not be construed or interpreted as putting a spanner in the works. Unlike the mover of the original motion, the Alliance Party does not wish to bring the Good Friday Agreement down; unlike the DUP it does not wish to wreck people's hopes; and unlike Union First it is not being destructive. Rather, it wishes to operate, be constructive and be positive in its demand that all those who have responsibility move forward.

When people went to the polls on 22 May 1998, they gave an overwhelming endorsement to the Good Friday Agreement. In our book, that was democracy. It was the voice of the people. That agreement was successfully negotiated by all those in the political parties who recognised that the only way to solve political disputes and differences was by negotiation and dialogue.

Yes, there are others who, recognising that their stance was unlikely to gain much support and having illustrated that they were either unwilling or unable to compromise, left the table. But in so doing, they exposed their weakness, their stubbornness and, yes, their intransigence.

It is important to note that the people have endorsed the agreement in full. They were asked a simple question:

"Do you support the agreement reached in the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland and set out in Command Paper 3883?"

And the people said "Yes" - "Yes" to the parts they liked, and "Yes" to the parts with which they had difficulty. In so doing, they demonstrated their courage and hope for the future. They voted "Yes" to the Good Friday Agreement - not to the spins, not to the comments of others and not to other people's handwritten notes.

People are not stupid. They knew what they were doing, and they recognised that the agreement pointed a way forward based on compromise. They knew that it offered hope for the future.

Having clearly and unambiguously voted "Yes" to the agreement, and having staked their claim and their future on that agreement, the people went to the polls once again and elected the Members of this Assembly. We are people whom they knew and some of whom they trusted to implement that agreement. They charged Members with putting in place the various parts of the agreement which they, the people, had endorsed.

The people wished to see the positions of First Minister and Deputy First Minister put in place, and that has been achieved. But what has happened to the Executive, the various Committees, the Civic Forum, the cross-border bodies, the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council?

The people did not vote for procrastination, for a renegotiation of the agreement, or for childish stubbornness; they voted for political action which would see the agreement implemented fully. Yet six months on, the people can ask with justification "What has been done? Why have the posts of Ministers not been sorted out? Why is there no North/South Council? Where is the Civic Forum? Why are the old arguments and battles still being fought? Why is tribalism, as represented by Unionism and Nationalism, displaying the same old stubbornness as before?" And they ask "What has changed?"

The agreement's Declaration of Support says

"We must never forget those who have died or who have been injured, and their families. But we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust".

Is this empty rhetoric? And let Members note the following:

"We pledge that we will, in good faith, work to ensure the success of each and every one of the arrangements to be established under this agreement."

Is that, too, empty rhetoric?

Mutual trust is in very short supply; good faith appears to be an aspiration; and as for tolerance, surely that means self-restraint, mildness and moderation. Those qualities have certainly been absent in any recent interviews I have seen and from some of the comments made earlier.

People are concerned about these matters, and those charged with responsibility have a duty to deal with those concerns. But people's expectations do not end with the list that I have just outlined. They also expect to see an end to the violence that has destroyed so many lives.

2.45 pm

They believed that the fresh start for which they voted meant a permanent end to death, destruction, threat and intimidation by terrorists. Here too, I regret to say, the people have been disappointed.

The thugs and the gangsters are still using bullets; the hoods are still smashing skulls and bones; and the local mafia are still extorting money and controlling people in their neighbourhoods. The people want to break free. They want to live, work and play, free from stress and intimidation.

Again, the people pose the question "Was the Declaration of Support by all the participants to the agreement that they would oppose any use or threat of force just empty rhetoric?" They ask "Where is the evidence to suggest otherwise?" Is it not a fact that the retention of illegal guns and explosives, irrespective of whether they are used, constitutes a threat against this entire community? It strikes me that too many Members of the House have been rather muted in their expressions of opposition to this threat.

The agreement was strongly recommended to the people, and they responded in an emphatic manner. All Members should now keep their side of the bargain. If some do not, they could be seen as hypocrites.

Christmas - the season of goodwill - is approaching. As the momentous year of 1998 draws to a close and a new year dawns, I appeal to the First Minister (Designate) and to the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to do what is necessary, in the spirit of goodwill, to reinvigorate the hope that was offered on Good Friday.

Those Members who have influence with the paramilitaries should do what is necessary to have the threat that is represented by weapons and explosives removed. Give the people back their freedom and let them enter 1999 unburdened by the yoke of fear and intimidation.

