Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 15 February 1999 (continued)
Mr Agnew:
There are many in the House and perhaps many outside among the public who will look upon this as a historic day. Either today or tomorrow we will vote on the report that will determine the future government of this our country. Either today or tomorrow we will choose between what some believe is going to be a solution to all our problems and what others believe is a transitional period on a road to a united Ireland.
This report is one that others believe will secure the Union and bring accountable government to Northern Ireland. Others even believe that voting to endorse this report will prevent something even more dictatorial being imposed by London and Dublin.
What we probably will end up voting for - if it is this report that we are going to vote for - is a report cobbled together during another time, the week before Christmas that coincided with the air strikes by the United States of America against Iraq. And that was preceded by the historic elections to this Assembly after the historic referendum result. One could say that living in Northern Ireland today is living through history.
Having been elected by good people who feel alienated and demonised politically by the great and the good in London, Dublin and Washington, I must say that it is a humbling experience to be here today. Warnings that many of us have consistently given regarding the Belfast deal have been ignored, but the fact remains that you cannot square the circle of democracy with armed, unrepentant murderers in government.
These particular people have a curious mindset. They say that we are wrong and have to change; that they are right and do not have to change; that we should forget about our past while they remember theirs. That is the mindset that we as Unionists have to deal with.
The G7 group pontificated again at the weekend about the Executive and parallel decommissioning. Where have we heard all of this before? Senior politicians who were involved in the "Yes" campaign with an insight into the thinking of paramilitaries tell us again that there is a crisis. What have we all been saying from the very start?
It is inconceivable to think of having representatives of psychopathic IRA serial killers in government. I remind everyone in the Assembly that any chain is only as strong as its weakest link and that the weakest link in this process is the representation of heavily armed terrorists in this Chamber to whom the Labour Government have pandered and surrendered completely - and we have watched them do that. The total capitulation to these people will have many side effects for decades to come. The rule of law has now degenerated to the rule of farce. Violence has been shown to pay handsomely.
The precedent of an amnesty for future crimes has now been set with the Belfast deal. Who would have thought that after all the massacres and murders no one would serve any significant time in prison? The release on to our streets of some of the most violent men in Europe was degrading in the extreme for the victims of their crimes. I say with a heavy heart that those Unionists who negotiated the Belfast deal leave a dreadful legacy. I do not see what Unionism has achieved from this flawed agreement. Not one practical achievement has benefited the law-abiding Unionist.
Here we sit with the illusion of power, depending on Sinn Féin/IRA to denounce and reject violence. If President Clinton, Tony "O'Blair" - that would be a good name for him, and I suppose that it will be said to be a deliberate mistake - Bertie Ahern and all the other influential opinion makers cannot make Sinn Féin/IRA turn away from violence, what hope is there for an outcome to the pathetic pleadings for a token gesture on decommissioning by some Unionist leaders in the Chamber? Decommissioning is not the only issue. Some of us fought for election to the Assembly on more than the decommissioning issue. We object to people serving in government as of right.
Token gestures are meaningless. Many people have told Sinn Féin/IRA that their Semtex is not defensive and should be handed over. I suspect that there will be no decommissioning, no handing over of Semtex or other explosives. The illusion will be that everyone in Sinn Féin is doing his best to influence matters. Those Unionists who concluded the Belfast Agreement in 1998 betrayed all the efforts that were made by our gallant security forces over the past 30 years. They also betrayed all of those who lost their lives in the battle against Provisional IRA/Sinn Féin terrorism.
No wonder the victims of terrorism do not rate anywhere in this deal. Those who faithfully supported the Ulster Unionist Party since its formation in Northern Ireland have been betrayed. People have entered into negotiations with armed murderers to secure the release of IRA murderers and bombers. The rule of law has been undermined by agreeing to a virtual amnesty for terrorist crime. The RUC will be destroyed, and those actions have led to the demoralisation of the Unionist people.
Paddy Fox, the dissident Republican recently kidnapped by Sinn Féin/IRA, said
"I do not want to sit with a bag over my head for six hours."
