If terrorist organisations and front parties are allowed into government while still retaining the capability of inflicting terror on society, then government has a gun to its head. Whenever the demands of terrorism are turned down - whether on reform of the RUC, North/South relations or the so-called equality agenda - the implied threat is "If we do not get what we want, we will go back to doing what we do best." That must be remembered. Decommissioning is not intended to humiliate any particular organisation, but it is a key element of the test to establish whether an organisation is truly committed to a democratic and peaceful way forward.

This has two implications. First, as the Member for North Belfast (Mr Dodds) has said, it is not sufficient for there to be only a start made on decommissioning. At the very least, substantial and ongoing decommissioning is needed before people can be considered as democrats. An IRA at 99% or 95% of its efficiency would pose as big a threat to democracy as it does at present. The splinter group which caused the Omagh bomb was not a vast organisation with a huge amount of weaponry, but look at the level of destruction it achieved. Token decommissioning is not enough - at the very least it must be substantial and ongoing.

We are about one third of the way through the two-year process, so, at the very least, the IRA should be giving up one third of its weaponry. That is not too much to ask as a start. Or, as more than half of the prisoners have been released, perhaps the figure could be one half.

Secondly, while decommissioning is a step on the path to democracy, it is not a sufficient step. There are other ways in which the Republican movement and the Loyalists remain committed to a terrorist path. There has not been a declaration that the war is over. There was a statement from the Leader of Sinn Féin in the summer containing a vague aspiration that peace would be the way forward, but there has not been any statement from the IRA declaring an end to its war. We need to see that. We need to see an end to punishment beatings - these vile attacks carried out by paramilitaries so that they can control areas. Such activities are incompatible with being part of a democratic government. We need to see an end to criminal activity; we need to see the paramilitary organisations get off people's backs; we need to see a start being made to disbanding the terrorist organisations. Why do we need armies in waiting if these people are committed to peace? Finally, we need to see a return of the bodies of the disappeared.

It is clear that an organisation which retains its weaponry is not a suitable candidate for government. Equally, a Government Minister, backed up by a private army, or a private police force or a private mafia, should not be permitted within a democratic society. Much movement is therefore required before any of the organisations can qualify as democrats, let alone be worthy to be in the Government of Northern Ireland.

I remain very sceptical about whether Sinn Féin/IRA, the organisation most likely to aspire to a place in Government, will make that transition.

In these circumstances, responsibility rests with Her Majesty's Government and with the SDLP. It is time that Mr Blair honoured the pledges which he gave to the people of Northern Ireland. We can move on without Sinn Féin to ensure that those who are not committed to a peaceful way forward are excluded from Government. There should also be an end to the release of prisoners while there is no decommissioning.

There is an onus on the SDLP to join with the other democrats in the House and leave behind those who have not abandoned terrorism. The only way forward is for democrats to work together, and that is the only solution acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland.

I support the motion enthusiastically.

3.00 pm

Mr Haughey:

It takes a fairly spectacular kind of brass neck to accuse the SDLP, as Mr Roche of the UKUP did, of incoherence, given the events of the last 48 hours.

Those who believed that what we were engaged in was a tidy, predictable process governed by timetables and rules and observing strict procedures seem to understand little about politics, or about human nature. We live in an extremely volatile community - a conflict-ridden mess. To a greater or lesser extent, all of us have contributed to that mess, either through what we have said, or not said, either through what we have done, or not done, or through the attitudes that we have adopted. I am amazed that there are people who seem to believe that, somewhere in the firmament, there are vast, immutable truths and principles of which they, alone, are the guardians. They seem to be oblivious to the fact that debate, arguments and conflict on these matters have been part of human experience since the earliest times.

This process is as imperfect as the people who are involved in it, and, indeed, as imperfect as those who are not involved in it. It is as imperfect as any political process. Even so, we have made a great deal of progress. There are people in the House today who, a relatively short time ago, took the view that politics was futile and that the only way to solve the problems of this society was through the use of force. The political organisations associated with that attitude have now renounced it and are involved in the political process. I call that progress.

There are few people in the House who will not be able to recall, as I can, the occasions in the past when our telephones would ring in the early hours of the morning, and we knew that we were going to get the news that someone had been killed. We would always pray that the violence would not be that bad, that it would not have caused someone's death, but we remember the many occasions when the violence did cause fatalities, sometimes multiple fatalities. Let us be thankful that those days are gone.

That is not to say that there are no violent deaths or no violence in this society. Anyone who thought there would be a sudden end to a conflict which had lasted for centuries was either foolish or tragic. Conflict has declined, and our collective responsibility is to try to reduce it further, and to find ways and means of co-operating with each other to advance the interests of the electorate. We have a collective responsibility to make the agreement work. I firmly believe that the vast majority of people on this island want us to do that. The result of the referendum is evidence of that. The electorate does not want us to engage in some of the cruel slagging, sniggering and jeering that occasionally goes on in the House.

While this process, like any other political process, is flawed and untidy, with ragged edges, our job is to make it work. If we are to do so, a certain amount of forward movement is necessary. We always found that when politicians do not give a lead, the political vacuum is filled with violence, and we are coming close to the end of the time that is available for producing the necessary forward movement.

My Colleague Seamus Mallon, the Deputy First Minister (Designate) said this morning that we cannot stand still because that would damage the political process. Since April, we have stood still in political terms, and have taken great risks with the integrity of the political process in which we are involved.

I understand to some extent the impatience which led to the motion and the amendments. We are impatient too. We want forward movement. We have tried repeatedly and consistently in recent weeks to produce such momentum, and we will continue trying until we reach agreement. But it should be obvious that agreement is possible only if both sides are prepared to shift their positions, to be flexible and to seek accommodation - and not to stick to rigid party positions. It should be obvious that pronouncements such as "This is our bottom line; we can go no further" and refusing to examine alternatives, are not the way to get agreement.

