Mr M McGuinness:

Further to that point of order. I take exception to the remark. When I came into this Chamber I was asked to sign a book, and after my name I put the name of my political party and a designation of Nationalist or Unionist. I did all of that, and at no stage in the process did anyone from my party sign as Sinn Féin/IRA. For that reason we take exception to the use of this language, and I wish you, as Initial Presiding Officer, to point out to Mr Robinson and to anyone else using that term that they are totally out of order.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I can certainly confirm that the Member and his Colleagues signed the book in precisely the way that the Member has described. There is no question about that, and, as far as I am aware, when the Member stood for election he did so in the same way. However, the Member is asking me to rule that other Members are out of order when they choose to make a certain reference. That is a problem for me, because one of the purposes of having absolute privilege in the Chamber is not to enable people to say things which they could not say in other places but to enable them to be free to say what they believe.

As long as the language used is not unparliamentary, I have to adhere to the principle that allows a degree of freedom of speech - and that privilege is accorded - and it would be difficult for me to make a ruling that would accommodate the Member's request. I know that this is unwelcome, and other Members in the Chamber have found rulings which I have given on matters not altogether different from this unwelcome, but I do not think that there is anything other that I can do under the current Standing Orders.

Mr M McGuinness:

Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I consider the language used to be unparliamentary, and I would like you to rule it as such.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I can understand that you may. I have been asked to rule on other matters - for example, in respect of comments that have been regarded as deeply unflattering and discourteous to women Members - and I have looked into them as best I can and have found myself unable to rule on them.

Some of what has been said in respect of women Members has been regarded as discourteous and unflattering, and manifestly so, and I said so at the time. However, it remained within what is parliamentary. If an inaccurate description is being used, that does not make it unparliamentary. Even if the Member regarded it as unflattering and discourteous to be referred to in that way, that would not make it unparliamentary. However, if the Member is saying that there is some accusation in the reference, that makes the matter somewhat complex, I will try to look at it as best I can.

Mr M McGuinness:

Clearly in the Member's remarks an accusation is being levelled at my party, and the Initial Presiding Officer has indicated -

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I cannot take a point of order during a point of order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

He did not say "a point of order".

Mr M McGuinness:

The Member should wait until my point of order is finished.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

He did not say "a point of order".

Mr M McGuinness:

I said "a further point of order".

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

The Member did not.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. Had I not believed it to be a point of order I would not have taken it because it would have been an intervention during Mr Robinson's speech. I am taking it as a point of order, and then I will take Dr Paisley's point of order.

Mr M McGuinness:

I have made my point. Quite clearly, in the course of the Member's contribution, a serious allegation was levelled against 18 Members of this House. As Initial Presiding Officer, you have indicated that if accusations were levelled, you would have to consider the matter further and take a view on it. I now wish you to do so.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Any time Members have raised questions and asked me to look at them, I have done so to the best of my ability and reported to the next Assembly sitting. I will do so again in this matter.

The Member made one remark which needs a brief response. It is established and accepted practice that a remark made in respect of a party does not carry the same kind of connotation as one made in respect of an individual. When the Member said that in making a remark about the party as a whole accusations were being levelled against 18 individuals, it is my understanding that, in parliamentary terms, that is not the case and that remarks which might be made of a party cannot be judged at the same level and in the same way as remarks which were levelled in respect of an individual. It is important that I point that out.

However the Member has made a request, and I respect that request. I will look into it, and I will respond and give a ruling at the next sitting.

Mr M McGuinness:

Further to my point -

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am afraid that, in the order of things, I must take Dr Paisley.

Mr M McGuinness:

This is an important point.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Would the Member please resume his seat. Dr Paisley's was the next point of order and after that - if there is a further point of order - I will take it.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

On a point of procedure, Sir. Surely a Member cannot rise up after making a point of order and start a discussion on the ruling made by the Chair. It must be prefaced by the words "On a further point of order". The Member did not do that. He thought he would just carry on his conversation with the Chair. I am pointing out to the House, and I think you will agree with me, that even if we are on a point of order, I can only address the Chair if the Chair takes a further point of order from me.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

There is no doubt that the Member is correct. That is the proper way to handle things. I confess that in these early months, I have largely accepted the fact that many Members will be less experienced than he in these matters and will be learning. I have no doubt that what he has said - and it is absolutely correct - will be taken on board by other Members and that they will respect that.

Mr M McGuinness:

Further to the point made by the Initial Presiding Officer in relation to whether or not an accusation is made against an individual as opposed to a political party, the Initial Presiding Officer should take on board very seriously indeed the fact that Sinn Féin has lost many of its members as a result of people being killed. A climate has been created on the outside whereby Sinn Féin was demonised, whereby it was effectively set up, whereby people like John Davey and Bernard O'Hagan - elected Sinn Féin councillors - lost their lives.

The Initial Presiding Officer should consider that an accusation against a political party is possibly even more serious than an accusation against an individual, because it can affect the lives of so many more people.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I respect what the Member says. It will undoubtedly form part of my considerations. If Members wish to make points of order it would be helpful if they could begin by pointing out that they wish to raise a point of order. Otherwise the distinction between points of order and other interventions disappears - to no one's advantage.