He was referring to a kidnap attempt. We should realise that nothing has changed. The Sinn Féin/IRA leopard has not changed its spots. The brutal murder of garda Jerry McCabe and the atrocious decision to drop the murder charges shows that in the Republic nothing has changed either. The same judiciary which for 30 years failed the people of Northern Ireland by not extraditing the murderers and escapees to Northern Ireland, has now failed the garda; and the McCabe family.
The shocking and brutal killing of Eamon Collins by the IRA should be a warning about the seriousness of the situation. There is no doubt that at the end of the debate Unionists will vote with Sinn Féin/IRA. It will probably be the third time in 10 months that they have joined together politically against the rest of the Unionist family. I repeat that. I take no pleasure in saying that. There is a danger that the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin/IRA will be inextricably linked because of this deal.
Is there a modern democracy anywhere where a minority has an equal say in government and where a section of that minority seeks to undermine the very institutions in which they have a very sizeable stake or share? I do not believe there is. These basic reasons, together with the fact that this is a process dependent on concessions to Sinn Féin/IRA terrorism, ensures that I will certainly be joining with those who are opposed to this report.
2.30 pm
Mr Ervine:
As a well-known "traitor" and "betrayer", I support the motion. My party has some reservations, some of which were outlined by Mr Cedric Wilson and, indeed, by the leader of the Alliance Party. The two large parties need to be aware that consultation does not simply mean having a chat and then doing what one wants to do anyway. Cognisance needs to be taken of that.
It is important to look at how far we have come before we consider jettisoning our desire, our vision for the future, to join those who at some point it may be worthwhile considering using parliamentary privilege against. This has been building and building, and I am getting pretty sick of it. I emphasise the word "hypocrites", and if they want to raise points of order during my speech I am happy that you facilitate them, Mr Initial Presiding Officer.
They need to remember, when they talk about honour, integrity and decency, how many of them had long and meaningful debates with me - when I was a representative not of the Progressive Unionist Party but of the Ulster Volunteer Force - in meetings all over the country and, indeed, in some of their houses. I do not want to do it, nor do I want to give Nationalism or Republicanism a cudgel with which to beat Unionism, but I am not prepared to see the holier-than-thou attitude prevail.
I am neither a traitor nor a betrayer. I have a view that is different to theirs, and I may have reason for it to be different. It may be because of my sense of betrayal, or my sense of people having sent me, assisted me, talked to me, came with me part of the way, and then betrayed me. They washed their hands of people. They shout at Sinn Féin so that their constituency might see it. The cry might be "We beat them to death with DUP manifestos". Who are they kidding? They talk about the seriousness of what faces this country.
The reality is we have come a long way. The ceasefires may not be perfect, but they are in place. Many make use of television or other media to criticise those who take serious risks, and all of that as the words "traitor" and "betrayer" are ringing in the ears of those with whom they have to work. I ask them to think very carefully about who they describe as being a traitor or betrayer. They should think very carefully when I lay my life on the line, which I am prepared and happy to do - not for the first time, I might add - for my country, and I do so in the belief that we can make a difference. Not that it will stay the same. I do not ever want it to stay the same, and if it were wonderful it would not be good enough - it would have to be better.
I believe and hope that that is the nature of politics. It is supposed to be made better by politicians. The louder the complaining, the more I concentrate on the paramilitary groups, the drug gangs, the house-breaking gangs - all the difficulties in this society, such as the massive number of one-parent families, the near meltdown of the agricultural economy, the situation where Christians make a virtue of hatred and where politicians have no art, rather than making politics the art of the possible. I wonder if I am alone in wanting it to be different. Am I alone in wanting it to change?
We have come a long, long way. There have been changes, even in the ideology, that people may not have recognised because they cannot see the wood for the trees. For them to identify the shifts or changes or schisms that exist between the ideology and the political reality of Sinn Féin would be an admission that perhaps there is hope, and they would not want there to be hope.