We must begin work on the North/South bodies and the Executive structures, and begin to tackle day-to-day issues relating to the Health Service, and our schools, which is what we were elected to do.

Rev William McCrea:

I welcome the opportunity to speak in a forthright debate which is very relevant to our country at present.

My party recalled the Assembly to debate the pigs issue. We could have had a full day's debate then on general agricultural issues, but when we sought the agreement of the Social Democratic and Labour Party and Sinn Féin in the relevant Committee, we were blocked because those parties did not see that as relevant to their progress.

Today's debate is an acknowledgement of the reality of the situation. The motion notes

"a. no proposals have yet been made under paragraph 16 of strand one of the Belfast Agreement have yet been made,

b. actions since are set out in paragraph 8 of strand two of the Belfast Agreement have not been achieved".

I will come to paragraph c later.

I have listened to the debate so far and have noted some of the remarks that have been made. The Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Close) said that the people voted for the Belfast Agreement. The majority of those people did not know about the 440 amendments that would be made to that Bill. How can anyone say that this is what the people voted for, when even the Government did not know what it was suggesting?

I say to Mr Close and to this House that while there are those who boast about their "Yes" position, I am proud to say that I went to the people of Ulster with a "No" position. When I see terrorists walking the street, and when I see the RUC being dismantled, I thank God that my finger was not in that pie. I was not a part of that treachery, and I was not a part of the betrayal of those people. My Colleagues and I were commissioned to oppose that act of treachery, and we are doing exactly that. No one need be surprised that we have honoured our election pledges while so many others have failed to fulfil theirs.

Several Members have expressed their frustration. Mr Haughey and Mr Mallon were quite open about that. Mr Mallon cannot wait to get his hands on power. He cannot wait to get himself and his Colleagues in Sinn Féin into positions of power. The Member for East Londonderry said that he had been waiting for this since 1974. Between 1974 and 1998 we have had a blood-curdling, murderous attack on the law-abiding people of this country. Mr Haughey talked about waiting for the telephone call. Many of us in the Unionist community know exactly what it is like to wait for the telephone call, wondering whether relatives have been murdered. Many attempts were made to murder our relatives over those years.

Let us not pretend that nothing has been happening. Much has happened since the signing of the agreement. The Sinn Féin Member for Mid Ulster warned us that if his political strategy did not work, he and his colleagues would go back to what they know best, meaning of course the Armalite. It was a former member of that party from the same constituency who said that the strategy of Sinn Féin was "The Armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other". We know the background of the Sinn Féin Members.

We have been lectured about a new beginning and told that we are enjoying the fruits of peace. What kind of peace are we enjoying? In this morning's newspaper there is an article entitled "The toll of Ulster's young victims". Here are the fruits of peace. More than 1,000 Ulster children have been murdered, beaten, intimidated or exiled by terrorists this year, according to Families Against Intimidation and Terror. Those are the fruits of peace. We have heard that in November alone there were 420 recorded terrorist incidents. Nine people were exiled, 67 intimidated, two shootings and seven beatings were carried out, and so forth. That is the kind of peace that we are talking about. This is the fruit of the hard labour of the Belfast Agreement, and it does not end there.

Terrorists are walking the streets, snubbing their noses at those who have been murdered. In the very meetings which have been discussing the disbandment of the police, the murderers were laughing at the widows of their victims. I make no apology for describing the terrorists who do that as being no better than scum, and they have no part to play in the future of this Province. We have to defeat the terrorists in our midst, but under this agreement the terrorists have been released.

We had a lecture about equality. It is amazing how some Sinn Féin members have the gall to talk about equality. One might have expected that after the release of 214 terrorists half of the guns and explosives would be handed over, but that is not in the equation.

IRA/Sinn Féin sit there smugly. They may fool some people (those who think that they should be brought into government), but so far as the DUP is concerned, IRA/Sinn Féin represent a group of people that needs to be defeated - not cuddled up to, not appeased, and not allowed to become part of any Administration. The DUP will not be aiding or abetting any agreement that puts IRA/Sinn Féin into any future Government of this country.

On 5 December a demonstration - with full paramilitary regalia - was held in Dungannon in support of disbanding the RUC. Some people who took part in the parade wore full combat uniform and boots, and the ordinary people of Dungannon were subjected to verbal abuse. That is the kind of treatment we are being asked to accept in this country. Such is the fruit of a peace process. We are being subjected to mafia-type threats, extortion and drug-related incidents. Orangemen are still at Drumcree, but this rabble is allowed to walk the streets of Dungannon and abuse the people who live there. The number of troops has been reduced, routine military patrols have ceased, and so on.

IRA/Sinn Féin have no intention of disarming. Their present strategy in the political arena will take them so far, but when it can take them no further they will go back to doing what they do best. We have stood against all their threats and intimidation for the past 30 years. We have never knuckled under them, and, by the grace of God, we never will. We will see them defeated.

The lecture we had about there being no link between the IRA and Sinn Féin was very interesting. Martin McGuinness was convicted of IRA membership in 1974 and was jailed for 12 months in the Republic of Ireland. He told the court there that he was very proud to be an IRA commander in Londonderry.

What about Kelly? In 1973 he was convicted of IRA membership and of inciting others to join. What about Gerry Kelly? He masterminded the IRA's Old Bailey bombing.

3.15 pm

Dr Hendron:

On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer. Is it in order for one Member to refer to another by his surname, as has just happened?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It would be proper to refer to a Member by his Christian name and surname, particularly where there could be any confusion. Members ought to pay attention to proprieties.

