The Temporary Chairperson:

Order.

Dr McDonnell:

This is bringing the House into total disrepute. I do not mind the juvenile delinquents on the Back Benches, but Mr Robinson should know better. He is hurling insults at our Colleague who is trying to speak. It is up to you, and not Mr Robinson, to rule on this.

2.45 pm

Mr Campbell:

Madam Chair, will you make a ruling on the comments made by the Member for South Belfast. While pointing in this direction, he described Members as "bootboys and thugs". May I ask you to ask him - no, to direct him - to withdraw those remarks immediately.

The Temporary Chairperson:

I would like to draw Members' attention to the unruly and unparliamentary behaviour which we have seen in the last 30 minutes. It is inappropriate. We are not paying each other proper parliamentary respect and courtesy. Members should speak to the Order Paper and observe proper order in the Chamber. I would ask Dr McDonnell to reflect on what he has said.

Mr P Robinson:

On a point of order, Madam Acting Initial Presiding Officer. May I point out that this is not a matter of choice for the Member for South Belfast. He has used unparliamentary language, and if it is allowed to remain on the record, similar language will be used by other Members in the future, a precedent's having been set. Clearly it was unparliamentary, and the Member should be asked to withdraw it. Then we can leave it at that.

The Temporary Chairperson:

I have asked the Member to reflect on what he has said.

Dr McDonnell:

I did not refer to the Members in the far corner as "bootboys and thugs"; I said that they were behaving like bootboys and thugs. I will withdraw the remark, if that will make a useful contribution to the debate.

Mr Ervine:

On a point of order. It is perfectly legitimate for the Member to give us the reason we are having this debate. If it is acceptable to refer to what took place at a meeting of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer in order to provide the background to criticism of decisions made by the Presiding Officer, it is perfectly legitimate for the Member to give reasons for the behaviour of these detractors.

Mr McFarland:

I wonder if Mr Foster recalls the endless Friday afternoons at the Forum, when we sat and listened to tome after tome of speeches from the DUP's back-room speech factory.

The Temporary Chairperson:

What is the point of order?

Mr McFarland:

It is not a point of order. My Colleague agreed to take an intervention.

We owe a debt of gratitude to my Colleague for introducing the guillotine motion. By doing so, he saved us from having to listen to endless prattling. I think Mr Robinson is frustrated because he lost his speech. His party must be thoroughly embarrassed at being caught on the hop in this way.

Mr Foster:

I take Mr McFarland's point. That is why I referred to virtuousness. As Mr Ervine said, I was trying to explain why certain Members are speaking to the motion in this way.

In conclusion, I would say that we reprove, not in order to correct, but in order to persuade them that we are free from faults ourselves. I reject this motion because I find it repulsive, hypocritical and totally unnecessary.

Mr Hay:

I have listened attentively to the debate, and I have heard the word "ambush" being used - some Members in this Chamber know all about ambushes. It was rather sad to see the Ulster Unionists get involved in an ambush on fellow Unionists on 18 January, to try and stifle debate in this House.

It was also interesting to note that they waited until a member of the Democratic Unionist Party got up to speak before Mr Wilson brought the guillotine down. They were not on their feet trying to stifle debate when Sinn Féin/IRA was speaking. On 18 January the Ulster Unionists, along with the SDLP and Sinn Féin, knew exactly what they were doing - strange bedfellows.

Who informed the Initial Presiding Officer of the timing of the guillotine motion, and when? Lord Alderdice obviously knew that the debate was not going to last until Tuesday or Wednesday, and there are a number of questions he must answer. Clearly the SDLP knew all about it, because during the debate on housing that evening, a Member referred to the situation. His information on the day was that the debate would end in a few hours. Obviously it was a conspiracy on the part of the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP, and their good friends in Sinn Féin.

For them to come into this House and get into bed with Sinn Féin in a conspiracy is hypocritical. The Ulster Unionists knew -

Mr J Wilson:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Hay:

I will not give way. Sit down. The Ulster Unionists knew exactly what they were about. That is the sad reality.

Mr Foster:

The Member is drifting further away from the motion than I did, and I was admonished for doing so. The Member has gone off the track altogether. He is not speaking to the motion.

The Temporary Chairperson:

I have been listening very closely. The Member has been moving away from the motion in the last thirty seconds. Would he please return to it?

Mr Hay:

Forgive me for moving away from the motion; that was not my intention. I have been interrupted so many times by Mr J Wilson, who seems to have no problem when it comes to interrupting DUP speakers. The Ulster Unionists have added very little to today's debate - I could count those who have spoken on the fingers of one hand - but they are good at interrupting and making points of order. They make no points of order when the SDLP or Sinn Féin are speaking. I saw Mr Wilson giving instructions earlier; perhaps one of them was not to interrupt SDLP or Sinn Féin, but when a DUP man gets up to speak, make sure that he is interrupted.

The Temporary Chairperson:

Please adhere to the motion.

Mr Hay:

I support this motion. Lord Alderdice has a number of questions to answer about his rulings on 18 January. It is a conspiracy - and this is what the Ulster Unionists cannot seem to understand, for whatever reason - by the Ulster Unionists, SDLP and Sinn Féin. In the last 30 years, certain gentlemen on my right have happily ambushed a number of people and, on 18 January, the Ulster Unionists were happy to get into bed with them and ambush the Democratic Unionist Party. That is sad.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

I have listened with interest to the debate and also to the time-wasting by many of the Members opposite, particularly SDLP Members. They have accused others of bringing this House into disrepute but, by their own actions, have been party to doing the same thing in the use of unparliamentary language by the Member for South Belfast and by the time-wasting effort of the Member for Mid Ulster, Mr Haughey, who constantly made frivolous and repetitive points of order after he had been ruled out of order.

