4.15 pm

Should the Assembly cease to function, which would happen if, for example, the Ulster Unionist Party were to walk out, these embryonic all-Ireland Departments would continue to operate and would be answerable to no one but themselves and Dublin. Those who call themselves Unionists or democrats are morally bound to oppose this sordid deal.

The British-Irish Agreement is no more than the Anglo-Irish Agreement dressed up as democracy. We have had many examples of 1980s revivals recently, such as Culture Club, Duran Duran and the Human League, but this must be the poorest attempt yet by the NIO at a comeback. It is a poor cover version of an even poorer original publication.

Some Members might think that Maryfield is closed and that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is defunct. That is a fabrication and a falsehood. Maryfield may have closed, but the same personnel have been transferred to Windsor House in Bedford Street to await their make-over. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is proceeding at full steam in the run up to its rechristening as the British-Irish Agreement. Dublin still interferes, thereby creating instability in all aspects of life in Northern Ireland, and that looks set to continue. As with the egotistic and immoral claims observed in the Irish constitution, the principles of the Anglo-Irish Agreement will disappear only when they are obsolete, when claims are fulfilled and when bodies cease to be required in order to gain constitutional leverage over the neighbouring jurisdiction.

There is one notable omission in all of this, and it is the major detail of the decommissioning of terrorist arsenals. The document rambles on about efficient, accountable and transparent government, but there is no mention of the arms that are possessed by the very people who demand places on the Executive and who would be so facilitated by the ratification of the document. The Secretary of State is closing her eyes and ears to the hundreds of terrorist acts committed since the signing of the agreement. She has said

"It is not a question of if decommissioning is going to take place, it's a question of when."

The cynic could be forgiven for interpreting this as "It is not a question of if there will be a United Ireland, but a question of when", because only then may the IRA decide that it no longer requires its guns. That is stated in the IRA's constitution. It was reported in the 'Belfast Telegraph' that in a telephone conversation to Tony Blair on 20 September last year Gerry Adams said

"Britain created the problem in Ireland . The British Government therefore has a major role in initiating a strategy which will bring a . resolution and lasting peace . The aim . must be to seek to change British policy from one of upholding the union to one of ending the union."

It was Adams and his colleagues who starved Ulster of the peace it desired. The "strategy" of which he speaks is that of creating a pathway to a united Ireland. The message is clear. If that is not done, a lasting peace will not be delivered, and guess who will be pulling the triggers of the guns that we want to see destroyed.

The DUP will not be pulling the triggers, nor will any other truly democratic and constitutional party be detonating the bombs. The IRA will once again be the cause of conflict in Ulster. The IRA has bombed its way into this Assembly, and it continues to make demands. The policy of the ballot box in one hand and the Armalite in the other, seems to have been replaced by a policy of the ballot box in one hand and the threat of the Armalite in the other.

On Thursday night there was a serious threat against Newry RUC Station. It was not reported by the press but RUC officers were prepared for an IRA attack.

The DUP, together with its anti-agreement, pro-democracy colleagues, has been consistent in its demand that only through total decommissioning could those who have wreaked death and destruction across this country for more than 30 years be admitted to the democratic process.

The terrorists believe that they can control people through violence without the practice of such savagery contaminating their political ideals. Acts of barbarity are committed almost daily, yet prisoners continue to be released and re-offend. That cannot be accepted in any democratic society. I hope that all democrats in the House will agree that it is not acceptable for these men to take any position in the Government of Northern Ireland while they retain and maintain their murderous capability.

I reject the claim that broad cross-community support has been received for the statement of 18 December. The majority of the Unionist people are now totally opposed to this evil and thoroughly rotten process. There is no support for the creation of a completely undemocratic Civic Forum. The only people who might be interested in this waste of time and money are those who could not obtain a democratic mandate to enter the Assembly. The existence of such a body is devoid of any democratic principle.

Following the murder of Andrew Kearney last year, Reg Empey said that that put Sinn Fein in a very difficult position. The only squirming that I have observed during this debate has been by Ulster Unionist Members in the benches to the left of me as some of them have attempted to justify their past words and deeds.

In one corner we have IRA/Sinn Fein dealing in fractures and in the other corner we have John Taylor, the Member for Strangford, dealing in fractions. But Mr Taylor does not know whether he is a mathematician or a magician. He is a mathematician when it comes to adding the figures up, and he is a magician when it comes to making a 40-foot barge pole disappear in seconds.

I quote Lord Carson:

"of all the men in my experience that I think are the most loathsome it is those who will sell their friends for the purpose of conciliating their enemies and, perhaps, still worse, the men who climb up a ladder into power of which even I may have been a part of a humble rung, and then, when they have got to the top and power, kick the ladder away without any concern for the pain, or injury, or mischief or damage they do to those who have helped them to gain power."

Some of the Members in this Assembly might do well to think about Carson's words.

The thrust of this report, far from giving efficient, accountable and transparent government is no more than an exercise in political expediency. This process is accountable only to the gunman and, as a direct result, is muddied with lies and deception.

Mrs Nelis:

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh.

Sinn Fein welcomes the provision for setting up the consultative Civic Forum in paragraph 34 of the Good Friday Agreement, in the legislation and on page 8 of this report. Sinn Fein is contributing constantly to the development of all the structures under the agreement, and that includes the Civic Forum.

The signing of the Good Friday Agreement signalled a shift away from the unrepresentative and undemocratic structures which have existed in the North since partition. We welcome the fact that the new structures of Government are to embrace the democratic principles of equality of representation and of accountability and that they will be all-Ireland in character.

