The Assembly met at 10.30 am (the Initial Presiding Officer (The Lord Alderdice of Knock) in the Chair).

Members observed two minutes’ silence.

 

Presiding Officer’s Business

TOP

The Initial Presiding Officer:

At the end of the last sitting of the Assembly some Members raised with me difficulties regarding the audibility of other Members who were speaking in the Chamber. The problems identified have been examined and, where possible, have been addressed. In particular, I draw the attention of Members to the suspended microphones in the Chamber. I have had these lowered in an attempt to ensure greater amplification. I trust that they are now not so low as to cause the taller Members of the Assembly any inconvenience. If Members still experience difficulties in hearing other Members’ speeches they should contact the Keeper of the House.

There has been some uncertainty over the status of papers placed in the Library. I have looked at this matter, and to clarify things I make the following ruling. When papers are placed in the Library, that act will make them public documents. The Library will not be responsible for making the papers available; the papers, along with other material, will, as soon as possible, be placed on the Assembly’s website and thus will be widely available. They are, of course, always available to Members, who should feel free to publish them.

Papers to be put in the Library but which are not for public dissemination will be termed "papers deposited in the Library". Such papers will be available to Members but should not be made more widely available.

At the previous sitting Mr P Robinson asked me to reflect further on the meaning and intention of Initial Standing Order 2(1), suggesting that, in ordering the Doors to be fastened, I was going beyond what the Initial Standing Orders entitled the Initial Presiding Officer to do. I agreed to re-examine the matter and to advise the Assembly if I had made a judgement that went beyond what was appropriate. I have made it clear on many occasions that the Initial Standing Orders are inadequate for conducting the Assembly’s business and that other matters should be taken into account — for instance, the draft Standing Orders, as discussed by the Committee on Standing Orders, and Erskine May.

I have reconsidered the matter raised by Mr P Robinson in some detail, and I have taken advice from my legal counsel. I have concluded that I must stand by my earlier ruling on the issue. I do not think that anyone could seriously challenge the assertion that the Initial Presiding Officer is under a duty to act fairly with all Members and should not discriminate in favour of some to the disadvantage of others. If I were not to proceed in the way that I have ruled, my actions could be challenged by way of judicial review.

If the unfair advantage that I have mentioned is to be avoided, it will be necessary to ensure that all Members are allowed the same time in which to enter, physically, the place where they are entitled to vote. How this is achieved is clearly a matter of procedure upon which, by virtue of Initial Standing Order 2(1), my ruling shall be final.

The adopted procedure of closing the Chamber Doors at the expiration of three minutes after a general announcement is a fair and reasonable one, particularly bearing in mind that any other procedure for achieving this would be difficult to police. Those Members who are excluded because they arrive late will not have been treated any less favourably than any other Member. Until the Doors are opened at the conclusion of a vote, Members who have been denied access to the Chamber will, of course, be able to observe, although not participate, from the Gallery.

Mr P Robinson:

I am grateful for this, but it does not go to the heart of the matter that I sought to have addressed. What I asked was whether the Initial Standing Order permitted you to make an interpretation, no matter how liberal that existing Standing Order was, or whether it drew a line at allowing you to bring in or make new Standing Orders. Where is the line between interpreting an existing Standing Order and making a ruling which amounts to a new Standing Order?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

My view is that no Presiding Officer should be in a position arbitrarily to construct Standing Orders. It is not just appropriate to ensure that whatever developments of procedure are necessary for the implementation of Standing Orders are carried through, but a binding duty. I do not think it is appropriate for completely new and essentially arbitrary Standing Orders to be created, and I do not believe that my decision did that.

Mr Dalton:

Would the Presiding Officer explain to the House why a different official is sitting next to him and why the Clerk, whom one would expect to be present, is not here today?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Members know that certain questions of procedure were raised with me by the First Minister (Designate) at the last sitting. I said to him that I would explore the matter and any other matters that were drawn to my attention in that context which involved discussions between Mr McCartney and the Deputy Clerk. No further material was raised with me in that regard. Since that time, certain other matters —

Mr P Robinson:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. This matter was not raised as a point of order, and I therefore feel able to intervene on a point of order.

We are dealing with personnel matters relating to a civil servant, and I do not believe that that is fair of us. It would be appropriate for you to refer it to the party Whip, who can make his Colleagues aware of the position.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I have no wish to proceed further with this matter now unless the House so wishes.

Assembly: Presiding Officer

TOP

Mr C Wilson:

When I first considered placing this motion before the Assembly, it was reasonable for me to expect that it would have the support of all parties. However, over the past few days it has become clear to me that the prospect of all-party support for the motion has disappeared. Indeed, I have received reasonably sound information to suggest that the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party intend to oppose it.