The DUP has brought forward this motion of no confidence because the procedures used on 18 January ought not to have been used. Mr Hilditch was very clear - he was denied his right to free speech. Two other colleagues intended to make their maiden speeches and were denied the opportunity to speak and raise issues. Such issues are at the heart of the establishment of this Assembly and at the heart of the progress of democracy in Northern Ireland.

Others have raised the question of balance, including Members from the parties opposite. There was no balance given to the parties in the debate on 18 January. That is why we found Lord Alderdice's ruling so irreconcilable. Less than a quarter of my party's speakers were given the opportunity to express their point of view. Less than a third of the entire House had the opportunity to put their points to the Assembly. Other parties got considerably more than a quarter, some got 50% and one Member, Mr Hutchinson, got 100%. That balance was totally unfair; there ought to be balance given, especially to a party with a large mandate like the DUP which is the third largest party in the Assembly.

The sequence of events in the Chamber indicates that the Initial Presiding Officer was a party to a set-up, a conspiracy to stifle free speech and free debate in this Chamber. It is quite obvious that there was a series of nods and winks indicating that if the debate were cut short and those who opposed the report of the First and Deputy First Minister (Designate) were silenced, then the Initial Presiding Officer would be able perhaps to secure his position. A Presiding Officer or a Speaker should have neither eyes to see nor ears to hear any matter that goes against the interests of the Back-Bench Members of this House.

On 18 January Lord Alderdice so abused his position that he breached the trust and confidence that Members must have in him to be fair and impartial. He abused his position in connivance with a party or parties to the detriment of the rights of Back-Bench Members. That is unforgivable. If we cannot trust the Presiding Officer to uphold our rights whom can we trust to ensure that we have free and fair debate in this House? This is not a personal matter against John Alderdice, rather it is about the abuse of the privilege and trust given to him by the Members of the Assembly.

This debate has a second purpose, which is to ensure that precedent is not established by the faulty application of the procedural motion to vote without there first being a complete debate. Lord Alderdice's actions were wrong, and this House should censure them. I have listened to the one-dimensional argument of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. Since 18 January those parties have complained that the debate was repetitious. So what if it was repetitious? Mr Haughey drew attention to many of the speeches made by Members from this side of the House and tried to answer their points; he failed to answer their points but did draw attention to the fact that several points had been raised. From what he said, it was certainly not repetitious.

3.00 pm

Members are entitled to say what is on their minds. If they believe in the same policies and share the same objectives, then the debate will have many facets. The Ulster Unionist Party does not understand about sharing the same ideas because many of them have different ideas.

It is very interesting to hear SDLP Members, in particular, lecturing about repetition. How often we have been subjected to the single transferable speech of their Leader "The French are still French, and the Germans still German. You cannot eat a flag." If SDLP Members are sick of repetition, perhaps they should ditch their Leader. Did they not realise they had a lot to gain from a repetitious debate? They could have said "It had petered out. They did not have the ability to keep the debate going." They chose a different tack, the subtlety of which was lost on myself and many others: they chose to silence people they claimed were being repetitious. Their tactics were lost on many people inside and outside the House.

The First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) lost the moral high ground by bringing forward the motion, and therefore, they had to seek a procedural mechanism to prevent the debate from flowing. They were angry and could not take the heat. One defector had already decided that he was going to cross to this side of the House, and they knew that if the debate continued over two days and public pressure mounted, more Members would feel under pressure.

On the day of the debate Mr Roy Beggs Jnr was reported on the front page of the 'Belfast Telegraph' as saying that he would have to vote against the report because of its contents. Yet he had to vote with the report. We believe that he was pressurised to do so. If another day had been allowed for the debate, perhaps he would have had the freedom he wanted during that vote.

We then had the blatant misrepresentation by the Deputy First Minister (Designate) that he had been guillotined and if he could be guillotined, then everyone else could be also. The Deputy First Minister (Designate) was not guillotined, and he knows it. He wanted personal, special privileges and extra time for himself, not for his party. He thought that he could then force the rest of the House to accept that he had special privileges.

Having listened to the Deputy First Minister (Designate) over the years, I know he would like special privileges. He used to tell us that when he came to this building his flesh crawled when he had to pass that terrible statue of Carson. He also told us that when he was in the talks he hated sitting at that table from Gosford Castle.

But the baubles of office, the bulging pay cheque from the British Exchequer and his new-found polite tones have made him believe that he has privileges above and beyond other Members of this House. He has not. He has the same privilege as every other Member - the right to be elected and speak on behalf of their constituents. Unfortunately, on 18 January, he was party to a conspiracy to deny other Members the opportunity and privilege to speak on behalf of their constituents. He should be ashamed of his behaviour and of the excuse he made after the debate.

On 18 January the country witnessed the Ulster Unionist Party's, the SDLP's and, indeed, Sinn Féin's fear of public debate. People witnessed one Ulster Unionist Party Member not doing anything special - holding to his election pledge - but they also witnessed 27 others abandoning theirs. The country saw that and rejected it. Had the debate been allowed to continue, there might have been a better decision taken and we might have had the opportunity to explore other avenues - for instance, the make-up of the cabinet, the Executive and the Departments.