Part of this new dispensation is the establishment of an innovative consultative body - the Civic Forum. Sinn Fein believes that the development of the Civic Forum will complement the work of the Assembly, add to the quality of decision making and include marginalised groups in the democratic structures. We want to see the Civic Forum progress expeditiously because we believe it will facilitate the process towards democracy and change. But, no matter how much we may want to see it up and running, it is important that those Members in the sub-group charged with making recommendations ensure that they get it right. We must give our best efforts and quality time to the steps that need to be taken to establish the Civic Forum.

We may not succeed, but we have to advance cautiously. There is no imperative, other than the personal opinions of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), to determine the quality of the Civic Forum. The principles which should form the process and underpin its final development should be secondary to the timetable for the establishment and operation of the Forum itself. Sinn Fein believes it is much more judicious to ensure that the Civic Forum delivers from the start what everyone expects from it. If we get it right, it will revolutionise the relationship between people and politics and remove any suspicion and cynicism about the Civic Forum's becoming a club for the great and the good.

There are those in the Chamber who do not want to see a Civic Forum set up. But we who do want this body know that we are building bridges which we all need to cross. The Assembly, in conjunction with the Civic Forum, needs to promote the principles of equality, accessibility, transparency and accountability. These are not mere words. They are core values that should not only apply to the working of the Civic Forum but to the working of the Assembly as well. They must also be central to the deliberations of the sub-group. The submissions received to date represent, according to the advisers, a narrow cross-section of civic society in the North.

The 70% of people who voted for the Good Friday Agreement, of which the Civic Forum is a part, want such a body - indeed, all the institutions of the Assembly - to reflect the confidence that they have placed in those whom they have elected. They want to see a Civic Forum set up whose purpose will be to imbed these core principles and to restore and build trust.

Sinn Fein upholds the principles which underpin the agreement and has submitted proposals, consistent with equality, accessibility, transparency and accountability, that will help devise the mechanism for delivering the Civic Forum. As a party, it will not rubber-stamp any proposals that do not have, as a central tenet, the principle of equality.

It is the responsibility of those who have argued that equality can be assured and achieved in the institutions under the direct control of the First and the Deputy First Ministers (Designate) - and that policy has been established under the agreement - to demonstrate now that membership of the Civic Forum will be explicitly, directly and systematically equality-proofed.

We in the sub-group are mindful of this. That is why the report presented today by the First and the Deputy First Ministers (Designate) does not include proposals for the setting up of the Civic Forum. We have agreed some aspects of the Forum, such as the working arrangements, but there are still issues of a fundamental nature which need to be addressed.

I was surprised when I heard Mr McGimpsey saying on the 'Inside Politics' programme that the Forum had been put to bed. I can assure Mr McGimpsey that we have not agreed on the quality of the mattress yet. I believe that the sub-group needs to continue its work of ensuring that the process which creates the Civic Forum itself also promotes active citizenship and participatory democracy.

In this way the Civic Forum will become the survivors' guide, not the victims' guide, to overcoming the conflict not just of the last 30 years, but of the last 70 years. We are beginning to see how this can be achieved, and we need to keep learning as we go.

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh.

Mr Boyd:

I reject the motion tabled by the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) and support the amendment in the names of Dr Ian Paisley and Mr Peter Robinson.

The Northern Ireland Unionist Party's position is that the focus on departmental structures is further marginalising the core issue of the decommissioning of terrorist arsenals. Proposals on departmental structures should exclude parties which front terrorist organisations that are refusing to decommission their arsenals and dismantle their paramilitary structures.

Let us examine the attitude of the SDLP, a party which throughout 30 years of terror has constantly condemned violence but has not hesitated to profit politically from that violence. This requirement presents the SDLP with a clear choice between supporting democratic practice and the integrity of the rule of law or supporting Sinn Fein/IRA's demands to participate in the Executive - that is, in the Government of Northern Ireland - while retaining its terrorist arsenal and structures.

4.30 pm

If the SDLP supports Sinn Fein in its refusal to decommission its terrorist arsenal and dismantle its terrorist structures the former will render itself indistinguishable from Sinn Fein/IRA.

The alternative is for the SDLP to align itself with the fundamental, democratic demand that Sinn Fein/IRA must decommission its terrorist arsenal and dismantle its terrorist structures. The pro-Union community, rightly, will not tolerate government by an Executive that includes the architects of the terrorism that has been directed against them for 30 years, while the IRA retains its arsenal and its structures for use at its discretion. Such a situation is unthinkable and totally unacceptable.

The obligation on the United Kingdom Government to demand decommissioning is reinforced by the clear impression conveyed by the Prime Minister, and which was a crucial part of the referendum campaign, that decommissioning would be a condition of Sinn Fein/IRA taking its seats in the Executive. This impression was given on at least the following occasions: speeches at Balmoral and the University of Ulster; the Prime Minister's handwritten pledges; the letter to Mr Trimble on 10 April 1998; and statements by the Prime Minister to Parliament.

The law-abiding majority in Northern Ireland wants a stable society in which citizens can go about their lives in peace. Ordinary people find the struggle of bringing up their families, the stresses of modern life, the needs of elderly relatives and others enough to contend with, without being subject to the political dictate of parties fronting terrorist organisations with the aim of destabilising and overthrowing their society.