I feel that I have a duty to make clear the reasons for these parties’ opposition to the motion to everyone in the Chamber, to those in the Galleries, and to the wider public. It gives an indication of the shape of things to come. We will have in the Assembly what in the business world would be known as a cartel. Those who have been preaching the gospel of inclusivity and responsibility sharing are about to carve up between them all the positions of responsibility in the Assembly. These jobs for the boys will be shared between the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Is the Member preparing to move the motion? His remarks would be appropriate if he were intending to do that, but I cannot accept them if he intends to withdraw the motion.

Mr C Wilson:

I will come to the crux of the matter very soon.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

For various reasons, I need to be clear as to whether you intend to move the motion.

Mr C Wilson:

I have set out some of the difficulties that I have encountered in relation to this matter. Bearing in mind the excellent service that you have given to the Assembly during your probationary period as Presiding Officer, a fact that is acknowledged by all parties, it is with some sadness that I inform you and formally advise the House that I intend not to move the motion standing in my name. I have spoken to your assistants about the meeting. However, my action is on the basis that everyone must understand the likely shape that the Assembly will take in the future.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I have been more than generous with the Member. The words "Not moved" would have been sufficient.

Mr P Robinson:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. The Member for Strangford has said that he will not be moving the motion. However, the Order Paper shows that this is part of the business for today. I could, of course, after making some remarks, decide to move the motion myself. That would be in accordance with the practice of the House. Mr Wilson has drawn attention to what is a fairly sleazy arrangement between the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists.

Mr Taylor:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer.

Mr P Robinson:

I am on a point of order, and we cannot have a second one.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Mr Robinson is making a point of order relating to procedure. He is taking his time in explaining it, but he should be allowed to complete his remarks. I cannot accept points of order on a point of order.

Mr P Robinson:

The sleazy arrangement to which I referred makes it imperative that we have a discussion on this matter, particularly as the Chair is supposed to be politically neutral. It is not supposed to be part of a carve-up between parties, creating a situation in which the Chair would be answerable to a particular party and would have to do its bidding.

10.45 am

The Initial Presiding Officer:

These are certainly interesting questions, but it remains to be seen whether they constitute a point of order. The motion has not been moved and is therefore not the property of the House. It is not a case of it being withdrawn or not withdrawn, proceeded with or otherwise. It is clear that it has not been moved and we must proceed to the next business.

Mr C Wilson:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I said that it was my intention to withdraw the motion, but I have not actually reached that point.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I admire your ingenuity, but as it is clearly your intention not to move the motion, it is inappropriate to permit speeches on the issue. That is my ruling.

Mr C Wilson:

Further to my point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. For the information of the House, the SDLP’s nominee will be Mr Mark Durkan. Members heard it here first .

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. In my experience a day is a long time in politics and in proposals for the Presiding Officer.

Mr McGrady:

The Members remarks show how ill-informed he is.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Is that a point of order?

 

Report of First Minister (Designate) and Deputy

TOP

Determination of Ministerial Offices

The Initial Presiding Officer:

At the most recent meeting of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer, there was discussion of a proposal, by leave of the Assembly, to alter the speaking times set out in Initial Standing Order 8(5).

Following that discussion, it was agreed that the Assembly should judge the matter at the sitting. The proposition was that speaking times would be amended for the duration of the debate so that proposers of the motion would have 30 minutes, instead of 20 minutes, divided between proposers if they wished; that all parties in the first round of speaking would have 20 minutes, rather than 10; that other Members would have 10 minutes; that the four largest parties would have 20 minutes for the winding-up speech; and that the proposers of the motion would have 20 minutes for the winding-up speech, divided as they wished, instead of the current 15 minutes.

Do we have the leave of the Assembly for those proposals?

Several Members:

No.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Leave has not been given.

Mr P Robinson:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I note that those who are least willing to have fuller debate are the Ulster Unionist Members. Clearly they are concerned that their argument could not sustain scrutiny. They want to deny Members the opportunity to speak more fully on the issues, and that shows how weak their arguments are and demonstrates that they are running scared of debate.

Perhaps I could put another proposal under Standing Order 8(5) which will give those Members a chance to reflect on their immaturity and to recognise that this is a democratic institution, which is supposed to allow free and open debate. They should not be afraid of that, although one can understand why they might be. I suggest that the proposer, or proposers, share 30 minutes between them, and that all Front-Bench spokespersons have 20 minutes each, but that the 20 minutes is not accorded to the Member who is winding-up, nor is any extension of time given to the person who makes the winding-up speech for the proposer.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Perhaps I could clarify the matter. As I understand it, the proposition is that the joint proposers would have 30 minutes each — that would be up to 60 minutes for the proposition; there would be 20 minutes for all parties in the first round; 10 minutes for other Members; and no additional time for the winding-up speeches for the larger parties. I am not clear, however, as to whether there was a proposition to extend the normal 15 minutes.

Several Members:

No.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

There has been no proposal for that. Are Members clear about the proposal? Do I have the leave of the Assembly to accept it?