In the 'Coleraine Chronicle' of 12 December 1998, Mr Beggs, Mr Nesbitt and another member of the Ulster Unionst Party made it clear that there should be no real movement until there was substantial decommissioning. Mr Beggs stated that the Ulster Unionist Party was the only one that wanted seven Departments - that the SDLP wanted 10.

Yet, in that debate all those Members were forced to vote in a way which imposed 10 Departments on us. Mr Ken Maginnis said that this was the worst example of "snouts-in-the-trough" politics. We had the right to speak in that debate whether we had things of substance to say or not. We were denied that right.

Mr Poots:

It is nice to see a smooth face in the Chair. Long may that continue.

Dr McDonnell:

Is it in order for a Member to patronise the Chair in such a sexist manner?

Mr Poots:

Madam Chair, I assure you that I did not mean to patronise you. Flattery will get me nowhere.

The Temporary Chairperson:

Please continue.

Mr Poots:

We hear a lot about accountable democracy, and I addressed that in my first speech in the House. I intended to address it again in my second speech, which was to have been during the last sitting. Unfortunately that sitting was guillotined, and I did not have the opportunity to speak on that subject.

That that happened is much to the shame of Lord Alderdice and the Ulster Unionist Party, which joined up with the SDLP and Sinn Féin - an unholy coalition - to guillotine the motion before the Assembly that day. That motion was the most important motion to come before the Assembly for debate since its inception. Since the agreement was signed the biggest decisions, decisions which will copper fasten the agreement, have been taken in December 1998 and January 1999 when the House voted to endorse the Report from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate).

The motion before the Assembly on 18 January 1999 was worthy of a two-day debate at least. CAPO agreed to have a two-day debate. Lord Alderdice allowed the debate to be guillotined because he felt that all parties had been given a fair opportunity to have their voices heard. That is patently wrong and patently untrue. Lord Alderdice made a prejudiced and partisan decision on that day.

Five out of 20 Members from the Democratic Unionist Party had an opportunity to speak. Some parties had 50% of their Members called to speak while others had 100% called. The Democratic Unionist Party had only 25% of its Members who were down to speak called. This calls into question the system for calling Members to speak, the system by which the Initial Presiding Officer goes round each party once before returning to the main parties. In situations where debates are to be brief, this system does not give Back-Benchers in the larger parties much opportunity to speak.

I do not count myself as any less a Member than Members from the Progressive Unionist Party, the Women's Coalition or any of the other small parties. I was elected here, and I have the same mandate to speak as anyone else in the Chamber - particularly when time has been set aside for a motion.

There was no other pressing business on that day. I listened when Mr Ford said how busy we were. There have not been many debates in the House so far. I am fairly busy as I am trying to set up a constituency office in Lagan Valley, but I know that other Members are not as busy because they are not doing that sort of thing. They have plenty of time to take part in debates because they are doing very little else. As this was a very important debate and Members should have had an opportunity to speak, it was the Initial Presiding Officer's responsibility to ensure that minority parties got that opportunity.

Those of us in the "No" camp in the Assembly are in the minority, and we see the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, the Women's Coalition and the Progressive Unionist Party banding together on a regular basis to vote down the people who were against the agreement. It is the Initial Presiding Officer's duty to ensure that people in the "No" camp have an opportunity to put their case, however much he loathes what they say.

We had a case which we put to the electorate and for which we received significant support. Lord Alderdice must ensure that the Members of the Democratic Unionist Party have the opportunity to speak.

We hear that this agreement is about give and take and that both sides have to give. We know what the Unionist side has had to give. They have had to give acceptance to the release of prisoners; they have had to allow Sinn Féin into government; and they have had to give acceptance to the establishment of the North/South bodies - bodies which these Members agreed to and voted for on that particular day. However, we cannot understand what Sinn Féin has had to give up.

Some people have had to give up procuring weapons to stand for election; some people have had to give up planting bombs and setting off explosions; and other people have had to give up attempting to murder. That was not much to give up in return for a position worth £30,000 per year.

What is amazing is that members of the Ulster Unionist Party can join in a coalition with these people and vote with these people against their Unionist colleagues and against the Unionist people. Such behaviour is morally wrong and corrupt. It is also wrong that the Initial Presiding Officer should have shown such prejudice and such partisanship in allowing the closure motion to go forward.

I support the motion of no confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer. It is not a motion I would support lightly. The office of Presiding Officer in the Assembly is a very important office and its incumbent should act with decorum and impartiality.

Lord Alderdice has not acted in such a manner. It is significant that Mrs Betty Boothroyd, who is acknowledged as a competent and capable Speaker, indicated that she would not have allowed the motion to be closed had she been in the same position as Lord Alderdice.

Did Lord Alderdice take any advice on this matter, or did he act as he did because, as an interim Presiding Officer, he is going to have to be voted in at some stage by the majority of the House? It would be wise for him to keep in with those parties which have the majority in the House who could put him into the Chair permanently. I believe that Lord Alderdice took the decision on the closure motion on a partisan basis and not on a fair and equal basis. That is why we are having this debate today. This is a genuine and proper debate.