A stable, prosperous Northern Ireland is what most people would settle for; a stable Northern Ireland is the objective that I strive for. A minority has no interest in a stable society in Northern Ireland; it is only interested in instability. Instability is its way of life and it thrives on it. Unfortunately for the tens of thousands of innocent victims of violence, and the many hundreds of thousands whose lives have been disrupted by bombings and social dislocation, who have had to move house or rebuild businesses, it is not only the revolutionaries, or counter-revolutionaries, who appear to have a vested interest in instability. Many have concluded that the British Government are indifferent to Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom.

Lip-service is given to the concept of the Union. Daily events on the ground undermine any confidence that ordinary people might have in the sincerity of the British Government's desire to uphold the rule of law and to protect democracy. In spite of what some would tell us, Northern Ireland is in greater danger than it has been for the last 30 years. The Union with Great Britain has been weakened and our citizenship of the United Kingdom eroded. In recent years Government officials and Ulster Unionist politicians have entered talks with Sinn Fein/IRA. We have seen the early release of terrorists, the national anthem banned in the university, the national flag - the Union Jack - and portraits of the Queen removed from the workplace. In the courts, Queen's Counsel are no longer obliged to swear an oath of allegiance. Orange halls have been burned, and there has been an orchestrated campaign to ban and re-route traditional Orange and Loyalist parades. This campaign is spearheaded by residents' groups, many of which contain convicted IRA terrorists.

Nevertheless the majority of those elected do not, and will never, consent to a united Ireland. So powerful is the yearning and desire of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland for Britishness and the Union that all elections since the inception of Northern Ireland show an unwavering majority of votes in favour of the Union and a British identity.

Throughout 30 years of the most horrendous terrorist campaign which any civil society has been called on to endure, the will of the majority for the maintenance of the Union with Great Britain was never broken, even in circumstances where the Republic of Ireland provided a safe haven for Irish Republican terrorists. In 1998 there were 55 murders, 40 after the signing of the Belfast Agreement on 10 April 1998 and 500 punishment beatings and shootings. More than 200 terrorists have been released early and have taken up their paramilitary activities where they left off. Surgeons have recently stated that punishment beatings and shootings are increasing in ferocity, including deliberate attempts by the terrorists to cripple their victims permanently. Yet Mo Mowlam has stated that there is no evidence to confirm that these attacks have been sanctioned by terrorist organisations.

The representatives of Sinn Fein/IRA do not share the common desire of ordinary people for stability. They are committed to a revolutionary principle. The Assembly is merely a transitional stage in the revolution, and whether that struggle is defined as armed or unarmed really depends on the degree of violence that the Government are prepared to tolerate in the name of the peace process. We have the worst of all possible worlds, with terrorists outside the Assembly and their representatives inside it.

This debate gives us an opportunity to reflect upon a groundswell of opinion in the Unionist community that is moving increasingly towards a reappraisal of the unbalanced Belfast Agreement.

On Friday 15 January 1999 the 'News Letter' quoted Vincent McKenna, a leading figure in the Northern Ireland anti-intimidation group FAIT, as stating that he would not support the Good Friday Agreement if it were to be put to the people in another referendum. Mr McKenna is quoted as saying

"if a second referendum on the accord were to be put to a vote, I would not be voting yes."

The FAIT spokesman claimed

"The credibility of the peace process was being eroded by the continuing paramilitary-style attacks by republicans and loyalists on recognised ceasefire.

Over the last year there were 500 incidents attributable to terrorists whose organisations are in the process. This was admitted by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons on December 2nd .

The IRA shot 38 people last year, as opposed to 22 the previous year, and in the last week alone the Provos had by Sunday shot two people and carried out seven beatings, while the Loyalists matched those figures.

And yet despite this terrorist activity, these incidents are being ignored by the British Government, are being sidelined by both Governments and we are facing the prospect of the very people who sanctioned these acts taking office.

This is not what people who voted yes in the May referendum voted for. It is not what families whose loved ones have suffered at the hands of paramilitaries voted for. They feel cheated."

We have the opportunity today to declare in favour of a civil society in which ordinary people are free from gangsterism, intimidation, provocation and polarisation. Those in the Unionist community who voted in favour of the Belfast Agreement because of the false promises and pledges of Tony Blair and the Government that decommissioning would take place have since openly admitted their errors and now reject the Belfast Agreement and its appeasement process. All Unionists elected to the Assembly must now acknowledge this fact.

As an elected Member for South Antrim, I am proud that the vast majority of the Unionist electorate in my constituency were aware of the danger to Northern Ireland's position within the Union and totally opposed the implementation of all-Ireland structures and bodies in the June 1998 election. This opposition is growing daily in South Antrim and throughout Northern Ireland.

On the issue of departmental structures under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, the Executive is not accountable to the Assembly, since it would be virtually impossible to remove any Minister from office. I also strongly oppose 10 Departments. That will impose an equal number of Unionist and Nationalist Ministers on the Unionist majority of Northern Ireland, and that is a major concession by the Ulster Unionist Party to the pan-Nationalist front.

There would also be the significant administrative costs of increasing the current six Departments to the proposed 10 - a change designed more for political reasons rather than for the betterment of the taxpayer and greater efficiency.

There is no mention in the report of the future role and function of local government or of the large number of unelected quangos. There is also insufficient information about the appointments of members to the Civic Forum or about their specific roles.

The Unionist community totally rejects this report and its contents which, if passed by the Assembly, will create an Executive with militant Republicans discharging ministerial functions. I support the amendment.

Mr Taylor:

Mr Boyd said much with which I disagree, but he was right to underline the fact that this report is incomplete. That is why it is an interim report. The final report is not before us but will be before the House in a month's time. Leaving aside the first hour or so, when there were noisy interruptions from the DUP wing in particular, this has been a sombre and thoughtful debate on where we are going in Northern Ireland. We have arrived at a very difficult point in the history of this Province, of this part of the United Kingdom and of this part of the island of Ireland.