Several Members:

No.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

There does not appear to be leave. I sense that the question is not on the format of an extension to speeches but on the proposition that speeches be extended.

Mr P Robinson:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. We had been informed by you that we could expect to have this report last Thursday. There has been a consistent habit on the parts of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to delay the publication of their reports beyond the time when they are scheduled to be released. Clearly they have some internal difficulties. However, those internal difficulties should not be in breach of arrangements that are made with business managers of this House. Some of my colleagues did not receive this report until this morning because of the late publication. The First Minister (Designate) would do better to listen than to point his finger around and look at the Galleries of the House. It is his behaviour that we are referring to at the present time.

Is it in order for the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to give indications to your office of the release times of reports and consistently fail to meet those releasetimes, therefore denying Members the opportunity to read the report before it is debated in this Chamber?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I have to say that I find it a difficulty when I am passed information about how things will be, and I convey that in good faith to those who request it, and find that it appears the information I have given is incorrect. I apologise to the House that I find myself being the purveyor of inaccurate descriptions of how things will be, but I have found it difficult to do otherwise. I particularly regret that this is something that you have had to take from me on more than one occasion.

The First Minister (Designate) (Mr Trimble):

On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer. I will try to deal with the substance of that issue — which was not, I think, a point of order — later. I was gesturing with my fingers because the clocks appear to be malfunctioning. It has since been suggested to me that the reason for that might be that they are not trying to time the points of order. I wonder if that is correct.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am not sure what the question is about the time. The time is currently 10.52 and 21 seconds.

The First Minister (Designate):

The seconds are malfunctioning.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

There seems to be a problem at times with the seconds counter, but the minutes and hours are currently correct. Although they may seem long as the time goes on, I suspect that they are reasonably correct.

Mr Foster:

With regard to Mr Robinson’s statement about the denial of freedom of speech, he has forgotten in his sanctimonious way about the denial of freedom of speech at Fivemiletown a couple of weeks ago.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Members must understand that, although it may be tempting, it is not in order for other Members to reply to points of order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

The delay in receiving this report, Sir, inconvenienced those who had called meetings on Thursday in light of the promise made by you that this document would be available at half past four on Thursday. I contacted the First Minister (Designate)’s office, the Clerk’s office and your own office, and I was told by Mr Trimble’s office that there was both political difficulty and logistical difficulty with this report. Those difficulties should have been solved by those concerned so that those of us who wanted to read this report and table amendments would have opportunity and time to do so.

In fact the report had to be collected and brought down to my home. However, that document is different to the one which is now printed. How can we do the business of this House when we are not given the proper document or given three clear days to read that document and table amendments? Surely this matter should not be re-occurring. It should be put right once and for all.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

You have raised two issues, Dr Paisley, and the first of these is the question of the delivery of material to Members. In fairness to the staff of the Assembly, I must point out that it is not their responsibility to deliver material which emanates from Assembly business, although they do their best to oblige us.

A further substantial point of order relates to the question of amendments, and I must draw this to the attention of those who are considering our Standing Orders. Where it is the case that material arrives late and the Standing Order — unlike Standing Orders in other places — requires amendments to be put down one hour before the commencement of the sitting, there is no doubt that that creates certain difficulties which would not be encountered in other places where manuscript amendments can be put down.

I have to remain with, and ensure compliance with, the Standing Orders that we currently have. As Mr Robinson pointed out, I am not at liberty to either disregard them or make up Standing Orders of my own. I do, however, accept that there is a dilemma with matters arriving late and the Standing Orders, which insist that amendments must be put down at least one hour before the commencement of the sitting.

Mr Weir:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. With regard to the two motions arising out of the report, perhaps you would clarify whether you intend to have a separate debate on business motion number 5, or whether you intend to take the two votes together?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Perhaps I can explain to Members how I propose to conduct the business. There are two motions: the motion on the report, and a business motion which is for the purpose of a determination and refers to matters entirely contained within the report. On the Marshalled list of amendments, there are also two amendments — one amendment to the first motion and an amendment to the business motion.

Since it is clear that all matters referred to in the business motion are also referred to in the report, which is the subject of the first motion, it seems reasonable that the House should proceed by way of a single debate, within which would be contained the proposal of the first motion and any amendments.

When it comes to the vote, the amendment to the first motion, if moved, will be taken first. Depending upon the result of that, the substantive motion will then be taken. The amendment to the business motion will then be tabled but, since it will have been spoken to in the previous debate, will not be the subject of further discussion. The business motion will then be taken formally, full debate having been possible on all of the matters.

I wish to make it clear that I will not rule that a matter is not relevant to the first motion because it refers to the second. It seems to me they are all one matter. The Assembly will then proceed to four votes if the amendments are moved and the motions also moved at that point.

Is there any objection to our proceeding on that basis?

There being no dissent, we have the leave of the House.