Mr Dodds:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. We have privilege within this Chamber. Members who feel strongly about allegations regarding their links to and membership of the IRA should look at today's 'Daily Telegraph', where the Member who was on his feet is referred to as a leading member of the IRA's army council. Let us see if he sues the 'Daily Telegraph' instead of lecturing people here with his nauseating hypocrisy, given the murders that his organisation has carried out in the Province.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I hope that we will not find ourselves stretching questions of privilege in this place. Mr Robinson should continue with his intervention.

Mr P Robinson:

I am grateful. That was an interesting distraction. I was not aware that Sinn Fein was so embarrassed and ashamed of its relationship with the IRA, particularly given the person who raised the issue.

He is a self-confessed IRA man. I have watched him on television confessing his IRA membership - a former commander of the IRA in Londonderry, at present a member of the IRA's army council. Let us see what he has had to say about his relationship with the IRA. I quote from the 'Irish News' of 23 June 1986:

" 'Freedom can only be gained at the point of an IRA rifle' Sinn Féin's Martin McGuinness said at yesterday's Wolfe Tone commemoration".

Mr Molloy:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Of what relevance is this to the debate we have in hand? Surely the Member should be speaking about the report?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

One of the difficulties is that interventions often cause a debate to stray from the matter before the House. If an intervention is made, it is difficult to blame the Member for responding to it. Let us try to focus on the point at issue.

Mr Molloy:

You should be reminding the Member that he should return to the report in question.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I have been reasonably flexible and generous with quite a number of Members, given the points of order that have been raised. Even within the past 10 or 15 minutes, there has been a degree of flexibility and generosity in that regard. Therefore I do not feel able to move in the way you have requested me to.

Mr P Robinson:

I find it quite touching that Mr "We'll go back to what we do best" Molloy is so interested in hearing my remarks on this report.

I was saying that there were four steps in the process towards membership by members of Sinn Féin/IRA in a Northern Ireland Executive. They are not debatable; they are not something that we, as an Assembly, can alter. They are set down in statute, and they are going to be taken. Indeed, some of them have already been taken.

The first step was the determination. A determination had to be made by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), and that was effectively done on 18 December. It was included, in large part, in the report that was received by the Assembly on 18 January, and it is contained within this report, which includes an addendum. So the determination has been made, and there is nothing that the Assembly can do about it.

The second step is approval by the Assembly of that determination, and I will come back to that in a moment. The third step is the provision by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of the necessary Initial Standing Orders to enable us to run the mechanism. And the fourth step is the one by which the Initial Presiding Officer triggers that mechanism within the Assembly.

The first step has already been taken, and we need to recognise that, as far as Unionist Members of the Assembly are concerned, the only one of those four steps over which we have any control whatsoever is the present stage, the giving of formal approval to that determination.

Is there any Unionist Member brave enough to say that he trusts the Secretary of State to withhold those Standing Orders to avoid Unionists being placed in the embarrassing position of having Sinn Féin/IRA representatives in a shadow executive or a full executive? And is there any Unionist who would expect the Initial Presiding Officer to do anything other than fulfil his obligation to enforce those Standing Orders?

The Secretary of State has full power, under the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998, to release the Standing Orders to the Initial Presiding Officer. He will then have an obligation. This will not be a matter of his choice - he will have no say whatsoever. He will have to act immediately on the new Standing Orders that the Secretary of State releases to him. So the only step over which Unionist Members will have any say is the present step.

Are they relying upon the SDLP's supporting them on a motion to exclude Sinn Féin/IRA from the Executive if they allow this step to be taken?

12.00

Anyone who believes that the SDLP is going to turn on Sinn Fein/IRA does not understand the nuances of Nationalist politics. Do they believe that the IRA might begin to decommission? It will certainly not begin to decommission under the terms that the Deputy First Minister (Designate) has suggested where it would be substantial and verifiable and clearly part of a process to completely decommission. Perhaps it is what they have been telling some of their colleagues around the corridors. There will be a scorched earth policy. They will allow this to go through but when it comes to the stage of appointing people they are going to pull the rug from under the Assembly, precipitate a crisis and bring the House down unless decommissioning has begun.

Do they really believe what their leader is telling them on this matter? Indeed, that might be an issue worth exploring. Let me ask the Ulster Unionist Members, who are going to take a key decision today, tomorrow or the next day, if there is any one of them who really believes that the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party is not prepared to sit down in a shadow executive or a full executive with Members of Sinn Féin/IRA before decommissioning has taken place. I would like them to put their hands up if they are prepared to risk their political careers and resign from this House if he does not. Let us see the hands go up from those on the Ulster Unionist Benches who trust their leader in that respect. Not one of them trusts him to do that. Not one of them is prepared to do it. They are not prepared to risk their careers by doing so, but they are prepared to risk the future of the Union by voting for this motion.

We all recognise that in our lives there are moments when we will take a decision that will have profound consequences. There are even occasions when it is of such profound consequence that it will have an effect, not only on ourselves but on all those around us. This is one of those occasions.

The way Ulster Unionist Members and others vote in this debate today will have consequences for the Union. They cannot escape those consequences. They cannot sometime in the future say "We were loyal members of the Ulster Unionist Party, we faithfully followed our leader, and we did what he asked us to do." Now that they have been warned of the consequences they cannot say at some later stage that they did not know what the outcome was going to be. They have been warned what it is going to be. To vote for this report is to vote for the destruction of the Union and for Sinn Féin/IRA in government. They need not try to tell their electorate otherwise.