Mr Roche:

The pro-Union electorate in Northern Ireland is becoming increasingly aware of the extent to which the UUP negotiators conceded, given the terms of the Belfast Agreement, a form of government for Northern Ireland entirely incompatible with democratic practice and the rule of law.

The core point about the governance of Northern Ireland within the terms of the agreement is that the representatives of Republican terror can take seats in the Executive without the IRA's ever decommissioning its terrorist arsenal. The position of the UUP negotiators, that the decommissioning of the terrorist arsenals is required by the section on decommissioning in the agreement and by the so-called Pledge of Office, is demonstrably false. The claims to the contrary made by the UUP negotiators mean that they are either trying to fool the pro-Union electorate or that they are so intellectually deficient that they do not understand the contents of the agreement they claim to have negotiated.

The fact that actual decommissioning of the terrorist arsenals is not required by the agreement does not invalidate the demands of the pro-Union parties in the Assembly - all of them, I hope.

This demand is based on the imperatives of democracy and the rule of law. They are non-negotiable in any civilised society, and that is the basis of the UKUP demand for decommissioning.

The UKUP is committed to the imperative of what should properly be regarded as the surrender of terrorist arsenals, even if that means bringing the Assembly down. Whether or not the Assembly collapses, in the event of Unionists holding the line on decommissioning, is dependent upon the SDLP. The choice for the SDLP is simple: either it retains the current alignment of the party with Republican terrorism or it commits the party to democratic practice by demanding that terrorists give up their arsenals as a necessary condition for the formation of the Executive.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the SDLP will commit itself to the imperatives of democracy, and the reason for that is very simple. The intellectual incoherence of Irish Nationalism is such that only someone devoid of common sense would give two moments' consideration to what even Mr Hume's supporters refer to as his "single transferable speech" were it not backed by the cutting edge of Republican terror.

Mr Hume's commitment to the goal of a politically united Ireland, which he shares with the IRA, is such that, in the pursuit of this objective, he is prepared to give political respectability to Sinn Féin - a party which is an electoral threat to the SDLP. On this issue he seems to be blindly followed - never a commendable practice in politics - by the other members of the SDLP.

The moment of truth has arrived for Mr Hume and the SDLP. They have now to choose between the demands of democracy and the rule of law or support for terrorism. It is beyond belief that any party that designated itself "democratic" would demand a system of government in which the architects of terror for 30 years would govern the people they terrorised while retaining their terrorist arsenals, while their most experienced and ruthless operators were released from prison and while the RUC was destroyed within the terms of reference in the agreement which will dictate the content of the Patten Report. It is beyond belief that a supposedly democratic party such as the SDLP would support a system of government designed to meet every requirement of a terrorist organisation.

It beggars belief that the UUP negotiated such an agreement, but that is precisely what they did. It is obvious that the Leader of that party considered that what he had done was sufficiently worthy to merit his accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. Members of the UUP who did not participate in the negotiations have a significant choice to make - one that will determine whether Northern Ireland remains within the Union. It is in their power to ensure that a system of government, corrupt in its very design of appeasing terrorists, is never imposed on the decent, law-abiding pro-Union community of Northern Ireland. When that historic vote is presented to them they must act against the core requirements of the agreement negotiated by their leaders and vote in the interests of democracy and the preservation of the Union.

Mr Weir:

In a rapidly changing political situation there were two statements this weekend which were depressingly familiar and depressingly predictable.

The first was made on behalf of a terrorist organisation which indicated that it was not willing to give up terror. It wanted to retain its weaponry and to be able to use force and violence.

The second was the response of Her Majesty's Government which indicated that the terrorist organisation concerned posed no threat to peace. As the French would say, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." For those who do not have schoolboy French, that means "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

I enthusiastically welcome this motion, not only because I have always been a supporter of Unionist unity - and this is a motion behind which I hope all Unionists can unite - but also because it is one which all true democrats should support, irrespective of whether they are "Yes" voters or "No" voters, Unionists or Nationalists.

I speak not for Union First but for democracy first. Democracy should be about the power of language; it should be about the power of persuasion, the power of ideas, not the power of one's weaponry. There is a need in any society for democracy to ensure that those in government are truly and irrevocably committed to exclusively peaceful means. That is one of democracy's demands. The key test for any party - Unionist or Nationalist, Loyalist or Republican - before entering government is whether that party is truly committed to democracy and exclusively peaceful means. If it is not, then it should have no place in the Government of Northern Ireland; that is not just a matter of principle, it is one of practical politics.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>