We now have an interim report based on the Belfast Agreement of Good Friday 1998 showing us the way forward on the creation of an Executive comprising 10 Members from the four main political parties in the Assembly, on the creation of six bodies for co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic and on the creation of six bodies for the implementation of policies of interest common to both Northern Ireland and the Republic, policies which will be subject both to a veto by the Unionist Member present on that body and to a veto by the Assembly.

Other issues have been left out. We have made little progress on the Civic Forum, and we still have to complete the details of the new British-Irish Council to enable us to create an institution that will deal with all that we have in common in these British Isles - Southern Ireland, Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. There is considerable work to do, and that is why a further month is required.

The Belfast Agreement created problems and concerns for everyone. For the SDLP there are problems, for Sinn Fein there are many problems, for the DUP and the former UKUP there are many problems and for the UUP there are many problems. Indeed, I see that Mr Shannon, the DUP Member for Strangford, does not understand what happened. When he refers to the 40-foot pole he shows that he does not understand the type of document that we had on the Tuesday before Good Friday.

Those who were involved in the negotiations - and the DUP did not have Mr Shannon there - know that in that document there were the 50 cross-border bodies that were proposed by Senator Mitchell. It was only by the UUP's taking a firm stand and saying we would not touch it with a 40-foot pole that that number was reduced to 12 in the agreement itself. Of course, the DUP does not give credit for these things because some of them want to score points and others, like Mr Shannon, because he does not understand.

We all have concerns. There was the referendum. It was carried by 70% plus - fewer than 30% were against. If we are honest, we know that, while the overwhelming majority of the Catholic community voted "Yes", in the Protestant community there was only a slim majority - just over 50%. That is the accurate position. Why did the Catholic-Nationalist community vote "Yes" in such overwhelming numbers? It voted "Yes" because it wanted to see peace established in Northern Ireland on the basis of partnership government. After 30 years of violence it wants peace, and Sinn Fein has failed to get that message. The people who voted "Yes" were not expressing support for a continued ability to perpetrate violence in Northern Ireland, they were actually saying "We have had enough." Whether we are Catholic or Protestant, Nationalist or Unionist, we want peace and stability, with Catholic, Protestant, Nationalist and Unionist working together for the good of Northern Ireland.

We have much in common with other political parties. [Interruption]

Mr Paisley Jnr:

Sinn Fein?

Mr Taylor:

Yes. All parties in Northern Ireland want to see a better Health Service, better housing and jobs created throughout the Province. It is all right to sneer at these things, but they are important to the man on the street - be he Catholic or Protestant - and if we work together we can achieve these things for our people. Of course, we can divide and go back to civil war, but that will not help the ordinary man in the street.

The Ulster Unionist Party was at one time a party of the Establishment. I saw that in my younger days in this House. Today I would call it the Poujadist party of Ulster. David Trimble is one Member at least who knows what that is. We will leave the other Members to look it up later. We share with other parties the desire to create a better society in Northern Ireland in which we will all thrive and have equality of opportunity.

The key issue in the next month is how we complete the unfinished work. I do not envisage much difficulty in progressing with the British-Irish Council and the Civic Forum, but the crucial issue is whether there will continue to be a threat of violence in Northern Ireland.

4.45 pm

Mr Morrow:

Is Mr Taylor in any doubt about that?

Mr Taylor:

Of course I am in doubt. I have always been in doubt about that. On Good Friday - I even remember you, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, getting a bit anxious about it - I delayed the agreement to the Mitchell Report because I was concerned that there was still the possibility of those who supported violence being in the Executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I still have those concerns. The Ulster Unionist Party accepts that there is an absence of total trust in this society. I am glad to hear some SDLP Members saying that trust is beginning to grow. That is progress.

I want to make it clear to Sinn Fein - which is the Republican movement because the IRA and Sinn Fein are the same thing - that the UUP is honourable in its dealings. We have no wish to exclude Sinn Fein from office out of spite, though that would be understandable in light of its record. The UUP remains open to new and changed relationships.

When the people voted last year, they were looking forward to a new kind of Administration, embracing the whole spectrum of political opinion in Ulster. But they also voted for an end to violence and the threat of violence. So long as the IRA's arsenal remains intact, the threat remains intact. So long as the threat remains intact, there will be no Executive involving those who retain that threat. I hope that constitutional Nationalism will recognise that and join with democratic parties to proceed without Sinn Fein, if necessary.

Mr Peter Robinson said that the Ulster Unionist Party has a post-dated cheque. He is right. It is not the first time that I have seen a post-dated cheque - and such a cheque will not clear if there is no money in the account on the day that it is presented.

Mr Haughey:

I commend the report, and I wish to comment on some aspects of the debate.

The most audible aspect of the debate was the merriment, the guffawing, the wisecracking, the sniggering and the chortling from DUP Members and other anti-agreement Unionists. If they are right, and Ulster is being shamefully betrayed, they seem to be getting the most enormous enjoyment out of it. I have never heard such merriment and guffawing. I hope that the media gives an accurate picture of what happened here today because if all this pleading about grievance, betrayal, shameful letting down and sell-out is true, one must question such frivolity. It seems to be the best show in town.

We have heard Mr Carrick of the DUP refer to the polluting of democracy by the inclusion of Sinn Fein in government, according to the terms of the Belfast Agreement. Let him look at his own party. Is it an adornment of democracy to seek to shout down others who have a legitimate point of view; to seek to waste their time by constant interruption; to seek to put them off their stroke by constant heckling and guffaws? I do not believe it is.