Rev William McCrea:

What about Gerry Kelly? Yes, we heard the litany when they were trying to tell us that there was no connection, that they were not a part of IRA/Sinn Féin, that there is no such thing as IRA/Sinn Féin. Whom do they think they are fooling? So far as we are concerned, and so far as the Government are concerned, they are two sides of the same coin - Gerry Adams and all the rest of them. I could go on, taking them one by one.

There is a challenge to the DUP to galvanise the pro-Union opposition to the current policy of treachery. There is a challenge to Ulster Unionists: will they let Sinn Féin into government? There is a challenge to the SDLP: will they go on without their Sinn Féin? There is a challenge to the Government: now is the time to stop appeasing terrorism and defeat it.

Mr Douglas:

Mr Trimble is on record as saying that, to make the Assembly work, it is essential that all participants be committed to peaceful and non-violent means. The Prime Minister is on record as saying that legislation will be introduced to deal with prisoner issues and with parties that are linked to paramilitary organisations. Mr Trimble also said that the UUP would hold Mr Blair to his promises, and would not sit in the Government of Northern Ireland with unreconstructed terrorists. He also said that this issue must be comprehensively addressed to our satisfaction. Paramilitary organisations must decide that the war is over, dismantle, disarm and stop the beatings.

Since the so-called ceasefire, there have been 450 beatings and murders. IRA/Sinn Féin have so far refused to disarm or to endorse the exclusively peaceful and democratic measures laid down in the Mitchell principles. For those of us who opposed the Belfast Agreement, it was no surprise when IRA/Sinn Féin said at the weekend that they would not give up a single bullet or one ounce of Semtex.

Neither was it a surprise when we heard that the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Women's Coalition are still in talks with Republican and Loyalist murderers. As we know, they have broken their promises to the electorate many times before.

Loyalists were bought off by the Government when they were promised that prisoners would be released. The Government have also been bought off by IRA/Sinn Féin with the release of many savage murderers; the promise of ministerial positions in the New Assembly; the promise that many border checkpoints and posts would be removed and that all-Ireland bodies with executive powers would be set up; the promise that the Loyal Orders would be constrained by the Parades Commission; and the promise that the RUC would be reformed.

In return for those promises, IRA/Sinn Féin declared a ceasefire - such as it is - and told the Government that there would be no more bombs on the mainland, provided their requests are granted. Otherwise, they will do as they have done in the past - blow another town to pieces or murder a few more members of the security forces.

It is unbelievable that some Members who call themselves Unionists are prepared to go down the road of this corrupt process. It is also difficult to understand why those in the SDLP who call themselves democrats are prepared to support cohorts who have been responsible for many dire atrocities. It is also difficult to understand why they have not, at any time, used their position to encourage decommissioning. I suppose it is because their ultimate goal is the same, and they are prepared to accept anything to further their aim.

It is time for the Assembly to insist on decommissioning. Unreconstructed terrorists should not be in Government.

There has recently been much use of the word "equality". As British citizens, we demand equality of treatment, and reject this façade with the enemies of Northern Ireland. I support the motion.

Mr Nesbitt:

The theme of the speeches by Mr Neeson, Mr Haughey and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) was that people are despairing because we are not reaching agreement quickly enough. It is better to take a little longer over the agreement and get it right than to rush it and get it wrong. It is as simple as that.

Where I live is part of the United Kingdom. Scotland had its referendum many months before ours; we had ours in May. If or when, and I believe it will be when, we move to full devolution next May, we will still be doing that ahead of Scotland. So we are moving at a reasonably rapid pace in comparison with other parts of the United Kingdom, and we have been having these discussions and debates against a backcloth of 30 years of violence which neither Scotland, nor Wales has had. That may be the pragmatic way of putting it, but the party I represent also reflects the agreement in full.

I note from the motion that paragraph 16 of strand one refers to Ministers and then, following that, to the Executive. The word "follow" does not imply immediacy, but the word "after" is implied. No one has so far referred this morning to paragraph 35 of strand one of the agreement, and it is the heading of that paragraph that indicates the mode that we are in at the moment - the transition mode. Under the heading "Transitional Arrangements" paragraph 35 talks about Standing Orders (which we are working on), about working practices and about preparations for the effective functioning of the Assembly. That is what we are about. Let us get it right, even if it takes a little longer, rather than rush and get it wrong. That is my first point.

Sinn Féin representative Mitchel McLaughlin said

"There is no such party as Sinn Féin/IRA."

Others have referred to that remark, and very vocally from my right. I do not intend to be as vocal or as strident, but this motion does not refer to one party - Sinn Féin/IRA - it refers to inextricable linkages. I have said this before and now I will say it again: a man and a woman are two separate individuals, but when they are married they become inextricably linked. It is to such an inextricable linkage that we are referring.

He also said "Why fear peace?" [Interruption] I trust that the Member is also inextricably linked, if he is married.

Mr C Wilson:

Maybe, Mr Nesbitt -

Mr Nesbitt:

It is all right. I am glad that the Member is talking to me again.

Mitchel McLaughlin asked why we should fear peace. I do not fear peace. Indeed, I wish for peace. But what we have at the moment is not peace. We have the absence of the violence of the '70s; we have a mere ceasefire. I remind Sinn Féin that 'The Irish Times'- not I - said quite rightly that there is an obligation on the part of Sinn Féin to deliver its part of the bargain. Fergus Finlay, the mentor of the Tánaiste, Dick Spring, when he was in that position, also said the same at that time.

The 'Belfast Telegraph' used two words which are very salutary for us all with reference to the IRA. The editorial said that it was a "threat undiminished". A threat undiminished does not give us a peaceful environment. I wish for peace; I do not fear it.