I regret that Mr McDonnell indicated that we were bully boys and thugs. I am not a bully boy or a thug. I respect Alistair McDonnell, both as an opponent and as a friend. I have met him many times and while in the Waterfront Hall he introduced me to the Mayor of Barcelona. I am surprised that he introduced the Mayor of Barcelona to a person he considers a thug or a bully boy. The real thugs and bully boys are those who beat people to a pulp with their baseball bats and hurley sticks and whose representatives are sitting in this very Chamber, and to whom the SDLP are cuddling up every day.

The thugs and bully boys are not the Members who come and participate in the cut and thrust of debate. The thugs and bully boys are those Members who sit like muted rats except when they try to interrupt Members who are speaking, particularly Members who are speaking for the first time and who are not particularly confident, in an attempt to put them off.

It is regrettable that the Ulster Unionists behave in this way. I notice that Mr Wilson is sitting with a smarmy smile on his face. He is the one who has asked his colleagues to interrupt the speeches of the DUP and the Unionist people, while ignoring the speeches made by Sinn Féin and the SDLP. Of course these Members are now his colleagues and his friends.

The Temporary Chairperson:

Please return to the subject of the motion.

Mr Poots:

In bringing my comments to a close, I confirm that I support the motion of no confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer.

3.15 pm

Rev William McCrea:

It is with sadness rather than joy that one takes part in such a debate. It is important that business is conducted in a proper fashion. Healthy debate should not be denied. If Members knew anything of debate in the House of Commons they would know that this is nothing like real debate. There is plenty of thrust and hard debate in the House of Commons, and new Members are willing to take it. There is an old adage:

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Some people want special treatment as Members of the Assembly, but they do not like the thrust of debate. This motion deals with important issues. My hon Friends have given many reasons why it is important that this debate take place. There is nothing personal in my remarks concerning Lord Alderdice. He has been courteous with me on many occasions in this House and has shown courtesy as the Initial Presiding Officer.

However, we are dealing with a particular issue, and it goes to the core of what we are about here - dealing with issues which are so relevant and so important to the future of our country. If anyone asks me why I should be excited, or why I should want to take part in one of the most important debates about the future of my country I tell them that I have an interest in my country, an interest in the future of my children.

Therefore the Initial Presiding Officer, when he ended the debate, was denying my right to discuss matters that are very important and go to the very heart of the future of this Province and what kind of society we are going to have.

I remember Terence O'Neill saying many years ago "What kind of Ulster do you want?" That was the type of a debate that we ought to have had because we were deciding the kind of Ulster and the kind of future our children were going to have.

I, as a Member of the Assembly, wanted to participate in that debate, and when the Initial Presiding Officer allowed the guillotine motion it was not put by those who had an interest in the debate. Even today the largest party in the Assembly, the Ulster Unionist Party, made one short statement concerning its position.

I can understand that some Members from the Ulster Unionist Party were not feeling aggrieved about the guillotine. The truth is that they were not permitted to speak on that occasion because the Whip could not be sure what they might say. There are many concerned people, for whom I have respect, in the Ulster Unionist Party. Many of them were deeply moved by this issue. However, they were not allowed to speak in case they did not tow the party line.

I support this motion. I was denied my right to speak on behalf of the people who elected me.

When I am not speaking I notice many wonderful things. Today I saw Mr Wilson directing his colleagues: "Get up, get up. Make interventions", and their hands were going feverishly to stop the Democratic Unionist Party Members from exercising their right of free speech.

I think that when Mr Wilson considers the matter, in the context of the Unionist family, he will have second thoughts. He has not done his people, and the Unionist people, proud today. He had no contribution to make himself, but he tried to stop free speech and debate.

If a Member has a response to a point in the debate, he should stand up and make it; if not, he should sit and remain silent. However, a Member should never orchestrate matters to remove the right of free speech from others. It should never happen within the Unionist family, bearing in mind that Unionist Members have to endure seeing the representatives of murderers and gangsters all around them. I feel angry and frustrated, and I resent that, even in these circumstances, there are colleagues from the family of Unionism trying to stop free speech.

Mr Foster started to quote the Bible. Maybe he is not the best authority on the Scriptures, and perhaps he should look closely at some of those verses again.

Mr Foster:

Will the Member give way?

Rev William McCrea:

No. The Member has had his say, and I do not regard him as a theologian. I will not enter a theological debate, which would be ruled out of order anyway.

When the Initial Presiding Officer was reaching his decision he had to consider whether he felt there had been an adequate, balanced debate. I will remind the House and tell the Initial Presiding Officer the balance: 22 Members on the pro-agreement side and nine Members on the anti-agreement side. Oh yes! There was balance.

Mr Ford:

Will the Member give way?

Rev William McCrea:

No. I have only a short time, and I am using it profitably for the cause of Ulster. It is shameful to suggest that five hours' debate is too long to debate the future of one's country, that five hours is too long to debate the future of one's children or grandchildren. Those who supported such a decision ought to bow their heads in shame. They were doing no service whatsoever to the future of democracy in this society.

I am not surprised that Sinn Féin would want to stop me from speaking. They have done that for years; they have tried to murder me and silence me for years. I can take that: the enemies of Ulster are enemies of myself because I am speaking on behalf of Ulster. But what I cannot take, and what I resent most, is that those who are supposed to be in the Unionist family would stop me, a representative of the Unionist people who topped the poll in Mid Ulster.