Motion made:

This Assembly takes note of the report prepared by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), and approves the proposals in relation to establishing the consultative Civic Forum (as recorded in section 5 of that report). — [The First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate)]

The following amendment to that motion stood on the Marshalled List in the name of Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Leave out from "Assembly" and add

", having noted the contents of the report prepared by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), requires them to take back the report and reconsider it with a view to ensuring that —

it contains a specific requirement that any North/South body is accountable to the Assembly and does not perform any executive role;

the Civic Forum is properly appointed in order to ensure a balance of community interests and is merely consultative and not publicly deliberative; and

unnatural departmental divisions are corrected."

The following motion stood on the Order Paper in the names of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate):

This Assembly approves the determination by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) of the number of ministerial offices to be held by Northern Ireland Ministers and the functions which would be exercisable by the holder of each such office after the appointed day (as recorded in Annex 2 of their report to the Assembly).

The following amendment to that motion stood on the Marshalled List in the name of Mr P Robinson: Leave out from "Assembly" and add

"declines to approve the determination by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) of the number of ministerial offices to be held by Northern Ireland Ministers and the functions which would be exercisable by the holder of each such office after the appointed day (as recorded in Annex 2 of their report to the Assembly) before Sinn Féin Members are excluded from holding office as Ministers or the IRA has decommissioned its illegal weaponry and dismantles its terror machine."

Mr P Robinson:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I wish to mention two matters both of which relate to the report. It is essential, in a debate as important as the one on which we are about to embark, that Members have all of the necessary material in advance.

This is not a mere statement made by a Minister in the House; rather it is a report which deals with very major issues — indeed, probably the most major issue that the Assembly can deliberate upon. It is therefore absolutely imperative that every Member should be informed before a debate commences. At least four Members of my party did not receive the report upon which this debate is to be conducted until they arrived in the House this morning.

11.00 am

If, however, they had purchased the ‘Irish News’ on Saturday they could have read the full report. I should be interested to hear your opinion, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, of the standing of such a document. Is it public property as soon as the printers have done their work, is it available to just one newspaper or to all newspapers, or should it be available to any before it is available to Members of this House?

The second issue has to do with the Order Paper. Because of the late delivery of the report, amendments could not be tabled before this morning, so there is no edge to my comments in relation to the staff of the House. There is a printing error in the first amendment. The last line says "unnatural departmental divisions are correct". "Correct" should be "corrected" — the House should note the proper terminology — and that mistake is the fault of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) who did not release the report in time.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I remind Members about what has just been said about the correction to the first amendment on the marshalled list: the last word in amendment 1 should be "corrected" instead of "correct".

Time was a difficulty with this, and I appreciate Mr Robinson’s comments about the staff who have striven to address matters as best they can. With regard to the previous point that was raised, the question of items being put in the public domain, it has always been a convention at Westminster, at least until recent times, that material did not make its way into the public domain in advance of its being made available to Parliament.

It has been made clear at meetings of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer (CAPO) that it would be regarded as a discourtesy if such were to happen here. However, there is nothing in Standing Orders that allows me to make a ruling on this. I can simply point out how Members feel about it, but the Executive (Designate) has to act as it wishes to. Members may feel that this is a discourtesy, but there is nothing in Standing Orders which allows me to rule on it one way or another. This is a matter which Members may wish to raise in other ways.

Mr Hay:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. As one of the Members who have not yet received a copy of the report through the post, I would like to support the Member for East Belfast, Mr Robinson. I only received a copy when I arrived here this morning. The point needs to be made clearly: this is an important report, and it is rather sad that the Ulster Unionist Party is determined to stifle debate on this important issue.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I understand the feelings of Members who did not receive copies of the report, but I cannot take it further as a point of order.

The First Minister (Designate):

It is my pleasure to introduce the motions on the report that we have produced.

Mr Maskey:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I note that the report contains, as far as I can understand — [Interruption]

The Member must be a mind reader, apart from anything else, because he does not know what I am about to raise.

I want clarification, as we are supposed to vote on and adopt the report, specifically on annex 2 where we have the determination by the First and the Deputy First Ministers (Designate) on the 10 ministerial offices and the Departments. I am uncertain as to why annex 1a is not also included. We are being asked to adopt the report, which contains the number of Ministries and the definition of a Ministry but does not contain their actual functions. Neither is there any detailed reference to the Office of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), albeit, as I see it, it would take an Assembly of its own to organise that.

Are we being asked to adopt what is contained in annex 2 and in annex 1 in relation to the 10 Departments? Are we also being asked to adopt what is said about the Office of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), which are both excluded from annex 2? This is very important.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I have sought advice on this matter at a number of levels. It is not appropriate for me, in any fashion, to look at the question of the content of the advice — that is not a matter for me at all. It is only for me to try to make proper judgements about the legal competence. As things currently stand, I have been assured that by the time the matter becomes extant, all the necessary matters will have been addressed by way of legislation. It will all have been addressed by then. I cannot do other than to accept that assurance, and with that assurance, as far as I can see, the proposition is a competent one.