To more important matters. This agreement is an attempt to move away from a "majoritarian" approach to government in Northern Ireland, an approach which has characterised government through much of this state's existence. Indeed, that "majoritarian" approach was at the heart of the conflict. We are trying to move away from that towards a consensus system of decision-making and government.

This is a painful transition for many people. It is painful for Unionists in view of this community's history, but I believe that a majority of Unionists now accept that there is a need to move from a majority approach to decision-making towards a consensus system of government and partnership. But the views of many anti-agreement Unionists are entirely incoherent on this whole matter.

For instance, Mr Gregory Campbell and others were suggesting a few minutes ago that more than 50% of Unionists opposed the agreement. Quite apart from whether it is true or not, and I do not believe that it is, implicit in what he has said is an insistence that the legitimacy of this agreement depends upon the support of a majority of Unionists.

But what about the support of a majority of Nationalists? Mr Campbell and other anti-agreement Unionists are entirely silent on that matter. Do they accept that if there is to be agreement about how this society is run that a majority of Nationalists must give their consent? Do they even accept that any Nationalist must give his consent? I have observed these Colleagues, and it is clear that they do not accept this simple principle. Consent, according to some, applies only to Unionists; it does not apply to Nationalists at all.

Mr McGimpsey was eloquent on the question of consent. Consent does not just apply to the question of North/South relations; it applies to the question of relations within the North, as it does to the whole question of relations in any society. No form of government is legitimate when it does not have the consent of the majority of its citizens, or where significant sections of the community are either deliberately, or by whatever means, excluded from the business of government.

This brings me to the question of negotiation, which has arisen during the debate with allegations of poor negotiation on the part of one party or another. It sometimes seems that articulating one's demands and then handcuffing oneself to them is what negotiation is about. It is not. Negotiation involves arguing one's case and accepting that others can argue their case with equal sincerity.

Negotiation involves the identification of areas of common ground, trying to build on them, trying to find ways around areas of disagreement, and finding some way of breaking deadlocks over issues that are extremely difficult. Ultimately, agreement is always possible if there is all-round consent - whether given wholeheartedly or begrudgingly.

When Mr Adams and others mentioned inward investment and tourism, my view was the same as theirs. I would have liked to have seen those matters dealt with by some other means - Sean Neeson presented the same view on behalf of the Alliance Party. But those were not the only matters on the table; a whole range of matters were being discussed, and it is axiomatic that no party can get everything its own way. Bearing in mind the aims we set out with, we were satisfied that the agreement which we have represents the best that we could have achieved. We believe that we got a fairly good deal, but we did not get all that we wanted. We are not vulnerable or liable to criticism for that.

Mitchel McLaughlin is on altogether weaker ground when he accuses the SDLP of a solo run, and of betraying the expectations of the Nationalist group. Mr McLaughlin is not in a position to lecture the SDLP about the expectations of the Nationalist community, because we represent the majority of the Nationalist community. And I take exception to the allegation that we ignored, or bypassed, or did not seek to involve Sinn Fein in the negotiations. No party has made greater efforts to help Sinn Fein get into the political process and help them adjust to the demands of democracy, and I will not listen to criticism in that regard.

I come, finally, to the question of decommissioning - a constant refrain of the anti-agreement Unionists. My party has been consistent about this from the beginning. We took the view that we would not accept any precondition - other than peace - for talks, for negotiations and for the winning of a peace agreement. We have consistently kept to that position. We now take the view that there are no preconditions for implementing the agreement.

Decommissioning is part of the agreement and, just as there are no preconditions for implementing the formation of the Executive or the formation of the North/South bodies, we cannot accept that there are any preconditions for any part of the agreement - including decommissioning. All parts of the agreement must be implemented, and there are no preconditions. It is not legitimate for any party to say that it will not agree to one part being implemented until all the others are. All parts of the agreement must be implemented, and we will not accept any other view.

I commend this report. It has the great virtue of identifying a firm date for the determination of these matters - 15 February - and for movement on to the next phase of the agreement.

Mr Wells:

At the risk of being repetitive, the crucial element missing from this document is the word "decommissioning". Just as Tony Blair said before the 1997 election that the important issues were "Education, education, education", the word that is on the lips of every ordinary Unionist out on the street is decommissioning. Quite frankly, nothing else counts at the moment.

We have been told that 71% of the people voted for this agreement - the number grows every day - and the people who voted for this agreement did so on the basis of a handwritten promise from Tony Blair. That promise was that there would be no question of Sinn Fein/IRA being in the Government of this country without decommissioning.

5.00 pm

The Ulster Unionist leader reminds me of the captain of the Titanic. Heading inexorably towards the iceberg - an iceberg called decommissioning - during the talks that led to the agreement, he told us that the iceberg was a mirage. Before Christmas, we were told that the iceberg was melting fast. Now he is telling us that the iceberg is to be moved. But in the end the one issue that cannot be fudged, and on which there can be no compromise, is the issue of decommissioning. No Unionist worth his salt will accept the presence in the Government of this country of an armed paramilitary group.

What the First Minister (Designate) and Mr Taylor should remember is that militant Republicanism is insatiable. It has a two-pronged strategy. A Member for Mid Ulster in a previous Assembly, Mr Danny Morrison, used to talk about holding an Armalite in one hand and a ballot box in the other. The strategy of Sinn Fein/IRA is that, having squeezed all the benefit they can out of the Armalite approach, and pocketed those gains, they now move on to the ballot box strategy, to extract maximum benefit from that. When they have achieved maximum benefit from that strategy, then they will move back to the Armalite. That is why they need to keep the weapons - they are going to use them again.