Mr Foster:

On a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Is Mr McCrea speaking to the debate?

The Temporary Chairperson:

I thank Mr McCrea for keeping closely to the debate. However, he has started moving away and I remind him to return to the subject.

Rev William McCrea:

I do not object to Members making genuine interventions. However, Mr Foster moved away from the debate throughout his speech, so he should not be lecturing me. This is the reason why I am aggrieved and why I support the motion before the House, though it gives me no joy to do so. As I sat in the House, and during the break, several Members from different parties - all bar Sinn Féin; I do not deal or talk with them - said to me "Do you know what you are doing? Do you know that you are strengthening Mr Alderdice's position? We have to say what a great person he is and support him." That is why there was only one speaker from the Ulster Unionists - they did not want to say that.

However, the SDLP has been more vocal and I would say, with the greatest respect, to Lord Alderdice that my party may have assisted him somewhat. Anyone voting for him today could not turn around and support a vote of no confidence in him tomorrow.

The Temporary Chairperson:

The Member's time is up.

Rev William McCrea:

I advise the House of my total support for the resolution.

Mrs I Robinson:

I would like to remind Members that we are here because the electorate sent us here. As a democrat, I respect the right of others to have their say in this Chamber and to express their views - no matter how much I may disagree with them -but I was denied my democratic right when I was not allowed to speak in the debate on 18 January.

I want to make three points in relation to today's motion. First, I want to talk about the decision to guillotine the debate and its implications. The Order Paper clearly stated that three days were being given to debate the report prepared by the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate). It further stated that the Assembly was to sit each day at 10.30 am. Every indication was that there was to be a three-day sitting.

But, contrary to that decision made prior to the Assembly's sitting, the Ulster Unionists and their new friends among the Nationalists proceeded to break that agreement. That implies that whenever these two groups decide that they do not like what they are hearing, and having set a precedent in which the Initial Presiding Officer acquiesced, they will stifle the rest of us. That is the message being given.

My second point relates to the reasoning behind this. According to Mr Mallon, speaking on radio on the following Tuesday, the debate was becoming sterile and nothing new was being said. Given that logic, both he and Sinn Féin/IRA need speak only once a year since they never have anything new to say except to repeat their anti-British rhetoric and parrot their united-Ireland slogans. Of course, it would be different for Mr Trimble. He and his colleagues change their policy every day, so they would need to speak quite often. In fact, not many of them seem to know what their policy is. That intellectual giant, Mr Nesbitt, speaking to Stewartstown Ulster Unionists said

"I see there is some uneasiness among Unionism as to where we are going, but that is one of the reasons why I wish to make it clear to you that, both in our policy and in what we will accept and now accept, we are clear."

Make something of that if you can.

3.30 pm

I then come to the claims made about this Assembly. It was hailed as the dawning of a new era - the beginning of democracy. Mr Mallon is on record as saying that Northern Ireland had moved from the physical process to the political process. That statement is, of course, nonsense, given the hundreds who have been and are still being beaten almost to death.

Looking at the decision that he and the Ulster Unionist Party took, the only thing that has changed is the means used to silence the pro-Union majority. While Sinn Féin/IRA has done all it can to erase any semblance of our Britishness, the SDLP is doing all it can to make sure that we do not have too much of a voice - just enough to give an air of respectability to the proceedings. Nationalism has always been Fascist in its approach; now it is aided and abetted by compliant Unionists.

As for democracy and accountability, if Sinn Féin/IRA is anything to go by, its approach to the financial corruption in the Dáil, as recorded in the 'Irish News' of 27 January 1999, is

"The peace process must transcend all other political questions."

So they are clear in their approach: nothing matters but all-Ireland agendas.

Even the tiny Alliance Party - that citadel of democracy - has ditched the pretence of believing in free speech. One of its councillors is recorded in the 'Belfast Telegraph' of 26 January as having said

"There should be no air time given to the DUP."

Another councillor is on record as endorsing what she described as "social engineering".

In short, the decision to halt the debate was to make sure that the message of the pro-Union Members who represent the majority of the Unionist population was stifled.

Mr Trimble did not want to hear. He has private meetings with Mr Adams to hear what he has to say, but he endorses the abuse of procedures in order to silence fellow Unionists who oppose his betrayal and who represent the majority of the Unionist community. I support the motion.

Mr Gibson:

When one considers the number of debates that have taken place in the Assembly, it is clear that the decision on 18 December was taken very early. It is important to remember that we have been involved in setting what may turn out to be a precedent. This debate is not a reaction to the pettiness of the Arthur Daleys of Unionism. It is about the principle and the decision which was taken on that occasion. In our previous sitting there was repetition. Mr McGimpsey repeated a confession list of concessions to the IRA that had already been set out by Robert McCartney. At that sitting no one jumped up on points of order.

Members on the anti-agreement Unionist side are exactly the same in number as those on the pro-agreement Unionist side. Many of the anti-agreement Unionists topped the poll in their constituencies. Therefore, a greater number of Unionists said no to the agreement. When it was arranged and contrived that their voice should be stifled, there was a deliberate attempt to coerce. If the political promiscuity of Jim Wilson and his colleagues has seduced the Initial Presiding Officer, it is time that we drew to the Initial Presiding Officer's attention the fact that he has a duty to reflect the feelings of all Members.