Mr Birnie:

I welcome this report. On 18 January I focused mainly on the North/South aspect. Today I am going to turn to an equally important, equally valid aspect of the implementation of the Belfast Agreement - the British-Irish Council (BIC).

Before coming to that I want to say a few words about another element of this report - the Civic Forum. There are a number of key principles which we, as a party, believe are reflected in this report. We believe that in the structures for the Civic Forum there is indeed a wide representation of those groupings who have a reasonable right to be represented. There is transparency about the nomination and election procedures, and if there are problems in practice, there is written into them the provision for a review of the practice of the Civic Forum. What we wish to avoid is a situation where members of the Civic Forum have what a Conservative Prime Minister of the 1930s, Stanley Baldwin, referred to as "power without responsibility: the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages". We do not want that to apply to the Civic Forum, and we believe that the structure, as offered, will safeguard against that.

It is said currently that some of the difficulties being felt in south-east Asia, in terms of the economic crisis, relate to so-called crony capitalism. The provisions in the report ensure that the Civic Forum will not be subject to crony corporatism. The report envisages that not only will the North/South Ministerial Council meet in so-called shadow form, but so will the British-Irish Council. They will meet at roughly the same time. We hope to have parity of esteem on issues such as the size of the secretariat to the British-Irish Council relative to that for the North/South Ministerial Council, and on the location for a permanent support secretariat for the BIC.

At the shadow meeting stage, the BIC will consist of representatives from Belfast, Dublin and London, and the smaller islands. We shall have to await representation from the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales. Perhaps much further down the line English regions will be represented. In the interim, we in the Ulster Unionist Party are making our best efforts to seek the opinions of political parties and leaders in Scotland on the working of the BIC and are giving them our opinions.

The effort to get the BIC up and running and to formulate its procedures, which is mentioned in the report, is a complex matter but it is also a noble endeavour. We will keep in mind international precedents, and notably the Scandinavian example, the Nordic Council. Decision making in the British-Irish Council is to be by consensus. That can work, as the Scandinavian example demonstrates.

The BIC will have to settle the conundrum of who speaks for England. We will have to ensure that whatever procedures are adopted to represent English interests within the BIC, the views of the 50 million or so residents of England do not swamp the views of the 14 million residents of the so-called Celtic fringes.

The report refers to a work programme for the British-Irish Council. I welcome that prospect, and the Ulster Unionist Party has strong views on the matter. According to IDB figures, between 1991 and 1996, the sale of manufactured goods from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland increased by 60%, whereas those going from Northern Ireland to Great Britain increased by only 22%.

It is against that background that we will be anxious to use the BIC to facilitate trade links between Northern Ireland and its largest external market - the rest of the United Kingdom. In that regard, I commend papers that were produced last month by the regional Confederation of British Industry on the issue of east-west transport and business proposals under strand three of the Belfast Agreement. We should look at the pricing, efficiency and frequency of sea links between Northern Ireland, Scotland, north-west England, and at the onward road and rail communications to London and the channel ports.

The Belfast Agreement stresses mutual benefit as much in the context of strand three as in the context of strand two, which we discussed previously. For example, the Dumfries and Galloway region of Scotland is well known to Northern Ireland people in terms of tourism. People from here visit places such as Ayr and Dumfries. It is one of the historic parts of Scotland and contains the homes of such great Scots as Sir Walter Scott, Thomas Carlyle and Rabbie Burns, or Bobbie Burns as the Taoiseach referred to him in a speech in Edinburgh last October. For all that, that part of Scotland is considered peripheral, relative to the central belt area containing Edinburgh and Glasgow. It has some of the highest unemployment and lowest gross domestic product per head of any part of Scotland. So perhaps they have as much to gain by having stronger links across the Irish Sea as we have.

Turning to Merseyside, Liverpool's economic problems are well known, and, indeed, parts of that region have the same objective status, at least at the moment, as Northern Ireland has. Anything that would revitalise the ports of north-west England would be just as good for that region as it would for Northern Ireland. Indeed, the north-west English region of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), along with its counterpart in Northern Ireland, are campaigning along those lines.

As Edmund Burke said - I know that Ulster Unionists who quote him are sometimes upbraided for it, but he was a great Irishman and a great British parliamentarian, and the two need not be incompatible -

"England and Ireland may flourish together. The world is large enough for both."

I am glad that, last October, Bertie Ahern was in Edinburgh opening a Republic of Ireland Consulate. Indeed, there is also one in Cardiff now. I look forward to the day when the normalisation of north/south relations between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland ensures that we also have a Republic of Ireland Consulate in the centre of Belfast.

The British-Irish Council is, in part, visionary; it is, in part, practical. It recognises the strength of human and cultural connections between these islands. The great historian HAL Fisher, in his history of Europe, referred to its peoples as energetic mongrels, and given the behaviour of some Assembly Members, that description seems quite apt. The comment was to do with the extent of ethnic mixing, because there is no such thing as a "pure English race" or a "pure Irish race". Those who believe there is have often been misguided, and have done terrible deeds on the basis of such ideology.

Such ethnic mixing is supremely so in the case of the peoples who live in the islands of Britain and Ireland in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. The genius of those peoples derives in large part from such human mixing, and the British-Irish Council is the institution in the Belfast Agreement which best reflects that fact. I urge support of this report.