Mr Maskey:

Further to that point, a Chathaoirligh. You are saying you have been assured, and I have no doubt that you have been, but, for the record, I would like to know by whom. Will the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) make specific reference to this in their contributions?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It will obviously be up to the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) to refer to the matters if they choose to do so. The advice that I sought was legal advice and the advice of those whose responsibility it would be to ensure that the legislation is passed. That would not be in this place, but in another place. The advice I have received is that all the necessary legislation will have been passed by the date required.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, are you saying that we will have to wait until the two Ministers concerned have a mind to give us this information? This information should have been in the document, rather than your saying that you have been given an assurance that we will get it.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Let me make it clear that it is not for me to do anything other than try to ensure that a motion that comes before the House is a legally competent one. It would be quite inappropriate for me to even explore other matters. I have made explorations in order to try to ensure that the matters will be dealt with competently, and I have been assured that that is the case. As regards the content and all the other matters, Dr Paisley must refer his questions to people other than myself. They are not points of order in that regard.

Mr Maskey:

My interpretation of this is that the legislation will not apply to shadow Ministers, so if a shadow Executive is established, which of those designated functions will the shadow Ministers be responsible for?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I hope I am not straying outside what is appropriate, but I draw to Members’ attention the fact that shadow Ministers do not have legal authority and responsibility for any Departments. They are there to shadow, to learn, to apprentice themselves into the position.

It is obviously complex given that there are currently six Departments, and this is a proposition for rather more than that, but they do not have responsibilities according to the legislation.

The First Minister (Designate):

The report was drawn up on the basis of legal advice that we received that the content of annex 2 satisfied the requirements of the legislation and the Standing Orders. We also endeavoured to ensure that all relevant information was contained in the other annexes. Annex 1a gives a more detailed description of the functions of the Departments because it encompasses the functions that we missed in the 18 December statement. The distribution of functions contained in that statement is also given, for ease of reference, so people comparing 1a and 1b will be able to see what the missing functions were and how they have been allocated.

We wanted to and had hoped to make this report available to people much earlier. Part of the reason for the delay was the detail that we had to determine and settle with regard to the Civic Forum. That is one of the important new matters in this report compared to others. Members will see that the motion asks them specifically to approve the proposals in relation to establishing a consultative Civic Forum. That means that that approval will turn this part of the report on the Civic Forum into the basic law of the Civic Forum, and, consequently, it was necessary to include material on the Civic Forum in considerable detail so that we can be clearly agreed on it.

It was not adequate at that stage to sketch general outline provisions on the Civic Forum. If we had just indicated it in outline, we would not be bringing forward the detail until after devolution day. Consequently, we would be delaying the point at which the Civic Forum would come into existence. In order to be able to bring the Civic Forum into existence very soon after D-Day, it was necessary to get details settled here, and we have gone as far as we possibly could — indeed, some matters were not resolved until Friday morning.

I am sorry to say that another reason for the delay is that, in making these changes to Departments, we are encountering a certain amount of turf war between Departments. We are also encountering a reluctance on the part of some officials to realise that things are changing. I do not want to go into detail on that. People are resisting changes. I know that it is difficult for some senior civil servants, after 25 years of direct rule, to accept that elected Members are gaining authority and making decisions which officials have to accept and implement. The rearguard action that is being fought by some Departments against the changes that were agreed on 18 December is most regrettable. I hope that the Departments responsible will accept the decisions that we as elected representatives have taken in this Chamber and will implement them loyally. I hope I will not have to refer to this matter again.

When Mr Maskey held up his report his thumb was on the typographical error in annex 2, and I thought that he was about to refer to it. The reference to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Development should read the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. There is at least one other typographical error in the body of the report, but for brevity’s sake I will not get into the substance of that.

I have said that the new material relates essentially to the British-Irish Council and the Civic Forum. I will not go through this in detail, but would point out that the key concept is to encourage the creation of consortiums in various sectors which will then nominate individuals. The Deputy First Minister and I were anxious to avoid a situation where we were directly responsible for all nominees. We will accept responsibility for some, but we will have that residual category to ensure a proper balance. The organisations that are to be involved in this Civic Forum have to accept responsibility for their nominations. We will accept responsibility for oversight and to ensure that fair and open procedures are adopted and followed, but nominations must come from them.

The important step in this debate is the determination on Departments. That is the next step in a series of steps leading to the transfer of power to this body. That is the real question that we have to deal with, and we will have to deal with it in the run-up to the target date for that transfer of 10 March.

Essentially, we are today reviewing progress and making a formal determination. The real question is whether we manage in the run-up to 10 March to see that everything is done that should be done. Members are aware of my party’s stance. We intend to do everything that we need to do and that we can do regarding that transfer. But there are other things that should be done by other people, and they include matters that some people have not yet addressed. They will have to do these things.