I say to Members opposite, and to Sinn Féin in particular, that I do not fear equality. However, equality is not what Sinn Féin may wish it to be. The 40 nations of the Council of Europe have defined quality. The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin said that we, as individuals, cannot pick and choose but must reflect the international consensus regarding matters of state. This refers to equality as "participation within the state".

Those in a state who wish to be linked to another one cannot interfere with territorial integrity and sovereignty. That cannot be said of Sinn Féin or of its equality agenda. A fundamental principle of international law and practice is that the territorial integrity of states is recognised and that co-operation is built from within a state. That principle is not being recognised.

Sinn Féin says that the agreement is merely transitory, a staging post. Others say "We must go much further."

3.30 pm

Addressing Ulster Unionists in the Assembly, Mr Roche used the term "intellectually deficient". While I support the motion, I do have one problem with it that Mr Roche may be able to help me with. The motion says

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

Does that not mean decommissioning? Mr Roche said that the surrender of terrorist arsenals is imperative. I am trying to get my intellectual coherence right.

A Member:

Keep trying. Take your time.

Mr Nesbitt:

I shall. I have the floor. I cannot get my mind round what appears to be logical but is illogical. When the Leader of Mr Roche's party -

A Member:

Which party?

Mr Nesbitt:

Let us not delve into that. They have had a hard enough week.

Mr Roche talks about decommissioning, but Mr McCartney wrote in the 'Belfast Telegraph' on 1 May 1998

"Denial of equal recognition with democrats to parties fronting armed terrorists until such parties publicly and permanently reject violence and openly and positively disassociate themselves from terrorist organisations".

That looks as if all that has to be done is to permanently renounce violence and disassociate themselves from those organisations.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Please bring your remarks to a close.

Mr Nesbitt:

That has nothing to do with decommissioning.

Mr Roche:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Nesbitt:

I know that if I give way Mr Roche will not say "Yes" or "No", so I will let him reflect on it.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It is not possible for you to give way as your time is up.

Mr Nesbitt:

That is why I left the point to the end. I leave Mr Roche to reflect on what is an "intellectually incoherent" UKUP position.

Mr Durkan:

This has been a useful debate. When the possibility for such a debate was discussed some weeks ago many parties favoured an opportunity to air and share views and concerns about the formation of government departments, North/South co-operation and implementation bodies, the British-Irish Council and the consultative Civic Forum. It was those four areas which, on 1 July, the Assembly asked the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) to consider.

I pointed out on 1 July, when speaking in support of the nominations of Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon, that the issue of decommissioning does not relate to any of the functions or responsibilities of the First Minister (Designate) or Deputy First Minister (Designate). This also applies to the issues of prisoner releases and the Police Commission. The responsibility of the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) is to lead Members on those aspects of the agreement which fall to the Assembly, either through the Assembly itself or by agreed mechanisms for relationships within the British/Irish or North/South framework.

The Deputy First Minister (Designate) has spoken of his frustrations that he and the First Minister (Designate) have not yet been able to discharge those responsibilities. They will still not be able to discharge their responsibilities if Members leave today thinking that we can still keep kicking all those issues in front of us. We cannot continue to do that.

The vexed question of decommissioning cannot be resolved this week. Parties have different stances on and interpretations of that issue. Members may feel that one party or another is misguided in its interpretation either of the issue or of the agreement. The Assembly can stop the issue of decommissioning being a deadlock by agreeing the new government departments, the initial tranche of North/South implementation bodies and areas for North/South co-operation, so enabling the necessary legislation and personnel arrangements to be put in place.

Over the last few weeks we have been trying to make progress - at least in those areas which will take time to develop further - without becoming caught up in a rhetorical shoot-out over decommissioning. Unfortunately, this debate has tended to be more about decommissioning than the issues which should have been before the Assembly - proposals and suggestions on new government departments, the initial areas for North/South co-operation and implementation bodies, the consultative Civic Forum and the Assembly's contribution to the British-Irish Council. That still has to be done.

Mr Nesbitt said that although the referendum in Scotland was held prior to the referendum in Northern Ireland less progress has been made there. Scotland has not yet elected its Parliament and does not have the salaries, allowances and running costs to pay. The Scottish people would be pretty angry if their elected Parliament could not sort out its government departments or determine its relationships with other bodies after six months. The comparison does not stand up. The context is different.

A Member:

There are no gunmen walking the streets.

Mr Durkan:

That is another reason for us to be more diligent and act more urgently here. The situation I have outlined is not the only difference between Northern Ireland and Scotland. Political inertia is less affordable in Northern Ireland. One of my fears about the Forum was that it would be a case of salaried intransigence. We seem to be in a form of salaried inertia and more urgency is required.

Some deadlines were in the agreement. The deadline of 31 October was there with regard to the North/South bodies and the North/South work programme. That deadline assumed that Government Departments would be organised and formed and that a shadow Executive would be up and running some time before that. That was the presumption at the time of the agreement, and it was there because that was the Ulster Unionists' negotiating position in the talks. They told us that they could not agree North/South bodies in the negotiations, that these had to be worked out as part of the working of the new arrangements. They said that the new Departments had to be up and running with shadow Ministers in place, reporting to the Assembly on the areas which had been agreed with the Irish Government.

That is the way the Ulster Unionists said it had to happen, but they have reversed their negotiating position. Before they engage in any further discussion on new Government Departments in Northern Ireland, they want to sort out and limit the North/South bodies. David Trimble, quite rightly, talks about the importance of consistency and clarity in other places. I would ask him, and his party, for the same approach in the Assembly.