There are thousands of ordinary, decent people in the Province who do not wish to accept a return by Sinn Fein/IRA to a campaign of murder after they have squeezed the maximum concessions out of this process. Let us look at the concessions that have already been secured. Two hundred and thirty terrorist prisoners have been released; the Patten Commission on the future of policing has been set up to demoralise the RUC and to make it acceptable to Republicans, weakening the force by taking away its weapons and removing all the essential elements of the RUC as we know it. These concessions have already been made. But, eventually, Sinn Fein/IRA will go back to what they know best. They have not gone away, you know. They will go back to killing.

We need to remember the consequences of the Armalite campaign. As representative for South Down in the previous Assembly, between 1982 and 1986, I had the sad duty of following the coffins of 13 members of the RUC, murdered by Sinn Fein/IRA. We should remember the gruesome facts. In the case of two of those policemen there was so little of their bodies remaining that concrete blocks were put in their coffins to convince their widows that they contained the bodies of their husbands. But there were no bodies. All that was left of one of the policemen could have been put into a plastic carrier bag.

I am convinced that there are people in the Assembly who know who committed those acts and hundreds of other terrorist acts. On many occasions, they may have committed them themselves. And yet we are being asked by the First Minister (Designate) to accept the people who committed those vile deeds into government, without them having given up the rust on the barrel of one gun. Our answer to that is "Never". We will never accept that.

Mr Ervine said that we will lose our salaries and our positions as Members. I do not care. The people of South Down elected me to this House to oppose this process. If that brings the Assembly down, then so be it. We are here to represent the people who elected us.

Mr A Maginness:

The Member talks about bringing down the agreement. Would he not agree with me that the only real chance of getting decommissioning is through the agreement? There is no other way.

Mr Wells:

Mr Maginness is putting the cart before the horse. There can be no settlement without decommissioning, and that is fundamental. How can he and the other members of the SDLP trust any organisation to sit in the Government of this country when it is known to have an armed militia at its command? If that is allowed to happen, and the Members for Mid Ulster and West Belfast get their two seats in the Executive, how will they deal with important constitutional issues? They will say to the other members of the Executive "There are rough elements in the Republican community, and we cannot control them. If you do not give way, they will start killing and bombing. Rather than see these "dogs of war" back on the streets, you will have to give way and accept our demands."

They will never say openly "We are going to start killing again", but their subcontractors will. As long as they have the Armalites and the Semtex and the rocket launchers oiled and ready for action, that threat will remain, and that threat will be used. The Member for North Belfast, Mr Kelly, tells us that they need these weapons in case a riot breaks out in the Ardoyne; the Loyalists and the Nationalists are stoning each other, and the Nationalists need to be defended. How do you defend the Nationalists of Ardoyne with Semtex? The only use for Semtex is to blow up innocent civilians and members of the RUC and the Royal Irish Regiment. The only reason for retaining Semtex and other vicious weapons is to murder people.

If Unionists were polled once again as in the referendum, there would be a considerable swing against the agreement. I have met hundreds of people who voted "Yes", but who now wish they had voted "No". I have met thousands of people who voted "No" and are glad they did. There is no defection from the "No" campaign to the "Yes" campaign, but there are thousands who are defecting from "Yes" to "No". If that agreement were put to the people today, the outcome would be very interesting.

I could go into the report in depth, but those issues are minor. The only issue is decommissioning, and unless that issue is resolved, the ordinary law-abiding people of this Province will never accept Sinn Fein/IRA in Government.

Ms O'Hagan:

Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh. I wish to draw the attention of the Chamber to paragraph 3.7 of today's report, which states

"It is now our clear intention, having agreed upon the architecture of Departments, to move with urgency in seeking to address the social, economic and cultural challenges facing the whole community. We want to agree upon and implement a programme for government . We want to address the needs of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged; we want to imbue the community with a sense of enterprise and self-reliance; we want to tackle educational disadvantage .; we want to put behind us the tragic years of trauma and separation by providing the best possible form and programme of government."

There is no reason for the Assembly's not moving to do all of these. The problem is the inertia of the Ulster Unionist Party. The problem is that Unionism of all shades still cannot conceive of dealing with Nationalism on a basis of equality. We see this starkly in Portadown, where Nationalist residents have been subjected to a seven-month campaign of intimidation and threat by the Orange Order. Many Members of the Assembly belong to that organisation. There are people in this Chamber who have been involved in gatherings in Portadown which have gone well beyond the boundaries of legitimate protest.

Sinn Fein believes that the situation there has to be resolved on a basis of equality and respect, and that is also how the political process should be driven - on a basis of equality and respect. We are here because of our electoral mandate, and we are entitled to put forward and debate our Republican analysis. The votes of the Sinn Fein electorate are as valid as the votes of every other electorate. Our place in the Executive comes from that electoral mandate and from the Good Friday Agreement, which most of the parties here signed up to. Unionism needs to accept that Sinn Fein has a right to be in the Executive, and if we are not in the Executive, there will be no Executive.

Finally, our objective in all of this is to advance the peace process. This involves us all, every single one of us, in working together, and it involves Unionism implementing the agreement. Mr Trimble has now committed himself to a definitive report and vote on 15 February. On that basis I give qualified support to today's report. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Dallat:

I welcome the report and I do so for positive reasons.