I do not wish to labour the point — the Irish Prime Minister said everything that was necessary to be said on this matter yesterday morning. It was published, and, while the pill was sugared slightly for some people in the course of the day, they should not think that they can evade the issue. It cannot be evaded. It is a matter not just for Sinn Féin but for other paramilitary organisations too. They must be under no illusion as to what is required by the agreement for progress. We hope that in the run-up to 10 March, they can achieve what is necessary and can carry out their obligations.

11.15 am

We want to see this body progressing in an inclusive fashion. That is our primary objective. That can happen only if people carry out their obligations and cease clinging to this interpretation of the agreement which the Taoiseach rightly described as unreasonable, unfair and illogical.

It is time for people to do what they have to do, and that must be done in the run up to 10 March. The real question is what will happen in that period when we will be trying to juggle the necessary provisions for the devolution Order, which will have to start at Westminster, and the proceedings that we will have to adopt in the House in March. This is merely a staging post on the route to that destination, and I hope that we reach it with all the necessary steps having been taken.

Some amendments have been tabled, and I want to touch on them briefly. I preferred the original drafting of amendment No. 1 rather than the corrected drafting that was produced by Mr P Robinson. The final words of the original draft —

"departmental divisions are correct" —

are correct. They may be described as unnatural, but they are also correct. The DUP wants to see them changed, but without showing how that should be done. That is not an amendment that we can accept. Neither can we accept amendment No. 1 to the determination because to decline to approve the determination merely stops the process and does not achieve anything.

What must happen and what is important is that before the appointed day and the transfer of functions to the Executive, and, indeed, before the formation of the Executive, we must see a credible beginning of a process of decommissioning. As the Ulster Unionist Party reiterated at its executive meeting on Saturday, it will stick to that requirement, and that will be the view of all members of our party. We are united on that. Consequently, as we are on a staging post towards achieving —

Mr M McGuinness:

Will the Member give way?

The First Minister (Designate):

No, I am sorry. Having refused to give way to one Member, I must be equal and even-handed in my approach and treat all Members equally on this matter. This is a staging post towards the achievement of that, and I look forward to the day when power can be transferred to the Assembly; when there are not shadow Ministers, but real Ministers; and when the Assembly can carry out all that we have worked for over recent years. I look forward to that time, and I hope that we will do that in the good spirit that is beginning to develop within all sections in the Chamber. That must be the earnest wish of us all.

The Deputy First Minister (Designate) (Mr Mallon): May I, like the First Minister (Designate), apologise for the delay in the report reaching Members. There were many difficulties, not the least of which was the complexity of some of the new, creative and imaginative arrangements, and that delayed us. Yes, there were difficulties in relation to the text. There will always be difficulties in this type of arrangement, and I would have preferred the report to be with Members sooner.

The difficulties are there because of the very nature of the arrangements. I would not like it to be thought that that was the fault of the Civil Service or any civil servants. I thank them and the Members who took part in the round-table and bilateral arrangements for their input on many of the issues, not least the Civic Forum.

Today is a crucial one in the political process that we have embarked upon. It is the beginning of the end of the initial section of this part of our new politics. From now on there will be no more time or space for delay or for prevarication. We have the target dates, and we will know what we have to do when this motion is passed, as it will be. It defines not just the substance but the time in which we all have either to implement both the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, or resile from it.

This should not be an acrimonious debate; rather it should be serious and constructive. We should listen seriously to what others have to say, and not just listen, but understand what they have to say and why they are saying it. We have to generate the amount of trust which is going to be required to make a quadripartite-coalition type of administration work. That has been difficult, even on the limited basis so far, and it is going to be difficult in future. If we can have as serious a debate as possible without acrimony, the better for all of us.

We should not underestimate the amount of work that has gone into this report. It has become difficult, and it will become more difficult as the complexities of the arrangement show themselves. The reality is that we have been able to overcome some difficulties — the difficulties of timing, the difficulties of understanding the agreement and the difficulties of party positions. All of those difficulties have been overcome on this, and that against the background of the continuing question of decommissioning.

I know that it should not overshadow this debate, but we must rise above the difficulties that we face. We have to sustain the vision that carried the negotiating and the adoption of this agreement through. We have to sustain the potential for the future that we have in this room and in this political process.

On the issue of decommissioning I want to make a few points that sometimes are lost. Decommissioning will be resolved by voluntary act or not at all. Those are the exact words of Sir Patrick Mayhew in his last speech in the House of Commons — the Patrick Mayhew who devised, created or stumbled into the Washington preconditions which laboured this problem for so long.

If we accept that it will be by the voluntary decision of the groupings involved or not at all, then we have to face that fact. If this is not the case, and I am wrong in this, by what other way is it going to be achieved? What else has not been tried? What else could be tried? By what other way can it be achieved? That is the first question that we all have to look at.