Mr Farren:

As we all know, today's report brings us to the very critical, penultimate phase of the preparations required of the Assembly, prior to the formation of the Executive, the opening meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, the transfer of power, the formation of the Civic Forum and the British-Irish Council. Despite the many late nights and the very difficult problems that had to be resolved during the negotiations on each of these matters, the overall result is one in which we can take considerable satisfaction.

Never before has such a level of agreement been reached between parties from the two main traditions in Northern Ireland, and between these parties and the two Governments in exercising ultimate responsibility for political relations in Ireland and Britain. To achieve this stage, signalled by this report, we have all had to travel very difficult paths. For some, the journey has been much more difficult than for others. I commend all those who have accepted the need for the honourable compromises which the Good Friday Agreement, and all that has followed from it, have required. What those parties which have not accepted these compromises have demonstrated, as today's debate and previous ones have so frequently underlined, is that they have no capacity to produce any alternative with the remotest possibility of addressing the divisions in our society.

12.15 pm

On the contrary, they persist with a totally negative approach which is more likely to deepen and widen divisions than to provide bridges leading to agreement and reconciliation.

As a result of the compromises and the efforts of all the pro-agreement parties since Good Friday, we have put together a positive and remarkable blueprint for governing relationships in Northern Ireland, between North and South and between the people of Ireland and Britain as a whole. On the basis of that blueprint, we can begin mobilising our political resources to lead and support economic and social development, and, ultimately, genuine reconciliation in our divided community.

The hopes and expectations that were engendered by the Good Friday Agreement have been brought many steps closure to realisation. The opportunity to take responsibility for promoting economic and social reconstruction is at last within our grasp, but, as we all know, the challenges facing us are enormous. Economically, many sectors are showing significant signs of development, but to develop further they need a stable and peaceful political atmosphere. Other sectors continue to experience contraction and decline. In addition, unemployment persists at unacceptable levels, resulting in the marginalisation and poverty that are experienced by many. That sits uncomfortably alongside the affluence of others.

Peace and stability are even more essential if we are to attract inward investment, create new enterprises and provide for those who are affected by decline and contraction, the unemployed, the marginalised and a growing, young labour market.

In taking up all those responsibilities, which are eagerly anticipated by the wider society, many sectors of which will be joining us in this endeavour through their participation in the Civic Forum, we welcome the report's detail on that Forum and the detail on the British-Irish Council. We anticipate many benefits economically, socially and culturally within the context of the new political relationships that that Council will encourage.

As we audit what has been achieved since Good Friday, we note that decommissioning remains the issue upon which hardly any progress has been recorded. While decommissioning is not a precondition for progress in any other area of the Good Friday Agreement, neither is the rest of the agreement a precondition for progress on decommissioning. I want to see the whole question of decommissioning removed as a matter of controversy and left to the international body, as laid down in the Good Friday Agreement.

Mr Roche:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Farren:

I will not give way.

I concur with many Members who have been calling for the matter to be treated in precisely that way, but that can only happen when there is confidence that the process is under way. I recognise that the absence of any report which would clearly signal that the decommissioning body is making progress speaks for itself.

There is nothing for the international body to report, apart from the destruction of some LVF weapons and explosives before Christmas. I trust that Gen de Chastelain and his colleagues will soon have matters of more substance to report on decommissioning.

The exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences on political issues and the opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose, to which all pro-agreement parties voluntarily subscribed, can only mean that we continue doing all in our power and influence to rid society of illegally held arms in the possession of paramilitary organisations.

Using whatever power and influence that we have to this end is one of the fundamental tests of our commitment to what the agreement states to be exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences on political issues. It is a test we must meet as constructively as possible in order to instill the confidence and trust essential if the institutional blueprints before us in today's report are to become the realities for which we all hope.

In the past week there has been talk of where some who are here today believe we will be in 15 years time. I would like to think that by then we will be living in a totally peaceful, much more reconciled, more united and more prosperous society than the one we are living in today. If we are, it will be because we have implemented all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. Indeed we will arrive at such a situation only by laying foundations today which are firm, just and equitable; foundations that respect and honour all traditions, and which, above all, are fundamentally informed by democratic and peaceful values.

Mr Presiding Officer and Members of the Assembly, I commend the report and the determination it contains as an essential step towards bringing this about.

Mr Adams:

A Chathaoirligh, ar dtús, mo bhuíochas leis an Chéad-Aire (Ainmnithe) agus leís an Leas Chéad-Aire (Ainmnithe). B'fhéidir gur cuimhin leat mé ag rá ar an lá a fuair muid an tuarascáil, go raibh a lán rudaí inti nach raibh Sinn Féin sásta leo.

Ach táimid sásta go bhfuil dáta cinnte inti nuair a bhéas David Trimble ag cur moltaí chum tosaigh - [Interruption]

Mr Maskey:

A Chathaoirligh -

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order.

Several Members:

A point of order.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I will take a point of order from Ms Morrice, as she was the first person to catch my eye.

Ms Morrice:

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, there is some commotion in the Galleries to which I would like to draw your attention.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am grateful to you for drawing that to my attention. I am finding it difficult to hear the points of order coming from all areas. Mr McCartney had a point of order, as did Mr Neeson and then Mr Maskey.

Mr McCartney:

Further to the point of order that has just been made, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I do not agree at all with the politics of Mr Adams, but I do think he has a right to be heard.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

That is unquestionably true.