Today UUP Members have lectured the SDLP on its responsibilities in the current situation and have expressed disappointment about what they perceive as a lack of support for their position in some matters. I am dismayed that there seems to be a change in their position. If this Assembly is to have any credibility, we must make progress on these issues. The public should have the confidence that their will will prevail and that the whole thing will not disintegrate when the parties push their own mandates.

In order for the agreement to work, we must make arrangements for the new Departments and for the North/South bodies. The agreement also has to work in all other aspects and, whether people like it or not, that includes prisoner releases. No one can make preconditions. Whether we like it or not, the work of the Independent Commission on Policing will be part of the success of this agreement. There must also be real progress on decommissioning.

Mitchel McLaughlin said that Sinn Féin wants to see the gun removed. Other people who have put the case for decommissioning want to see the gun removed, but it has to be something that is visible. Sinn Féin, in its own terms and in its own time, has always insisted that it does not want anything implicit or anything under the table. Everything has to be upfront, visible and obvious - something that it could take to its constituency. That was the case during the negotiations with regard to prisoner releases, the need for movement on policing and a variety of other issues. It said that these were not negative demands to get what it could from the first "takings" of the agreement, rather it was to enable Sinn Féin to go to the constituency and assure people that there was something real for them in this agreement.

The same case can be made for disarmament. We should not hear it continually dismissed as a red herring. The more it is dismissed, the more people become preoccupied with the issue. Let us all move on and help each other. The First and Deputy First Ministers should be able to put forward some practical proposals without the matter being confused or complicated by other party issues.

Mr S Wilson:

The subject of today's debate is clear. Do we hand to Sinn Féin the Christmas box of a place in the Government of Northern Ireland while it retains its guns or do we, as democrats, deny it that place until it proves that it has the same democratic credentials as the rest of the parties in this Chamber?

3.45 pm

The debate has to focus on Sinn Féin. No matter whether one looks at its members' statements, at the constitution of the terrorist organisation which it represents, or at the connections of its Assembly Members, there is no mistaking the fact that the full spectrum of terrorist activity is represented in the form of IRA/Sinn Féin in this Chamber. Whether one speaks about bombings, extortion, the organising of mass murder in this city, or any other line of terrorist activity, we will find in that party someone who not only epitomises the type of person who is engaged in one of those activities, but a person who has engaged in one of them. Should we allow such people into the Government of Northern Ireland?

It is worth focussing Members' attention on these pertinent matters, and I want to look at some of the arguments of the parties who oppose Mr McCartney's motion.

I was slightly perturbed to hear the First Minister (Designate) say "Let us not forget that it is not just the electoral mandate which entitles people to a place in the Government; it is also the fact that they are committed to democratic and peaceful means." I hope that is not the loophole that he intends to use to push matters forward, as others are exhorting him to do.

I have been on Belfast City Council since 1989 when legislation was introduced requiring members of all parties to sign an agreement saying that they were committed to democratic and peaceful means. I have since seen Sinn Féin members get elected and sign that agreement, and then in the council chamber defend the economic warfare to which Belfast has been submitted by the IRA. I have heard them defend the so-called punishment beatings or refuse to condemn them after signing a bit of paper by which they are regarded as democrats.

Let us look at some of the other Members' contributions. As I listened to Mr Neeson I was reminded of a comment by someone in another place, who said that if he intended to divorce his wife, he would hire one of the young lawyers in the Alliance Party to represent her. I thought for one moment that the famed open-mindedness of the Alliance Party was beginning to bear fruit when Mr Neeson said, in his strongest voice, that 1,000 children had suffered from human rights abuses, and that that was unacceptable. He went on to say that the Mitchell principles had been diluted so that a coach and horses could be driven through them.

In much more colourful language, his Colleague described how people's bones were being broken and money was being extorted. At this stage I thought that this was a fiendish plot, that the Alliance Party was going to back Mr McCartney's motion. But, having said all that, they came to what conclusion? By 21 December the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) should bring a final report before the Assembly. The implication of that conclusion is that it sets in train the process which will allow the very people who are breaking bones, extorting money and engaging in human rights abuses, to occupy positions in the Government of Northern Ireland. It is not a case of sitting on the fence - they are becoming the fence.

We then heard Sinn Féin's arguments. Mr McLaughlin told us that Sinn Féin and the IRA have nothing to do with each other - and we all believe that. [Laughter] He went on to explain why that is so. He said that Sinn Féin does not believe in or support punishment beatings. Such a claim is a bit odd. I have been in a council chamber when Sinn Féin opposed a motion condemning punishment beatings. But Sinn Féin - the master of words - gets round that. It gets round it by referring to such incidents as community corrections - not punishment beatings.

Then we were told that Sinn Féin wants to see the gun removed forever. Mr McFarland quoted Gerry Kelly, who, of course, does not speak for the IRA. They are not inextricably linked - in fact, they have nothing to do with each other. Gerry Kelly said that if Unionists keep on talking about getting rid of guns the IRA will go back on the streets.

But Sinn Féin's most conclusive argument is that nowhere in its election literature or its constitution is there a claim that it speaks for the IRA. Of course, Sinn Féin would not include that in its election literature. Why would it? And by using all of these arguments, Sinn Féin expects us to believe that its members are house-trained democrats who are fit to fill places in government. So far as the Democratic Unionist Party is concerned, Sinn Féiners are not fit to come through the doors of this Chamber, let alone take places in government. And it does not really matter how people try to paint them.

The same theme of support has been running through all of the SDLP's submissions. You cannot go back; you must go forward. You cannot be a wrecker; you must be constructive. You cannot be negative; you must be positive. So if you do not agree to let Sinn Féin in to government, you are the wrecker.