The speeches by Mr Taylor and Reginald Empey and all the others who enjoy DUP-bashing display the weakness of their case. There was an infernal row among Ulster Unionist Party Members on 2 December and they engage in DUP bashing to hide the wounds within their own ranks. It was obvious that the bouncers, the so-called Whips, were leaning heavily on dissident Members an hour before the vote was taken. The bully-boy tactics which are condemned when they are used on the streets are apparent in the Assembly Lobby.

A structure so young and tender and in its formative stage must be treated with more respect. The Chair should not be subjected to the pressure that it was so obviously put under at the last plenary session to put the Question. It had obviously been decided that when the Question was put, the Initial Presiding Officer could abandon his responsibility, knowing full well that there was already an orchestrated decision.

We hope that the Initial Presiding Officer will take on board what has been said in the debate because it has been said not out of arrogance or spite. This is being put forward as a means of trying to make the Assembly work to the credit of Northern Ireland, to the credit of us in it and, indeed, to his credit. We are trying to show that what was done creates a precedent - and it could be a very dangerous precedent. If it were used in reverse, we would hear an awful lot of whinging from Benches other than our own, and that is something for the Presiding Officer to reflect upon, and I do not mean that to be a direct admonishment.

The Initial Presiding Officer was under pressure. While SDLP people today came out in his support to some extent, they are no particular friends of Lord Alderdice. It is well known that he is tolerated - just about - by the Official Unionists. In fact, it could be tactical on our part to reinforce the Speaker's position, but the decision taken on that day has to be examined. At the previous meeting, in spite of all the heckling that went on, we talked about building trust and giving confidence. What confidence was given by the tactics used in that instance? Fifty per cent of the Unionists' representatives were vetoed by another 50%, and they should think honestly about what they did.

Maybe I will be forgiven for a slight digression. I, as someone from West Tyrone, look at the tombstones of those who have been murdered. One of them, from north Strabane, was Senator Barnhill, who was in the other Chamber in this House. He and his sister were killed early in this 30-year campaign. He was responsible for making arrangements for the Americans to come to Derry and use it as a base in the Second World War. Do Members think that Senator Barnhill, as an Official Unionist representative in this House, would have condoned the conduct of the Chief Whips at the last meeting?

Or look at the tombstone outside my own village, in the parish of Clogher. There are 21 names on it. Strangely, the first name on it is that of a man called Clements, who taught my children and whose sister is married to my brother - a leading Official Unionist. At the bottom of the list is a personal friend of mine, Ivan Anderson. The day before he was killed we spent an hour checking whether he had made his will and had made his peace with God - he knew he was going to be killed. He was the secretary of the Official Unionists in my area. Do Members think that he would have condoned what Mr J Wilson and the Whips did on 18 January 1999?

A sobering thought is the glee that was felt at that moment. I would hate to think of another line being added to the bottom of that memorial, dedicated by an Assembly Member. "Could it be possible that their memory was betrayed by Assembly Members?" Those are the thoughts that we need to instil, and we need to bring a little bit of stark reality as to what these Benches are about.

When we are talking about this agreement we think of King John and Magna Carta - the barons. Who are the new barons? Are they the barons of drugs; the barons of arson; the barons of tyranny? Who are they, and who is jumping to their tune? The decision was made, and I am saying to Lord Alderdice that he should reconsider that decision, that he should ensure that it is not a precedent. If this House is to have harmony, there are 28 representatives of over half of the Unionist population who must be considered in future when decisions are being made in this Assembly.

Mr Campbell:

The DUP did not put down this motion with any great relish. Many Members have referred to what happened at the meeting of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer (CAPO). Some Members have said that this meeting exists to give advice to the Initial Presiding Officer, and that is accurate - that is one of the reasons for its existence. However, Members who oppose the motion have missed the point that in the seven months of this Assembly there has not been another instance of the Committee's advice being discarded in the way that it was on this occasion. So I would not put too much store by the nature of CAPO and what it exists to do.

Mr P Robinson:

CAPO was always the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer, and its members agreed unanimously the advice to be tendered to the Initial Presiding Officer, and the Initial Presiding Officer ruled and took his decision on that basis. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that CAPO members were in agreement, and there was a ruling from the Initial Presiding Officer.

Mr Campbell:

Members who oppose this motion are grasping at straws by trying to say that the Initial Presiding Officer could set aside the agreement that had been entered into unilaterally at the CAPO meeting. According to my list, Messrs Hilditch, Hay, Poots, Paisley Jnr, Peter Robinson, Kane and Mark Robinson from the DUP were due to speak. Those who, in defence of their own position, said that there was a wide range of Members to speak on that day cannot deny that many Members, whose names had been tabled and were due to be called, were denied the opportunity to speak. If they have had an opportunity to speak today, that is well and good - it is not before time.

Today every ruse imaginable - and there have been some disgraceful attempts - has been used to stop some Members from speaking. There were queries as to whether a Member's paragraph or sentence contained a reference to the motion. Were they straying from the motion? Would they be called to order? Why is it that we keep getting the distinct impression that opposition in the Chamber is not only frowned upon, but will be remorselessly crushed if any attempt is made to express it?

Today is a good day because the voices of those who were elected to express the views, misgivings and concerns of hundreds of thousands of people can, must and will be heard.