Mr Maskey:

A Chathaoirligh, you are aware that this matter was raised at a recent meeting. I urge you to declare now that the Gallery be quiet or be cleared. This is totally unsatisfactory. It is your duty to clear the Gallery if people persistently come there to try to disrupt democratically elected Members who are trying to speak on behalf of their constituents. Perhaps you might need assistance to do that.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The point the Member raises is absolutely correct, and if there is any further commotion whatsoever from the Gallery I will have no option but to clear the Gallery as a whole. That must be clear to Members. Those who come to the Galleries to observe the proceedings are very welcome to do so, but if they start making a noise they are attempting to participate in the proceedings, and that is another matter altogether - one that is completely out of order and unacceptable. I hope that that will be taken into account, and if there is any further commotion, the Galleries will be cleared until at least after lunchtime.

I apologise to Mr Adams. I was trying to ensure that I heard the translation of what he was saying. My apologies if I was not sufficiently attentive to the other matter.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Will the Chair make it clear that visitors to the House, unless they are accompanied by a Member, cannot walk along the corridors with notebooks writing down the names that are on doors, and opening doors to find out who are in the rooms. I have raised this matter with the authorities, as the Initial Presiding Officer knows, and the next time this happens, the people in their rooms will have no option but to forcibly remove these people from the corridor. Are we being set up by people who roam freely the corridors of the House, taking down names and the numbers of the rooms?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The situation in respect of regulations for the conduct of visitors to the building is very clear indeed. There are some public areas, the principal one being the Central Hall. Visitors are permitted into the Central Hall but they cannot go elsewhere, even if they have passes, unless they are accompanied by a passholder. That is very clear. If there are occasions when the regulations are broken, and it ought not to happen, I would be grateful if these were drawn to the attention of the doorkeeping staff and, indeed, to the attention of the Keeper of the House. The regulations are very clear indeed.

Mr McGrady:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. If - and I hope that it will not happen - you are called upon to exercise your authority in order to deal with disorder in the public Gallery, will you bear in mind that most of the people who visit the Chamber are exceptionally well behaved. I hope that your remarks and instructions will be directed only towards those who are causing the disruption.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I accept entirely what Mr McGrady said. It is rightfully said; it is well said. All visitors have a duty to respect the rules that have been set down and, indeed, which are pointed out to them when they come. It is difficult enough for me to keep order in the Chamber and keep an eye on Members; it is quite impossible for me to sort out matters in respect of visitors in the Gallery. Therefore if there is a commotion I have no option but to clear the Gallery as a whole, though that would be regrettable. I hope what I have said makes the position clear, and that it is not necessary to do so.

Mr C Wilson:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. The House should be mindful that in the public Gallery today there are families who have suffered as a direct result of Sinn Féin/IRA violence - people some of whose relatives not only will not be heard from again but cannot ever have their voice heard in the Chamber. It is in that regard that we should question whether a small disruption is so totally out of place.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Let me be very clear. One of the purposes of parliamentary procedure is to ensure that no matter how strongly Members feel about issues - and many Members have many reasons to feel very strongly about things that are said or done - their behaviour is kept within the bounds of procedure and proper rules and regulations.

While I have no doubt that many people have reason to feel strongly, particularly about the matters that may be dealt with in a Chamber of this kind, this cannot be an excuse for breaching regulations and rules that are properly set down. They must apply in the Chamber to Members, to the visitors Galleries and, indeed, to the press Gallery.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Surely in another place, when an interruption takes place in the Gallery, there is no attempt to clear it. The person who interrupts is taken out by those in charge of the Gallery. I would like you to give us a ruling. Can a Member bring 13 adults and a child into the coffee room that is supposed to be for the use of Members? Is that in order? Is that the way this place works?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Let me deal with the first question that you raise. It has been the fact that, on occasion in the past, some visitors in the Gallery have made a noise or other commotion. In some cases it was merely people getting a little excited; in other cases they were conversing rather too loudly with their neighbours. It was not always malign. That matter was pointed out by the doorkeeping staff who attended to it, and everything was fine.

12.30 pm

It was also clear - and I sought and received a report on this - that a number of visitors came, not on their own, but in a group with the clear intention of creating a commotion. The doorkeepers made it clear that such behaviour was not acceptable. Unfortunately, when those visitors were leaving, they upbraided the doorkeepers in a thoroughly unpleasant, inappropriate and unacceptable way.

I appreciate what Dr Paisley and Mr McGrady have said - that most visitors have an interest in what is happening in the Chamber and behave properly. Unfortunately, if there are visitors who create difficulties that the doorkeepers cannot deal with on an individual basis, I must deal with the situation by clearing the Gallery, for it is not possible for me to begin to identify individuals.

In respect of the other matter which Dr Paisley asked me to address, the rules with regard to the coffee lounge and other places are also quite clear. I must beg Members' indulgence. It is hard enough for me to deal with points of order that refer to what happens in the Chamber and in the Gallery, but to make an immediate ruling on a point of order about what happens in the coffee lounge does create some difficulty. The Member has quite rightly raised this matter, and I will ask the Keeper of the House to go to the coffee lounge and deal with the situation as appropriate.

Mr Adams:

First, will I be permitted to finish my remarks before the lunch break?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Yes.

Mr Adams:

Secondly, I do not mind the noise in the Gallery. It struck me as some sort of strange virus, like DUP flu, for instance, because what was happening in the Gallery was merely an echo of what was happening on the Benches opposite. With all the focus on the Public Gallery, the point was missed that these Gentlemen, and one Lady, have always conducted themselves in this way. At some point, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, you should call them to order.