Let me remind Sinn Féin Members that those of us on this side of the Chamber have not spent the last 30 years trying to prove that Northern Ireland is a failed political entity. We were not the ones who boycotted institutions from the 1982 Assembly onwards. We were not the ones who, when things were not going our way, decided to run down to Dublin to try to muster support for an unreasonable point of view. We want to see Northern Ireland working. But politics in Northern Ireland cannot work if one adopts the immoral stance of putting those who have wrecked this country in to its Government.

The choice before the House is simple. It can either support Mr McCartney's motion, which emphasises that only democrats have a place in government, or it can surrender to those who insist on retaining their guns because they know that their demands are so unreasonable that the only levers available to them are Semtex and the gun.

Mr Ervine:

Ulster Unionists should be careful about the motion. Paragraph c does not contain an opportunity for tokenism, and the Ulster Unionist Leader's speech in Oslo undoubtedly introduced the possibility of tokenism. Mr Weir diminished any possibility of tokenism, and went on to say that one third of the arms would do. Any terrorist organisation with two thirds of its arms intact could inflict a serious blow. Those were Mr Weir's words, and Hansard will clarify the matter.

If tokenism is what people are about, they will be boxed in. Tokenism is a joke because people who are left with a small number of guns could operate a policy of work study and use the guns more often by passing them around. Mr Weir spoke about his penchant for Unionist unity. Those who advocated tokenism should carefully read the wording of pargraph c. It does not advocate tokenism. It wants absolute, total, complete and utter decommissioning. I hope that we all want that.

The many facets of the agreement were played out in living colour. Few, if any, of them were universally loved. Its creation was a great surprise to a vast swath of the population whose doubts about the matter probably had their foundation in a belief that their politicians were unwilling or incapable of doing what needed to be done.

The run-up to the referendum was a difficult time for those in the Unionist tradition. However, the moral imperatives which drove opinion have been passed into law by the greater number of people. Issues that were so disliked are to the fore, and that will continue. What do we do now? Do those who have a specific difficulty with the agreement continue to harbour annoyance, or do they accept the will of the people and embrace the only real chance that this society has to practise accountable democracy?

It is foolish to dismiss the extent to which emotion plays a part in our political life. But to be consumed by emotion when trying to chart a course to the future is likely to end in disaster. As things stand, that is how it will end. We are told that Trimble and Adams cannot move. If that is the case, this process will go down, and that would please some people. Some Sinn Féin hearts may harbour the notion that that would not be a bad idea, provided the daft oul Prods get the blame for it.

I heard two inane comments when I was in the talks. One was the assertion that Sinn Féin does not represent the IRA, which prompted me to say at the time that we should get the IRA in because it was the people in that organisation with whom we had to deal.

The other remark was made by Mr McCartney. It was similar to things he said this morning in giving a litany of immorality in relation to punishment beatings and shootings. This morning, however, he left out the caveat "If this is peace, give me war." And I have plenty of witnesses.

4.00 pm

Mr McCartney:

I am sure they are of good character.

Mr Ervine:

Absolutely, and a couple in his own party perhaps.

Another issue that I should mention to the exalted Gentleman is that at least four others now realise that they cannot tell anything to the man who knows everything. It is that time of year - Christmas.

Perhaps this is the right time to encourage people to examine why paramilitary ceasefires were called in the first place. Were the ceasefires not some form of acceptance by the paramilitarists that the war was futile, that it is was unwinnable? But being in a war that is unwinnable is not the same as being defeated. There are those who have no concept of the difficulties that we have been going through. We know about the pain, the blood and the brains on the pavements; we know about news programmes by the day; we know about the suffering before, during and after the ceasefires. We know about all that, but we do not seem to have a formula or any policy that can cross the religious and political divide and give the people an opportunity to believe that there is a way out or a light at the end of the tunnel.

Those Members who have listened to me suggesting that we are heading for disaster may be pleased, but let me point out a couple of salient political facts - even though I am only an amateur. There is a British Prime Minister who is probably in the worst position that any British Prime Minister has been in in relation to Northern Ireland. This is not because there is not as much violence to deal with; it is because 71·12% of the population of Northern Ireland copper-fastened an agreement that is in danger of collapsing. What happens if Nationalism is able to pin that on Unionism?

As Mr McCartney advocates, as Mr Roche advocates, as the DUP advocates, there is no start date for decommissioning in the agreement. The question is therefore this; when does one resign from a deal, from a contract and from a covenant? That question will be asked of Unionism. It is also a question that the British Prime Minister will be asked about when Nationalism raps at the door of Downing Street and says this: "We know, Prime Minister, that it is difficult to manage a divided society, but it is worse than that. Our democratic rights have been denied by those who sat outside Castle Buildings, sharpened the knives, ran away from the problem, refused to deal with it and waited for the suckers to come out, waited for the people who have risked life and everything else to try to create an opportunity for a better way forward for the people of Northern Ireland."

In a couple of years' time when the Prime Minister has deliberated with Bertie Ahern and thought about what he might do to give Nationalism its political expression - as the Good Friday Agreement, copper-fastened by 71·12% of the people, was supposed to do - does anybody think that the next thing to come will be a Unionist agenda? Are Members sure it will be a Unionist agenda or are they happy enough just to sing 'The Sash' and think loudly that everything will be all right? It will not be. If the deal is not done and honoured, the consequences will be very difficult. People have said that Sinn Féin and the IRA will not win. I have said that all my adult life. There are young, and not so young, people in the community who will take that literally. When they find that it is not a Unionist agenda and that Unionism has no part of the agenda that follows the collapse of the Good Friday Agreement, we will be in bloody awful turmoil. I know who I will blame. I will not support Mr McCartney's motion.