3.45 pm

The Presiding Officer's decision was taken during the day. I had urgent business to attend to and had left the building. There was thought of communicating with anyone about the possibility of a vote. The rights of many of my party's Members and those from other parties who had wished to speak were taken from them. They were denied those rights because of the Initial Presiding Officer's decision.

Today's debate, which was agreed to reluctantly by some, gives Members the right to speak on behalf of many people. There have been attempts to stop some members from speaking. They have been interrupted by points of order, but all such efforts have failed. From this failure a lesson can be learned.

This will be a successful day, no matter what happens in the short term, if people learn a lesson from the fact that some Members have strong views. They were elected to express those views and they must be heard. There must be evidence that they will be heard.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

Does the Member agree that the Initial Presiding Officer misled the House? Page 415 of the Official Report shows that he received from the Secretary of State a letter directing the Assembly to meet for more than one day. Thus in the light of the CAPO meeting and the letter from the Secretary of State, we presumed that the Assembly would meet for more than one day. Does the Member accept that the conspiracy runs much deeper than Members are prepared to accept?

Mr Campbell:

Members and the Secretary of State, were aware that we were scheduled for two days with the possibility of a third. But none of that seems to matter in the remorseless attempt to grind down the opposition.

If lessons from two weeks ago are learned today, we can put the past behind us and proceed to the future.

Mr S Wilson:

I cannot remember your long list of names, so I will call you Madam Speaker or Deputy Speaker. I shall not go over the points which have been made. If I did, there would be interventions and points of order. I want to make a couple of observations.

I am not going to make any comment on the contribution that was made. That strikes me as odd, and, surely, the Initial Presiding Officer must also find it odd. The pickle in which the Initial Presiding Officer found himself was partly due to the fact that he allowed himself to be used by a party which feared another day's debate on the report from the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate). I am not in a position to judge whether this was a mistake, or whether the Initial Presiding Officer deliberately, or willingly, allowed himself to be used in this way. Had I been in his position I would have expected more vociferous support from those who had created the situation.

It is not that there is no one in that party who is able to come to the defence of the Initial Presiding Officer. Some of us were indeed impressed by the robust - some might say unknightly - contribution from "the knight from Knock" in defence of his own party. It seems he had been carried away by the honour bestowed on him. He must have thought he was one of the Kray brothers - Reggie and Ronnie. He behaved in the House like a political Kray brother, but he is absent today. He has not come to the defence of the Initial Presiding Officer.

It strikes me as odd that the Ulster Unionist Party has been so quiet about this. It must be because of embarrassment. Many people have said that what happened on 18 January was embarrassing for those opposed to the report, and that they were ambushed. However, I believe that the real embarrassment is among those who moved the closure motion, and, by facilitating this motion, the Initial Presiding Officer helped to reveal the weakness of the arguments used by those who were in support of the report.

As I listened to the speeches in the Chamber today it occurred to me that, as Rev William McCrea said, some people spoke in defence of the Initial Presiding Officer not because they wanted to but because they felt obliged to do so. This would worry me if I were in the Initial Presiding Officer's position. However, my concern is with the nature of the defence made on behalf of the Initial Presiding Officer. Mr Paisley Jnr has already dealt adequately with criticisms about repetitiveness, although I would add that many people will find it odd for us to be lectured about repetitiveness by the SDLP. If the rule about repetitiveness is strictly observed in the House, there will not be many debates which last longer than a morning. Indeed, many of us know that the way to get your message across is to repeat it and repeat it.

Mr Leslie:

Will the Member give way?

Mr S Wilson:

No. My time is running out. Many people realise that repetition is an important way of getting your message across.

As regards some of the other arguments used, I found the remarks made by one of the Sinn Féin Members very enlightening. He said that the decision made by the Initial Presiding Officer in that debate was quite correct, because nobody is bound by any agreements. Those who believe that Sinn Féin has entered into an agreement with them, and that they have got some kind of peace agreement, should take note of what Mr Maskey said in the House this morning. He says that it does not matter if you make an agreement. They are not bound by any agreement.

His next argument was even more comical. It was "We don't have time for this; we have more important things to do." Those are the new-found democrats who wish to make the institutions of government in Northern Ireland work. That is almost as funny as the comment from one of his colleagues who knows all about broken bones. Many of them know about broken bones in IRA/Sinn Féin. The other morning on the radio he talked about the shortage of orthopaedic surgeons, and spoke about how he wanted to get into the Assembly to get to grips with the problem. Now we are told that Sinn Féin have no time for the motion because they have more important things to do.

Mr Haughey said that many of the speeches had been irrelevant. If I were Lord Alderdice, I would be worried. Mr Haughey said that if this had been a court of law, he would have asked for the case to be dismissed out of hand because Peter Robinson had walked out. I will let Mr Robinson deal with that.

Mr Haughey:

On a point of information.

Mr S Wilson:

I have only a minute or two left.

He then went on to a most bizarre argument. He said that he would be supporting the Initial Presiding Officer because on the day in question, the Initial Presiding Officer had presided over eight speeches which were totally irrelevant and consisted of tomfoolery and buffoonery. I would not support any Presiding Officer who allowed buffoonery, tomfoolery and eight irrelevant speeches. That was his defence of Lord Alderdice.

It is clear from the debate that there is embarrassment. People know that the decision was wrong. Those who asked for it to be made are the most culpable. They acted out of expediency and to avoid political embarrassment. The mistake was that the Initial Presiding Officer allowed himself to be used in that exercise.