I am particularly pleased to see that emphasis has been placed on trade and business development because that is the way forward. In a global economy where there is a marked shift from traditional industries such as textiles and engineering to a weightless economy supported and driven by knowledge-based companies, it is essential that we do everything in our power to ensure that the transition is smooth.

Everyone must benefit from the enormous wealth generated by the new industries that have transformed the economies of the United States of America and of many other parts of the developed world. That can only be done on an all-Ireland basis, and for that reason I welcome the proposal to set up an implementation body dealing with trade and business development.

The report lays out very clearly the practical steps which must be taken to ensure that the Assembly delivers on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. I think particularly of those who have no jobs and of those whose jobs are threatened by very significant changes taking place in the industrial world. Even as we debate this report, American companies are packing their bags to come to Northern Ireland to seek out business opportunities. Two such groups will visit Coleraine in the next few weeks, and they are coming because we promised them everything a modern progressive company seeking a gateway into Europe wants. They are knowledge-based industries that will create secure jobs well into the new millennium.

Why are they coming? The answer is very simple. They are coming because they believe that we have settled our political differences by signing the Good Friday Agreement. They were influenced by the 11-cities tour by the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate), and they were further influenced by a follow-up visit organised by my council in Coleraine. I was pleased to be accompanied by my Colleague David McClarty.

I must also tell the DUP that we were accompanied by the DUP Mayor of Coleraine, who enthusiastically endorsed the political progress in the North, and we are grateful to him for that. I hope that when those American visitors come to Coleraine in the next few weeks Gregory Campbell and others will turn up and wish the visitors "Céad míle fáilte" because there is high unemployment in Coleraine, and the people there have a right to a future. Certainly, the performance in that corner today gave no hope to anyone watching it in the wider world.

Everything that I have said is possible, but only if there is political stability, and that will not happen if the Assembly does not make progress. The people whom we represent are depending on us to deliver, and so far we have not done enough.

5.15 pm

In Lewis Carroll's classic work 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' the king calls for the sentence and then the verdict. I hope that Members are here to listen to each other, and to be persuaded before making up their minds about the merits of the report. It confused ordinary people to hear political leaders dismissing the report before it was even published, never mind debated. I hope that our business is taken more seriously than 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland'. We are in the real world, and it does not suffer fools gladly or condone the type of behaviour that we saw today.

The political face of Europe is changing rapidly with the enlargement of the European Union. Our status as an Objective 1 region is ending. An implementation body to deal with special EU programmes is essential if we are to continue to benefit from European membership. The border regions in particular depend on cross-border initiatives such as INTERREG, Leader and other programmes. Those issues can only be addressed effectively if we work together.

A Department dealing with agriculture and rural development is an exciting proposal that will enable us to deal with many of the serious issues that affect many of our citizens, and particularly those in rural areas. Agriculture is in a mess and has been badly handled by direct rule. A Ministry to deal specifically with the special needs of farming will provide real opportunities for the industry.

I welcome the recognition of the importance of rural development because it will not only be the farming community which benefits from political progress in that area. People who live outside urban areas have particular needs which can be addressed through rural development.

During the last 30 years, there have been many significant changes in the structure of our rural communities. They have suffered badly as a direct result of the troubles, and many are in decline. Country schools have closed or have been threatened with closure, and a range of community structures has disappeared. Even as we speak, plans are being set in motion to wipe out the Action for Community Employment scheme that had done so much for economic regeneration and community support in rural areas. A Department for agriculture and rural development is essential if we are to address the needs of the people who live in country areas.

People need skills to avail of new job opportunities in a modern world driven by knowledge-based industries, and I welcome the plan to separate higher and further education and link it to training and employment.

Over the years many people have been disadvantaged as a direct result of the troubles. Many have missed educational opportunities and women, in particular, have been the victims of a society that has not addressed the issue of equality in relation to education and training.

Colleges of further education, which were the driving force in the past to provide education and training for ordinary working people, have been misdirected into a world of money-making schemes which have shifted the focus away from the people who depend on them most. In the past, the technical colleges, as they were known, provided countless opportunities for people who had been rejected by the grammar school system. Those colleges must be the backbone of a new world of higher and further education where the skills they teach are directly linked to a new environment, based on information science and technology.

Many issues in this field were ignored in the past, and they can be tackled only if we have the political commitment to put our house in order and begin the process of providing stable government. We can do that, provided we are not like the king in 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' who demanded the sentence before the verdict.

The honeymoon is over. The work of the Assembly must begin in earnest.

The people who elected us are beginning to despair. They do not understand why we are holding back, and they are worried that the political initiative will revert to the lawlessness of the past. No one wants that. It cost too many people their lives and their limbs.

The report is very welcome, but it is disappointing that more progress has not been possible. Let us renew our efforts to find a way forward which replaces fear by trust, hate by love, divisiveness by unity. We have listened to the politics of failure for too long. We are sick listening to the prophets of doom who have done so much to land us in the mess we are in. It is time to move forward and to give our people hope for the future and life after the troubles.

When the American industrialists and business people arrive in Northern Ireland in the next few weeks they will undoubtedly ask about political progress. I do not want to have to tell them that we have failed - and failed the people we represent. I do not want to have to tell them that we had the verdict first and then the debate.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Mr David Hilditch.

Mr J Wilson:

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I beg to move that the Question be now put.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

A Member has moved that the Question be now put. This is the first time we have had a closure motion under Initial Standing Order 11(1), which says

"After a motion has been proposed and provided that each of the parties present has had a reasonable opportunity to contribute to the debate, any member who has not spoken to it, or to any amendment which has been moved, may move that the question be now put; and unless it shall appear to the Presiding Officer that such motion is an abuse of these Standing Orders, the question that the question be now put shall be put forthwith, and decided without amendment or debate."