Ms McWilliams:

This has been a rather depressing debate, full of certainties from some Members. If, as he claims, Rev William McCrea is not treacherous, it makes the rest of us extremely treacherous. Mr Weir, who seemed to be making up his speech as he went along, told us that Union First wants the decommissioning of one third of the IRA's arms. No doubt, next time we return to the Chamber, it will be two thirds. Mr McGimpsey told us that some parties are here because they have nowhere else to go. I remind him that, as well as the DUP, to whom he addressed his remarks, there are other parties here who have nowhere else to go. That may not be the best reason for us being here, but I agree with Mr Durkan, who said that subsidised inaction has gone on for too long. We are here to do business, and it is time that we got on with it.

Mr Nesbitt does not know much about marriage if he thinks that husbands and wives are always inextricably linked. They act independently, and if he knew anything about women's rights he would know that that is what women seek when building partnerships - agreement to live with differences through thick and thin. Mr Sammy Wilson knows even less about divorce if he thinks that the husband gets to pick his wife's lawyer.

Certainty after certainty have been repeated. Change creates uncertainty, and that is difficult. But I would rather have the uncertainties of today than the violence and mayhem of the past. We went into the agreement with some speed, but it was right to do that, try to avoid creating a vacuum which would create tension, such as we find in the Chamber. The only certainty now is that in May 71% of the people told us to make the agreement work. That does not ignore the fact, which was mentioned by the First Minister (Designate) in Oslo, that there is a cultural conflict between Nationalism and Unionism. It is true that Nationalism often deals in aspirations, but it is unfair to say that it always deals in aspirations, and not with realities. I have seen Nationalism combine both.

It is equally unfair to Unionism to say that it deals only with basic issues and not with wider aspirations. The agreement brought those two sides together, and taught us how to compromise. Members will realise that we would not have an agreement if one side had gained 100% of its objectives. It is, of course, easy for Mr Wilson to use absolutes to demonise people, but people such as Mrs de Brún, a member of Sinn Féin, are here to work. Mr Wilson should bear that in mind, as should those members of his party who will attend the meeting of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer. They should head not simply for the door, as they would like to do, but up the stairs, where the work is being done. They should not just stand there, acting out a political charade for the benefit of the television cameras. We will go on working.

Mr S Wilson:

I would not go upstairs with you at any time.

Ms McWilliams:

Mr Wilson knows little about sexual relationships, and he ought not to lecture people about where in this building they should go.

Mr J Kelly:

A Chathaoirligh, that remark should be withdrawn.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. Two Members should not be on their feet at the same time. I heard an intervention which was neither a point of order nor a point of information. It may not be on the record.

Ms McWilliams:

For the record, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I shall repeat the cheap, scurrilous jibe made by Mr Wilson. He said that he would not go upstairs with me at any time. Ha, ha, ha.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It will certainly now be on the record.

Ms McWilliams:

Apart from Mr Wilson, no one is laughing.

Mr Ford:

Mr Presiding Officer, will you please examine the record of this debate and rule on the propriety of the language?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I shall certainly do that, as I do in the case of every Assembly debate.

Ms McWilliams:

We have not spent as much time as we should on other issues. We have concentrated on decommissioning and the politics of ultimatums. Perhaps one day we will have a healthy debate with Mr Wilson about the inclusion of more women in decision-making in Northern Ireland politics, which is in the agreement, or on community development as a strategic approach to resolving our problems.

Hour after hour, we have heard about wonderful solutions to our criminal justice problems. Mr Weir, an Ulster Unionist Back-Bencher, said that he wanted all criminal activity to stop, and said that he could stop it. The agreement will not stop all criminal activity. We are politicians, not police officers.

Mr Weir:

My words were that we need to see an end to criminal activity, and that terrorist organisations that were still involved in such activity should not benefit from Government office. I did not say that I could stop it.

Ms McWilliams:

Mr Weir said that all criminal activity must stop now. We went into the negotiations not as criminal justice experts, but as political negotiators, and we are here as politicians. Let the police and politicians get on with their respective jobs.

The criminal activity to which Mr Weir and others referred is a fraction of that which occurs in this country. Member after Member spoke about the broken bones of individuals in communities, but we do not often hear about people who are beaten in their homes. When we talk about what constitutes terror, let us include all unacceptable forms of violence, be they domestic or, as Mr Weir would call it, but I would not, political.

Mr McCartney's motion refers to paramilitary organisations, and he spoke about the criminal activity of paramilitary organisations on the ground. Anyone who has worked on community development will know that people are trying to stop individuals - not organisations. I will lend them all the support that I can.

Mark Durkan made an honest speech in which, for the first time in the debate, he highlighted where the problems lay. I should like to request more consultations on those problems. In the negotiations we hit hurdles, but many parties brought their minds to bear on the problems and they were resolved. That consultation has stopped, and we need to restart it. In the absence of the departmental meetings, we must appoint liaison officers.

The fears were expressed in Oslo. Mr Trimble was right when he said that Unionism had built a cold house for Nationalism. It was also a hot house for Unionism. Those are both sides' fears for the future. Will people do again what they have done in the past? Will policemen be legitimate targets? Will we have a recurrence of past violence? Will it be a cold house, that does not respect our legitimate rights, or will people share in Government?

We must try to create the cornerstone that will make this House a place in which everyone's traditions are respected. Both sides fear that one day they will be an alienated minority. Only the agreement can end that fear, and it is time that we set up a Government.

Three things need to be done. First, we must set up the Departments and get into shadow mode. Secondly, let us set up the implementation bodies, not through force but in co-operation.

The third concerns confidence-building. Our civic society has gone quiet about this political agreement - the trade unions, the business organisations, and the churches as well as the paramilitary organisations. Perhaps that is the formula that we need: that they are all behind our political agreement.

I oppose the motion and the amendments because they ask for a final report. When the report comes to the Chamber it should be in draft form so that we all have an opportunity to debate it.