The second crucial point is that we forget that it is only in the context of this agreement that decommissioning will happen. Outside of this agreement there will be no decommissioning. I say this sincerely to people who have strong views about it: damage this agreement and we damage the prospect of achieving decommissioning. Lose this agreement and we lose any prospect of decommissioning. That is a harsh reality for all of us, but it is another of the fundamental points that should underline our thinking.

The third point is that decommissioning is a requirement of the agreement. The very structures of the institutions, the inclusivity, the shape of the sections on prisoner releases, law reform, human rights, equality and normalisation were all shaped for a context in which decommissioning would take place and violence and the threat of violence had ended. It follows then that it is an inexorable requirement of the agreement that we fulfil the Mitchell principles, and they were arrived at even before the negotiations started. They said that there would be some decommissioning — not before, not after, but during the negotiations. Negotiations have ended — they took two years. We are almost a year into the agreement, and I believe that the words of the Mitchell Report are as applicable now as they were then.

The fourth very important point is that decommissioning is not a precondition within the agreement. There is no legal or technical factor to suggest that it is, and to portray it as such overburdens the debate, as it probably does the prospect of obtaining decommissioning.

The fifth very important point — and I say this from some experience — is that without a resolution of the decommissioning issue there will not be sufficient trust in the political process to make it work effectively and creatively within the institutions which we are going to adopt today.

Trust is a rare thing among political parties. It has to be nurtured and encouraged, and that is difficult. We will never get absolute trust between any of the parties here or among them. What we can aim for is sufficient trust to make that which we have already agreed in the Good Friday Agreement and in the institutions work. However, unless this issue is resolved, that trust is not going to be there to make this agreement work in the creative, imaginative and determined way that it should.

It follows that the problems that are faced by the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin must be looked at honestly, and there are problems. I say, especially to those on the Unionist Benches today who have strong feelings and who might be tempted to vote against this motion because of this issue, that, outside of the agreement, there will be no context in which decommissioning can be achieved. I ask them to seriously consider that and weigh it against the agreement’s potential to achieve lasting peace and to make that lasting peace part of the political process, not as a word, but as the underlying thesis.

I recognise Sinn Féin’s difficulties on this matter, and I take this opportunity to put on record my acknowledgement of the courage with which many in that party have challenged those in the wider Republican organisation on this issue. I say very clearly to them that, like all of us, we should have only one resolve today: to stand by this agreement. We stand by both the letter of the agreement and the spirit of the agreement. If we are all resolved in terms of this debate to stand by this agreement, then we can build sufficient trust to make what we have decided operative.

I know there will be a long and detailed debate on the various parts of the report and I thank you, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to respond in detail to some of those. However, there is one message today and it is this. We can either lay the basis today for resolving these issues and moving forward, or we can ensure that that which we have already agreed, and staked so much on, is put in jeopardy. Surely there is only one way to go, and that is the way forward on the basis of an agreement that we all resolved to stand by. There is no other way.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I call Dr Paisley to introduce the first amendment.

11.30 am

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

As has been mentioned before, the last sentence of the amendment should read "unnatural departmental divisions are corrected."

I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out from "Assembly" and add

", having noted the contents of the report prepared by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), requires them to take back the report and reconsider it with a view to ensuring that —

it contains a specific requirement that any North/South body is accountable to the Assembly and does not perform any executive role;

the Civic Forum is properly appointed in order to ensure a balance of community interests and is merely consultative and not publicly deliberative; and

unnatural departmental divisions are corrected."

It is very interesting to note that there is no mention whatsoever of decommissioning in the report. The First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) spent most of their time commenting on decommissioning, but nothing is said about it in this paper. It is not referred to because nothing is really going to be done about it. The object of this debate is to see that Ulster Unionist Party Members vote in the right way on this report. In other words, the Members must now endorse the cheque that they voted for at the last sitting.

But interesting things are happening. Mr Ahern has said

"decommissioning in one form or another has to happen. It is not compatible with being a part of a government, and part of an executive if there is not at least a commencement of decommissioning. That would apply in the North and in the South."

This is what Mr Ahern said that we need to achieve. But then he was asked if he was really saying that, regardless of what it says in the agreement, the practical policies are that there can be no executive without a start to decommissioning. His answer was "Yes", but that was in the morning. Before the sun had set he had evidently changed his mind.

His change of mind came because there are guns on the table, under the table and outside the door of these negotiations. Mr Hume said that there would be no guns — but the guns are there, and Mr Ahern had to do a U-turn. Mr Ahern thought he would help Mr Trimble get reticent Ulster Unionists to vote for the report, he gave them the sop that he was with them in their attempt to keep Sinn Féin out of the Executive until such times as decommissioning had, at least, started.

But no such thing is in the mind of the Taoiseach. In fact, the Southern Ireland Government have violated every agreement that they have entered into with the United Kingdom, and they are seeking to violate this agreement with their usual skulduggery and deception.