I do not know the outcome of this debate, and I would not presume to guess, but it has been important for two reasons. It has given people the opportunity to highlight the danger, as Mr Campbell said, of trying to stamp out opposition in this House for short-term expediency. It has also given those who were party to this an opportunity to defend their actions. They have been totally silent. They have not offered a defence.

The debate has highlighted the inadequacy of the party that brought this situation about and put the Initial Presiding Officer in the difficult position in which he finds himself. I trust that the lesson will be learned that in this House we will have the freedom of expression and freedom of debate that allow for proper, accountable government.

4.00 pm

Mr P Robinson:

Perhaps I could deal with some of the comments that have been made. There will be occasions when everyone who wishes to contribute in the Assembly will have important and pressing business in other parts of the Province. Those who aspire to ministerial and other offices will have to make speeches and carry out functions elsewhere. If the Member who referred to my absence earlier had made the least enquiry of me, he would have found out that the building of a £9 million facility, which I had assisted in bringing to East Belfast, was starting in my constituency and that it was appropriate that I should be there to speak at the sod-cutting ceremony today.

As for the comments on the absence of my Colleague Dr Paisley, given that he was attending the funeral of a life-long friend, it is slightly cheap that his absence should have been referred to. It is ironic that that Member should have suggested that it is a lack of courtesy for a Member to speak and then leave the Chamber when that same Member left the Chamber immediately after his speech. Those who attempt to lecture others should practise what they preach.

Few expected that we would have many people attending this debate to listen to the arguments and, in an open-minded way, to decide how they would vote. It is evident that some pre-judged the issue, including the Alliance Party. One of the amusing features is the 'Belfast Telegraph' headline "Alliance set to back Alderdice" - something we thought we would not see again. We can see by his physical presence that we have been able to reconcile the Initial Presiding Officer with his former colleagues. That will be welcomed as much by him as by them. It is, of course, noticeable that one of them is not present, but I am sure that that has nothing to do with the fact that the Initial Presiding Officer is sitting among his former colleagues.

For the rest of the Members any stick was a good enough one with which to beat the DUP. It is not a case of looking at the issue and making a determination based on the weight of evidence that would be produced during the course of proceedings. If that had been done the central feature of the debate was the principle set down in the very first speech, one which not one Member has attempted to counter and that is this: a closure motion is not intended to curtail debate; it is intended to ensure that debate is not prolonged. That was the procedural issue upon which the Initial Presiding Officer should have ruled, and he did not get it right.

Monica McWilliams said that it did not do any good for an infant Chamber to have this sort of thing happening. Quite the contrary: this is exactly the kind of issue that must be settled at the early stages, because precedents are established on rulings from the Chair. That is the key issue as far as this debate is concerned, and one of the reasons this motion was moved.

In introducing the debate I indicated that we had scheduled a number of Members to deal with specific issues each on 18 January, and I drew attention to two of those issues, one of which was decommissioning. The fallacy of the Official Unionist Party's argument would have been exposed had the Initial Presiding Officer not ruled in the way that he did. The Official Unionist Party has now confirmed on its website the basis on which it believes that Sinn Féin can be excluded from the Executive, and that basis is the lack of decommissioning.

The reason it gives is that Sinn Féin is not exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means. That language is used three times in the statement and has been extracted from the Belfast Agreement, but that is precisely the language that was used during the talks at Castle Buildings, and it allowed Sinn Féin into those talks on the basis of that same language. If it wants to rely on that now as a basis for not allowing Sinn Féin into an Executive, it should have relied on it then and come out with the UKUP and the DUP rather than staying in those talks on that same criterion.

If the Initial Presiding Officer had not ruled in the way that he did, we would have warned Ulster Unionist Members that by voting they were giving the green light to the Secretary of State to proceed to set up all of the structures dealt with by the report, and we would have been right so to have warned them.

Statements were issued by the Northern Ireland Office indicating that she is starting to set up the 10 Departments even though the determination has not been legally approved. She has begun to create the implementation bodies even though the Assembly has not approved the determination of the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate). Such a vital issue should have been debated in the Chamber. However, because of the actions of the Initial Presiding Officer, we were not permitted to do that.

We would have pointed out to Ulster Unionist Members that they were breaching their election commitments that they would not allow bodies to be set up on an all-Ireland basis which had Executive powers and which would not be accountable and also that they would not let Sinn Féin into the Executive. Again, because of the Initial Presiding Officer's ruling, we were denied the opportunity to do that.

We would certainly have responded to gibberish from the First Minister (Designate) about the DUP's position vis-à-vis Sinn Féin in the Executive. Sometimes I wonder who will get him first, the men in white coats or the men in grey suits. What he argued was the DUP's position was not remotely close to it. Our position remains the same: we will do everything in our power to stop Sinn Féin getting into an Executive. When the Ulster Unionist Party capitulates the circumstances which the First Minister (Designate) mentions, come into play.

For any parliamentary Assembly to function, there should be some degree of honour and trust in the business managers of the Assembly. Following remarks made by Mr Wilson during a Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer meeting, it is clear that we cannot have that degree of honour and trust. Indeed, he indicated that no matter what he agrees with other parties he reserves the right, if it is politically expedient to his party, to use Standing Orders to violate that agreement. Members have heard the same kind of comment from Sinn Féin Members, who suggested that they do not feel bound by agreements that they reach.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>