Bhí mé ag rá, sular cuireadh isteach orm, nach raibh Sinn Féin sásta leis an tuarascáil ach go raibh muid sásta go raibh dáta cinnte inti nuair a bhéas David Trimble ag cur moltaí chun tosaigh.

Tá an lá sin buailte linn inniu agus tá na moltaí romhainn: sin rud maith. Is céim thábhachtach í, agus sílim nuair a bhéas an díospóireacht seo críochnaithe - amárach nó Dia Céadaoine - go gcaithfidh Rialtas na Breataine céim eile a ghlacadh leis na h-instidiúidí a bhunú.

When Sinn Féin first received the report about one month ago from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) - and I thank them for today's report with its determination - it had a number of reservations, and those reservations stand. Some of my Colleagues will deal with them later in the debate.

We objected, for instance, to the absence of a Department of Equality, a very negative step; to the illogical fracturing of education into separate Departments; to the failure even to mention a junior Ministry with responsibility for children; and to the fact that in December the implementation bodies were diluted during the negotiations. Sinn Féin feels that much less was achieved than should have been.

Sinn Féin also has reservations about the Civic Forum. That was to empower civic society and involve people in a whole range of important issues.

Sinn Féin approaches these reports and this determination in a strategic way. It wants to see a new society on this island. It wants to see the Union ending. It wants to see - and this is only possible in that context - the aged taken care of, young people given opportunities, agriculture dealt with, and all those who are disadvantaged and oppressed being helped. Only when that happens will the Members opposite be liberated in terms of their sense of who and what they are.

This determination comes at a very important point for Unionism, and I want to address the rest of my remarks to where Unionism is now. The power, the influence and the monopoly on the affairs of this island, which Unionism used to represent, is gone. It is over, done with and gone. Some Unionists know this, and they accept it. Perhaps they even welcome this development. Some do not know, and they are the ones who cry the loudest like empty vessels. They do not know that the old days are over, that the old agenda has failed. In many ways, they are more to be pitied than to be scorned.

Others know this too, and they have great difficulties accepting the consequences of the changes that are coming or accepting their responsibilities for this new era. Or, at an intellectual level, they do accept that changes are needed, but emotionally they have great difficulties. This should be easy for Republicans to understand. They too have experienced a roller coaster of emotional and intellectual turmoil, but from a totally different basis. We want to try to be agents of the changes that are required. We want to try to be part of the transformation that is required if a real and lasting peace with justice is to be established.

Some Unionists may hark back to the old days, the heady memories of Brookeborough and Carson, or even the ghosts of O'Neill and Faulkner. And there is an understandable interest in how the Ulster Unionist Party will vote, and what size the Unionist vote led by Mr Trimble will be. However, that is to miss the point, to miss what we have been trying to do and what we want to do. This is as difficult for the representatives of Sinn Féin and for the wider Republican constituency as it is for Unionists. The point is that no matter what our party political and ideological differences are, no matter the difficulties, the hardship and the grief that we have all come through, the new dispensation under the Good Friday Agreement divides us into pro- and anti-agreement camps.

If he implements the agreement, Mr Trimble, in his capacity as First Minister, has the support of over two thirds of the parties represented here. That is his own party, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Women's Coalition, the Alliance Party and the Progressive Unionist Party. That is the new potential in all of this - not just looking over our shoulders at some fracturing of Unionism. Mr Trimble, as he implements the agreement, must uphold the rights of all citizens and respect the democratic mandate of all parties. There must be no more second-class citizens within this island. On these issues, the pro-agreement parties are in the majority and have a clear mandate from the vast majority of people on this island who are, to a man and woman, on the same side.

It is difficult for me to contemplate being on the same side as the Ulster Unionist Party. It is difficult for them as well, but that is the reality. David Ervine said that it is also difficult for the Loyalist people, and I recognise that. In all of this, we have to look to the future. This is an important day, and this Assembly is going to clearly and decisively vote for this determination and this report. Sinn Féin, despite our reservations, is also going to vote for it. After that there needs to be speedy movement - [Interruption]

Bob McCartney is attempting to intimidate the Member behind him.

Since last summer we have been waiting for these institutions to be put into shadow form. We want to see moves made speedily to allow these institutions to assume shadow form, so that power can be transferred from London and Dublin on 10 March.

In response to the remarks made by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), I would like to say once again that Sinn Féin remains totally committed to every aspect of the Good Friday Agreement and to restate Sinn Féin's commitment to that agreement.

Of course, this could be a messy debate, given the juvenile, schoolboyish and schoolgirlish antics of those on the Benches opposite. They provide light relief on what could, otherwise, be a boring day. But when the debate is finished, the Assembly will have sent a very clear message to the world that it wants the Good Friday Agreement to be implemented. The onus will then clearly be on the British Secretary of State to trigger the d'Hondt system, so that real power can be transferred from London and Dublin.

Sin é. Sin an méid. Mar a dúirt mé ar dtús, níl muid sásta le achan rud sa tuarascáil seo, ach táimid ag vótáil ar a son.

The sitting was, by leave, suspended from 12.41 pm until 2.00 pm.