As far back as September 1997 the Ulster Unionists and my party issued a statement, jointly signed by Mr Trimble and myself, which said

"The two parties are totally agreed that the principle of consent which is the right of the people of Northern Ireland alone to determine their own future is a fundamental governing principle which must apply in all circumstances. This principle must be accepted by the Government and all parties.

Our two parties are also agreed that the issue of the decommissioning, i.e. the handing over of illegal terrorist weaponry, must be resolved to their satisfaction before there could be substantive political negotiations.

Recognising the need for greater Unionist unity of approach at this critical time, the parties have agreed to meet again shortly."

In a matter of weeks, Mr Trimble had made a U-turn. When Sinn Féin was brought in there was no decommissioning, and my party, as it said it would in its election manifesto, immediately withdrew from the talks. It is a bit late in the day for the Official Unionists to attempt to build a barricade now. The flood waters are flowing, and they are not flowing their way.

This attempt to tell us that there will be no executive unless Sinn Féin is a member is wrong, and it will be proved to be wrong. The two Governments and world opinion will be stronger than the determination of Mr Trimble. How strong will these Members be who went to the electorate and gave assurances, as my party did, that they would not sit down with Sinn Féin in an Executive?

It is amazing that this most important debate is being gagged by the votes of the Official Unionist Party. In no other Assembly would the party leaders be given only 10 minutes to speak to a motion of this kind. Why have we not had a full-scale debate with proper timings? We did not even get the documents.

The Deputy First Minister (Designate): Will the Member give way?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

No, for I have only 10 minutes, after which the Deputy First Minister (Designate) will be shouting me down.

Pick up the document and consider the Civic Forum - an amazing body. The largest industry in Northern Ireland is agriculture and fisheries - and agriculture is major in comparison with the fisheries side - yet it is only getting three voices.

I have heard many Members on the Unionist Benches speaking about the victims and how their voices must be heard. Yet they are only getting two voices - two voices. Let us consider the victims of all the violence in this Province. Let us march them past the city hall and measure the number of hours it takes for the multitude of victims to pass by a given point and then think as well of the number who have been murdered. But the victims and their loved ones will have two voices to tell of their plight - probably one from the Nationalist side and one from the Unionist side. There is no distinction made today between innocent victims and others; they tell us that victims are all the same.

However, the voluntary/community bodies, which are highly rated by the Official Unionist Party, will get 18 voices - 18 voices. The First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) are to reserve for themselves not two places but six. They will have more voices than the victims or the agricultural interests, yet we are being told that we must rush through this determination with a short debate.

What will be the end of this matter? The Deputy First Minister (Designate) has told us that the only way ahead is to give in to the lawless, to the people with the Semtex and the guns that have been used to commit these murders. I will never crawl before these people.

Mr P Robinson:

I listened with great care to the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). I prefer to listen to people who believe what they are saying, and that is certainly true of the Deputy First Minister. I do not agree with him, but at least he speaks like a man who believes in what he says. However, the First Minister (Designate) spoke without passion or conviction. He spoke, not as someone who had something to say, but as someone who had to say something. That was the sum total of his short contribution. I listened to his case to see whether it would justify the abandonment of the Ulster Unionist Party's election commitment. It did not.

The First Minister (Designate):

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. It may be in order for the Member to say that he does not believe me, but it is not in order for him to say that I do not believe myself. I do.

Mr P Robinson:

I note, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, that you have chosen not to rule on that matter.

I also listened out for an explanation as to why he is setting up what everyone knows will be an embryo united Ireland. He is setting up all-Ireland bodies with executive powers which, at this stage, are clearly unaccountable to the Assembly. There was no explanation for that. I also listened for his reasoning for handing over responsibility for further developments to people outside the Unionist community. That did not come either.

As the Deputy First Minister (Designate) spoke, I detected the distinction that can be made between his stance on decommissioning and mine. He says, quite rightly, that decommissioning, in the form in which we are discussing it, is a voluntary matter, and that it is up to the organisations that hold weapons to decide whether to hand them over. He then jumps from that position to saying that decommissioning will not happen unless we agree to this kind of accommodation.

The question arising from the report is not will decommissioning happen, but is it right to have in government those who refuse to decommission. That is the issue that we must decide. It is a key issue for Unionists in particular, because Unionists of all parties, except perhaps one, have an electoral commitment on this matter. There are four stages on the road to Sinn Féin/IRA membership of an executive.

Mr M McGuinness:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Would you point out to Mr Robinson that there is no such organisation as Sinn Féin/IRA in the Chamber?

11.45 am

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am afraid that it is rather difficult for me to rule in respect of the way Members address each other, unless it is perfectly plain that they are using disreputable and unparliamentary language. Members do not always refer to each other as one might wish. I register that, but I am not sure that I can rule in the way that the Member wants me to.

TOP

Next >>