They walk past Carson, under Britannia; they sit in this House talking; they tore up the "green book", but not many of them took the trouble to read it until recently, when they got elected and got the opportunity to let on that they had read it. They have no concept of the changes that can take place, of the will of the people, the desire of the people to live in peace.
I understand. Contrary to popular opinion, I do not live in "leafy land"; I have one small Housing Executive house, and I live in a solidly Loyalist housing estate. I have not had anybody shouting abuse at me. I wonder why.
A Member:
I wonder why.
Mr Ervine:
I wonder why. Could it be that they are all so fearful for the future of society that they are not telling me? They could always hide behind hedges and bushes, but they do not. And that tells me something: they are searching for, lusting after, some kind of better opportunity for the future.
All of us may be frightened. As we are in uncharted waters, why would we not be? No matter what tributary you face in life, the fear of getting it wrong is natural - of course it is - but you will never make anything or do anything unless you examine and explore the opportunities for the future.
That is what we did in Castle Buildings. But there were those who would not even explore the opportunities for the future. Listen to the opportunities for the future and then retreat if you will. But they would not even listen. And they did not listen because the fiefdom might be challenged, the fiefdom that has them shouting and screaming at Sinn Féin only for the television.
What they are really trying to do is upset the Ulster Unionists and turn themselves into the leaders of Unionism. Some of them want to be that; others are "cul-de-sac" politicians. I repeat what I said in October: there are two forms of "cul-de-sac" politicians - those who cannot and will not come out of the "cul-de-sac" and those who live in a "cul-de-sac" and are frightened that somebody is looking through the venetian blinds and saying "That is the one who let Gerry Adams into government." That is the fear - the fear for themselves. They cannot be afraid for their children or grandchildren or they would be thinking about the future; they would have vision.
If we do not test Sinn Féin and the Provos, we will never know. We will have consigned this territory that we all profess to love to constant, bitter and brutal feuding until somebody with wisdom comes along and does something different. When the brutality has begun and we have begun to venerate the victims, we will be unable to stop the war. I have heard that from many people here; I have walked behind the coffins; I have had family members killed, and, indeed, there have been attempts on my own life. If all we had done was venerate the victims, how would we have ended the Second World War? How would we have gone on to have relationships with people that fought with my father, for instance? How often has it been said that soldiers fight only to end wars, not to perpetuate them? A battle or a conflagration must end or the value in that conflagration only exists in having it.
There is a genuine opportunity to begin to use the process that we put together in Castle Buildings to deliver - to deliver the end of punishment beatings, to deliver decommissioning, to deliver accountable democracy, to deliver all of the things that every constituency signed up to, or it is not worth the paper it is written on.
But it is about more than that; it is about healing relationships, not only the fractured relationships between the North and the South and between east and west, but also the fractured relationships that have borders at the end of every street in some constituencies.
All that has to be begun, and if we cannot or are not prepared to set an example but are prepared only to chide and cough and play games, we will not get off first base.
Those with large egos who defecate from a great height will undoubtedly tell us that vision which is not founded in their sense of democracy is not vision at all. If our troubles were a couple of days old we could begin the process of putting the wrongs right. We could say that one thing happened as a reaction to another and attempt to put it right and seek apologies. But we have had 30 years of this, and if we play the game of constantly harking back - today we were as far back as 1967 - there will be no future, and those who advocated no and who want collapse at every turn have their part to play.
Ms McWilliams:
On the way here this morning I passed Stormont Presbyterian Church, which I think has been sending us subconscious messages over the past few months as we drive to the Assembly. This morning the message said "God give me patience ... but hurry". That message is truly meant for Members. We have waited long enough for this debate, and it is time that we made a determination to set up the Government Departments, the North/South bodies, the bodies for agreements between these islands, the British-Irish Council and the Civic Forum.
It is time that we gave the people of Northern Ireland some encouragement by doing what they said they wanted us to do in the referendum. The process has become stagnant. We are in a vacuum, and every time that happens it is the most vulnerable time in our society. The people who live at the interfaces of our communities face the outcome of that vacuum. Day by day, they are terrified that we will not reach a decision that will eventually bring peace to Northern Ireland.