Mr Neeson:

I generally support the report from the First and the Deputy First Ministers (Designate). Some Members have complained about a delay in the presentation of the report, and I share these concerns. The report did not arrive a day late - it arrived about three and a half months too late. While the deadline of 31 October has been missed, I sincerely hope that the deadline for the transfer of powers to the Assembly will be met. I hope that by 10 March the Assembly will be well on its way to assuming the role for which it was formed and Members on their way to assuming the duties which, as elected representatives, they have been tasked to carry out.

There is great expectation in the community at large about the prospects for the Assembly, and for its working for people regardless of their age, religion, gender, ethnic origin or disability. One important thing that could well develop once the Assembly is fully working - and I hope it does - is that more young people in Northern Ireland may be encouraged to become involved in politics. Clearly this morning's events would not encourage that, but on occasions, such as when there have been delegations to Ministers on integrated education and the extension of the natural gas pipeline, the political groups in the Assembly have shown that they can work together on the bread-and-butter issues.

It is up to the Members of the Assembly, collectively and individually, to ensure that we deliver, and deliver on time. Both Governments are working at full steam to ensure that the necessary legislation will be brought forward on time. I commend this, and I hope that developments inside and outside the Assembly will progress in parallel with the efforts of both Governments to ensure that full devolution is delivered.

Since the initial presentation on the restructuring of the Departments was made I have reflected, and I think that there are a number of issues which need to be seriously addressed by those who produced the report. For example, the Education Department is going to be responsible for appointments to education and library boards. Some Assembly Members have already been contacted by the various libraries expressing concern that libraries have been put into the Culture, Arts and Leisure Department.

No doubt this was a balancing act. I have long believed that tourism should have been included within the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. I suppose that they have included Libraries in that Department in order to balance things out. That is no way to structure Government Departments. I appeal to those concerned to give further thought to this.

I strongly believe that the Environment and Heritage Service, which is currently in the Department of Environment, should have been included in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure because of its responsibility for archaeology and other heritage-related functions. I ask for that to be considered. Also, when we talk of museums we are talking about galleries as well.

As far as the six areas for co-operation and the implementation bodies are concerned, the Alliance Party would have preferred to have seen more implementation bodies established, even at this time. Clearly this was a point of dispute between the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists when they were working out their deal.

Energy should have been included in the areas for co-operation. As I said earlier, an all-party delegation met with the Minister to discuss the extension of the natural gas pipeline, and this is a clear example of where good North/South co-operation can lead to developments which can benefit people on both sides of the border.

One of the most important functions of the Assembly is to establish the scrutiny committees. Various Members talked about a "stitch-up" between the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP, and I hereby give warning that I do smell a rat. There will be 10 Departments, and I strongly believe that there should be 10 Committees to scrutinise them. Equally, I would like to think that there will be Committees to scrutinise the functions which will be brought to the centre - equality, community relations and the major issue of Europe.

It is in the best interests of the Assembly to have an all-inclusive approach towards the scrutiny of the legislation which will come forward. There are 108 Members in this Assembly, and it is important that every Member be involved in the scrutiny committees. It is important that all Members have ownership of the powers which will be devolved to the Assembly.

Regrettably, the question of decommissioning seems to be the next major obstacle that we have to face. The polls in the 'Belfast Telegraph' clearly showed the public's concern on this issue. We have heard what Bertie Ahern said at the weekend. John Bruton, at the Fine Gael ardfheis, made similar comments, as did most of the political leaders here.

We have got to remember that there are no preconditions in the Good Friday Agreement to entry into an executive. However, we are almost 10 months down the line from when the agreement was reached. There is a strong moral obligation on the paramilitaries, whether Republican or Loyalist, to start actual decommissioning. I realise that it is a difficult issue. The International Commission on Decommissioning was established by the agreement to deal with the question of decommissioning, and it should remain with that body.

I repeat the suggestion I made last week: to ensure a win/win situation, and not a win/lose situation, it is important that David Trimble, the leader of the Ulster Unionists, and Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Féin, get round the table together. If that could be facilitated by Gen de Chastelain, there are possibilities there. They have to be explored now if we are to achieve devolution by the 10 March deadline.

As we all know, the DUP amendment is simply a ruse to split the Ulster Unionists. Those who make some of the strongest statements about paramilitary connections should read yesterday's issue of 'Sunday Life' before making any future statements. The determination of the report is important, and I look forward to the full devolution of powers on 10 March.

Mr R Hutchinson:

The motion represents a further weakening of the Union. For the past 30 years, under the impact of the terror of Ireland's physical force exponents, the balance between Unionists and Nationalists in Ulster has increasingly tilted in favour of the Irish Nationalist agenda.

We in the Northern Ireland Unionist Party will vote against this motion, not because we do not believe in peace but because the people who elected us would have no future in a united Ireland that was achieved by terrorism, ethnic cleansing and political coercion. The Unionist people would have ceased to exist. The evidence of our eyes, the experiences that we have lived through, and the fact that the wonderful and high-flown sentiments to which Nationalist politicians such as those in the SDLP, or, indeed, those in Sinn Féin/IRA who are engaging in the present charm offensive, bear no relationship whatever to the sufferings and abuse that have been inflicted on Unionists in pursuit of the objective of Irish unity.

All those things teach us that the romantic illusion of a united Ireland is undercut by the sordid reality of cruelty, lies and deception. Actions of the most savage and reprehensible kind, about which Irish Nationalists have taken up a stance of collective denial for too many years, have resulted in the Unionist population of Ulster being subjected to a brutal and efficient campaign of terror. Too often we have had to stand at the open graves of murder victims and listen to ministers of religion telling us that the victim had been cut down by a savage act of mindless violence.