4.15 pm

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer. You have said that you take care to look at Hansard and that you compare how we do things with what happens in another place. Perhaps you could look at the way our debates are conducted in future. In no other House would 100% of the Members belonging to a small party be called to speak in any debate. My party is small in the House of Commons - there are two of us - and in some debates we are not allowed to speak at all.

Those Members from the smaller parties who read homilies and attack the rest of us should remember that in another place only one of their Members might be allowed to speak. Why should 100% of one party be able to speak whereas Members from other parties who represent 10 or 20 or 30 times more of the people of Northern Ireland are not being heard? Something needs to be done about that if this is to be a democratic Assembly.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I wish to make two comments in response to your intervention. The arrangements for speaking, and for the conduct of the Presiding Officer, are different from those in another place. Requirements and restrictions have been put upon me by my advisory group, which makes it extremely difficult for me simply to follow what happens there. It is a constant struggle both to follow what happens there and to be equitable and reasonable. I continue to monitor what happens not only in individual debates but also in the context of activity over a period of time.

For example, in respect of the smaller parties to which you refer, there was no intervention at all yesterday that I can recall. I understand your concern, and I do not profess to get it right every time. I am very much in the hands of the Whips, and will continue to do my best, though imperfectly. Like all other Members, I hope to learn from experience.

In other places it is traditional to speak through the Chair. This is not to glorify the position of the Chair, much less its incumbent, but to ensure that Members do not, by referring directly to each other, get into an unhelpful to-and-fro. I appeal to Members to observe the proprieties - not, I accept, those in our Initial Standing Orders, which are deeply inadequate - and the traditions of other places. Doing so will facilitate a less inappropriately robust exchange of views.

Mr Foster:

As an Ulster Unionist, I seek peace, but not at any price. I seek progress, but not at any price. I seek confidence-building, but that is not going to happen unless there is decommissioning, and for that reason I support Mr McCartney's motion. I take it that the motion is intended to be constructive rather than contentious, and I am glad that he and the DUP have now joined forces with the Ulster Unionist Party to supporting the decommissioning issue - it is only a few short weeks since his party was making excuses for Sinn Féin/IRA's not decommissioning.

I decry the rhetoric of Sinn Féin. I am not convinced by it. I think that it is plausible and unctuous. Its deceit is evident, and it is time that it began to prove itself to society instead of vice versa. I am disappointed in the Alliance Party today - I thought it had more spine. Surely it should be supporting us on decommissioning as well. Does it fear what is in the undergrowth? Alliance's was a weak and pathetic show today, an exercise in playing to the gallery.

I heard Mr Ford on the radio this morning talking about being constructive. I would like him and everyone else in the Assembly to know that the UUP has always been constructive for the Province, throughout the years of its existence. We have never tried to bomb the Province out of existence, nor have we tried to make it unworkable - we have no apologies to make to anyone. We lead and hope that others are beginning to follow.

The UUP will keep its promises and its part of the bargain in the agreement. We will not be rushed into doing things that are not right - we are just as entitled to negotiate as others. In my opinion, others are stretching the agreement to the full - they are seeking extras. Everything that is talked about has to have all-Ireland involvement. We are not about to jump into that pool without any thought about it whatsoever.

Getting back to decommissioning, IRA/Sinn Féin and its paramilitary associates have a moral responsibility to decommission because that is an indispensable part of the agreement. That cannot be denied, and it is not a precondition whatsoever. It is a condition of the agreement.

After all these months, every part of the agreement seems to be moving except the decommissioning part. The onus is on Sinn Féin to take this forward. Her Majesty's Government keep letting prisoners out without any reciprocation whatsoever. I urge that prisoner releases be stopped until decommissioning commences.

There is also a threat along the border, as reported by the Eire authorities. They are sending some of their elite gárda along the border. In spite of that, I am reliably informed that three or four check-points along the Fermanagh-Monaghan border are about to be dismantled. This is a very premature decision. It is leaving people in the Roslea-Newtownbutler part of Fermanagh feeling exposed and at risk.

When we talk about keeping to exclusively peaceful means we cannot forget about the Donegal Celtic/RUC issue. Was that not intimidation? Is that what the agreement envisaged?

After Omagh, and after 30 years of violence and murder, with people's bodies being picked up in body bags by the RUC, everyone was saying "This must never ever happen again." Everyone should be in this Chamber saying there must be decommissioning before there is any further progress. People are back in their trenches now and beginning to turn a blind eye to the lack of decommissioning. If it does not happen, the Assembly will flounder. In spite of this, the UUP is the only party, until today, that has been pushing for decommissioning.

We are talking about setting up bodies and Departments - that is ridiculous before decommissioning. We are being asked to set up a Government in spite of the fact that we know that, outside in the undergrowth, there are weapons and equipment ready to be used - a-gun-to-the-head attitude. Is that what we are being asked to do? Are we being asked to govern in spite of the fact that there are illegal armies and equipment out there?

Mr Presiding Officer, do you really feel that you could preside over a Government? Would it be credible or incredible? Would it be a credible or incredible Assembly? Would it be dishonest or honest? Would it be deceit or falsehood or a lack of integrity? Are there no morals whatsoever?

Surely we cannot begin to govern until there is decommissioning when peace, I hope, will be absolute. The onus is on Sinn Féin/IRA to do so. It is not on the UUP. We have reached out the hand of friendship; we have been positive; we want to work for the good of all people; but other people have to work as well. I trust that all parties in the Assembly will put pressure on Sinn Féin/IRA. Decommissioning is a must, and nothing will move until that comes about.

I support the motion.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It was a rhetorical point. I can assure you that I will not be presiding over any Government. Debates are as far as my remit allows.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>