There are a number of questions. First, has the Member who moved that the question be put spoken in the debate? I believe he has not. Secondly, have all the parties present had a reasonable opportunity to contribute to the debate? The Assembly has been debating for almost five hours now, and approximately 30 Members have spoken. That is a question which I must answer before I put it to the Assembly for a decision. Any vote will be by simple majority.

Mr P Robinson:

The committee which advises you has set aside three days for the debate. It was deemed by the committee that, unless there was going to be excessive voting, if it was possible to close it off by Tuesday night then you would do so. Every party left the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer meeting with a clear understanding that they were to organise their troops for a two-day debate.

If there had been any indication that there would be a one-day debate instead of a two-day debate, there would have been a different order of speaking. This clearly allows those who were aware that this would be their tactic to order people in the fashion which suits that tactic. You clearly indicated to the parties that there would be a two-day debate, and the DUP has summoned its Members on that basis. It would be completely inappropriate for you to change the rules at this stage of the proceedings.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Your statement this morning made it clear that this debate would run for two days. The Ulster Unionist Party did not raise the question of a vote at this time with me although they may have raised it with the SDLP. I was entitled to know if there was going to be a vote at this time. In any debate in the House of Commons the party leaders are informed of the likely times for moving a closure. It seems very strange to me that the Ulster Unionist Party cannot stand the heat.

They want to close it down. I suggest, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, that if you rule to close the debate, you will do a great disservice to the many Members who came here and sat through this debate, knowing that tomorrow they would be called.

Mr C Wilson:

On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The Member may only speak if it is a point of order. The Standing Orders are very clear that the closure of a debate is not open to debate. If the Member is making a point of order, I will take it, although the taking of a point of order in the context of a point of order is stretching the point. But I will take it if it is a point of order.

Mr C Wilson:

It is a point of order. It would be a travesty of the proceedings of this Institution - and it would be greatly resented by the majority of the Unionist community - if you were to bring a guillotine down upon this debate. Mr Trimble and his Colleagues should think long and hard before they agree to this because they will have, at some stage, to face the pro-Union electorate.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The word "ambush" rather than "guillotine" may be more appropriately used here. It is my experience, limited though that may be, that such events are often the source of some displeasure to those who find themselves on the wrong side of the ambush. The Standing Orders present me with a dilemma. Some Members still clearly wish to speak, and they understood that there would be an opportunity for them to speak when they came here - that is clear.

On the other hand, the Standing Orders are also clear: if there is a reason to believe that parties who are present have had a reasonable opportunity to put forward their views, a Member who has not spoken has a right to move that the Question be put. Then it is for the Assembly to decide. The only decision that I am permitted to make - and it is a decision that I am required to make - is on whether to put the Question that the Question be put to the Assembly.

In this context I have no alternative but to put the matter to the Assembly. Let me be clear so there is no misunderstanding: if the Question that the Question be put is carried by the Assembly, and it will just need a simple majority to carry it, then we move immediately to a vote on the amendment - if Dr Paisley wishes to move it - and then to a vote on the substantive motion, if the amendment is not carried. I will deal with the matter of the substantive motion when we get to it, but there will be no further debate. Is that understood?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Further to that, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, surely the important wording is "if it is reasonable". You have to decide that. You cannot put the Question to the Assembly unless you think it is reasonable to do so. You have to make that decision; you cannot get away from it, for that is the responsibility of the Chair. If you put the Question, you are saying that it is reasonable that each party has had a fair share, in spite of the fact that you and your Committee announced this morning that we would be having a two-or three-day debate.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I have tried to give the reasons as best I can. There is no reasonable option for me but to take this decision. I do not shy away from difficult decisions.

Question put: That the Question be now put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 75; Noes 22.

AYES

Gerry Adams, Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Seamus Close, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Ivan Davis, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sir Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Sir John Gorman, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Gerry Kelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, David McClarty, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O'Connor, Dara O'Hagan, Eamon ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Ken Robinson, Brid Rodgers, George Savage, Duncan Shipley-Dalton, Rt Hon John Taylor, John Tierney, Rt Hon David Trimble, Peter Weir, Jim Wilson.

NOES

Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr O'Connor:

On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I will take Mr O'Connor's point of order first and then Dr Paisley's.

Mr O'Connor:

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, is it not the case that the doors are meant to be locked once the vote starts? Dr Paisley and Mr Paisley Jnr came in during the vote, yet I was not allowed to come in during the vote on the last day the House sat because you had ruled accordingly. I would like you to clarify that position.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The position is entirely clear. When I ask for the doors to be made fast by the doorkeepers, I mean precisely that. I cannot immediately rule on the point of order you raise because I shall have to make enquiries. You have my undertaking that I will enquire about the matter.

Several Members:

On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Dr Paisley and then Mr Paisley Jnr.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, there is no reference about locking doors in the Standing Orders, and you far exceed your authority if you say that you can lock doors when there is nothing in the Standing Orders about that. We are going by Standing Orders which we did not draw up - the Secretary of State drew them up - and they do not say that the doors should be locked. I came when the vote was about to take place, and I was told I could not get in.

There were two men at the door saying to a Member that he could not get in. You know very well that in the House of Commons any Member can go in to vote at any time if he is going through the House and through the Lobby doors. Those doors are not locked until the Members are in to vote.

TOP