Those who said that the violence was mindless were wrong, however well intentioned they may have been. The assertion that the bombings and the killings were mindless conceal the fact that the violence was part of a cold-blooded, callous strategy based on the vicious principle that violence pays and, in the case of Ireland, that unity necessitated its use.

While Irish Republicans pursued their objective by physical force, constitutional Nationalists sought the same objectives by a process of gradualism. The motion represents the triumph of the policy of gradual Irish unification. In case the Unionists fail to follow through by committing collective suicide, the arsenals and the explosives will be retained. There will be no decommissioning until it is adjudged that the momentum towards Irish unification is irreversible. The violence was never mindless. Even the most devilish and satanic acts, as the media described them, could be subsumed within the overall strategy because such acts terrorised and intimidated people who did not understand the role played by the fanatic in the Irish struggle.

Some weapons that are essential to the maintenance of control over Republican areas are in circulation. The remainder of the terrorist arsenals are stored away. The cynical calculation is that the IRA can get more out of the current situation by political means than by the application of physical force.

2.15 pm

For the moment politics is more advantageous to the cause of unification than slaughter but the high priests who served Mother Ireland are ready to begin the ritual of human sacrifice again. Thousands of innocent lives are under threat and could be sacrificed if dark clouds arise to threaten the cult's new dawn.

If the Unionists renege on their commitment to the all-Ireland peace process then the arsenals would be made available to those who have signed up to the physical force tradition. These Republicans understand that the machine that drives forward Irish unification operates on a trigger mechanism.

The SDLP is well aware of the gains that violence has made for Irish unity, but its conscience is clear. Its liturgical condemnations of violence are a matter of public record. The SDLP has to make a choice between a stable society in Northern Ireland in which people who may have acute differences of culture and religion can nevertheless live together as neighbours and its aspiration for a united Ireland. Faced with that choice, the SDLP invariably sacrifices stability now for its dream of a united Ireland. The SDLP is into denial about the extent to which its united Ireland policy contributes to the polarisation in this society.

The Northern Ireland Unionist Party rejects this motion setting up cross-border bodies, not only because they are an extravagant waste of money and make no economic sense but also because the sole rationale behind these functional institutions, which aim at a united Ireland through bureaucratic structures over time, are based on an Irish Nationalist agenda which is dangerously flawed, and has heaped untold misery on Northern Ireland over the last 30 years. The SDLP has put its Nationalist ideology and aspiration before the common good. The SDLP has preferred to tolerate deepening polarisation within Ulster as the necessary price to be paid for a united Ireland in some distant future.

The Belfast Agreement, which we in the Northern Ireland Unionist Party reject, represents a triumph for the SDLP's gradualist approach to Irish unification.

The SDLP is in effect saying to Sinn Féin/IRA through the Humes-Adams relationship "It is our view that movement towards Irish unity can be advanced through cross-border bodies and the increasing involvement of Dublin in the everyday life of Northern Ireland, rather than by more years of murder and mayhem."

We are clear in our minds and in our analysis, which is why we will reject this motion today. We recognise that the violence of the IRA was never mindless. Note the importance of the statement made in 'An t-Oglach', the official journal of the Irish Republican Army in 1967:

"Our strategy must be the perfect blending of politics and violence (political action and military force) at the most opportune time and under the most favourable circumstances."

Only four years later Robert Moss, in his book 'Urban Guerrillas', was able to set out in outline or overview a more detailed appraisal of the IRA's intentions. In March 1971 the Provisional IRA was claiming, according to Moss, that they had formed a terrorist organisation in Ulster capable of a protracted campaign; that that campaign would lead, firstly, to the fall of the old Stormont Parliament and, secondly, to direct rule from Westminster; that the IRA campaign would divide Ulster into Roman Catholic and Protestant zones; that the IRA would mount a programme of selected assassinations.

Then the IRA forecast that all of this strategy would - to quote Moss -

"clear the way for the unresisting absorption of Ulster into a united Irish republic".

No one can read those strategic predictions without a cold shiver going down the spine. Think of the thousands murdered and injured because cold-hearted, callous, cynical and brutal men deliberately set out to sacrifice victims, lives and limbs in order to unify Ireland.

They fly in the face of the history of this island, which is a history of cultural difference and legitimate political division in spite of all the wickedness to which it has been subjected. Unionist people have demonstrated resilience and perseverance throughout 30 years of terrorism. They will not readily surrender to either physical force or political coercion. Why should they?

In 1986 we got another insight into this cruel and violent strategy which blends physical force and political activism - the Armalite and the ballot box. It was Brendan Clifford who revealed in his writings that he had been an eyewitness to the setting up of the Provisional IRA by what he called respectable people in the Republic of Ireland. He has written, of that period, that the IRA was financed and supported in its initial phase by eminent people in all parts of the Republic.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I must ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

Mr R Hutchinson:

I tried to convince them that they were mistaken in their estimate of the social character of the Ulster Protestants. It is a pity that the Republic's politicians and members of the IRA did not listen at that time.

I challenge those sitting on the SDLP Benches today: reject these men; kick them out of bed; come with those of us who are democrats; help us to create a peaceful state in Northern Ireland; and totally and utterly despise these people who have killed and murdered for years.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I must ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

TOP