We have that responsibility, and it is time that we implemented the agreement and moved to this next phase. It is the next step. Members have said that this is an important day. I hope that as we cast our votes in favour of accepting the report we realise the importance of moving to the next stage. We still have irreconcilable differences that are repeated over and over again in the media, which concentrate only on the fears of politicians, and leave no time for what David Ervine has rightly called space for hope.
If that is all that we are sending out, day by day, it is little wonder that people are saying that if the referendum on the agreement was to be rerun, they might be tempted to vote no. All that we have fed them is a diet of what people are against. I know from life and from working on committees and organisations and in education, that it is easy to be against and much more difficult to be for.
Rev Ian Paisley spoke about the floodwaters that are running, but it is much better to irrigate land than to see it in a drought. The Member for the United Unionist Assembly Party asked the Ulster Unionists about their legacy, which he said would be dreadful. My view is that it is the only one. It is the legacy of consensus and of agreement, the promise that we will never again do to each other what was done in this country over the past 30 years. That is the legacy which I promise my children and their children, and the children of all those in the Chamber. That is the only way forward.
I want decommissioning - not because it is being forced, but because it is the honourable thing to do when we move out of war and towards peace. It is the only thing to do. However, the agreement speaks to other forms of arms being taken out of this country. I read over the weekend that absolutely nothing will be done about firearms regulations or small arms. I want all arms, large and small, the arms that kill people, to be controlled. The only arms I want are those that I use to write. It is time for reality to set in and for us to agree that that is the only way forward.
2.45 pm
We must set up that Executive. I support the G7 group. All Members may not agree with them, but at least they have put forward suggestions - for example, rather than just saying "leave them to do it", they have suggested that there be decommissioning at the same time as the setting up of an Executive. It is one suggestion among many, and who are we to say that they should not make those suggestions?
We have a great deal of concern about some of the issues in this report, but in the spirit of compromise and consensus we are agreed that this is the report that is going to stand up.
Yes, I agree with the Rev Dr Ian Paisley that there may be room for more victims' organisations to be represented on the Civic Forum. Many people have been affected by the troubles, and it is my belief that many of them will be represented on the Forum. However, if victims are going to get lost in the Office of the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate), then I have serious concerns.
At present, victims come under Adam Ingram's portfolio. I want to make it clear that the Assembly is going to take this issue seriously. The concern of the victims' organisations that I have spoken to is not that all of them should be represented on the Civic Forum but that they will be able to secure core funding for the future. The ones that I have visited are simply spending project money, and when that runs out they are finished. As we move from conflict into peace these organisations start to come forward as the frozen watchfulness that they had during the years of conflict begins to melt. Assembly Members should ensure that they get the resources they deserve.
Mr A Maginness:
Does the Member agree that Dr Paisley and his party should have raised their concerns during the Civic Forum discussions rather than boycotting them?
Ms McWilliams:
I agree. In fact, I note that in the DUP amendment -
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Is it in order for a Member to mislead the House? The DUP met Mr Mallon - one of Mr Maginness's bosses - and Mr Trimble and discussed the matter fully. We also left them a paper on it. Now Mr Maginness is trying to malign the party by saying that it should have raised its concerns during the Civic Forum discussions.
Ms McWilliams:
Let me address this very issue. The amendment makes a humorous point when it says that the Civic Forum should be "merely consultative". One consults and addresses issues - one does not merely consult. I noted that Peter Robinson, the Member for East Belfast, said that he drew up this amendment rather quickly. The wording does indeed suggest that it was drawn up very quickly as it also contains the words "properly appointing".
The Civic Forum will not be appointing anyone. It will set up sectors, sub-sectors and, if required, sub-sub-sectors to bring people into the Civic Forum, from grass roots community activists to the top people in consortiums. I do not know if a person can be improperly appointed, but putting the word "properly" in front of appointed leaves a great deal of room. I hope that Mr Robinson's party will address this wording when it discusses the Civic Forum.
The amendment also says "merely consultative". Many of Mr Robinson's Colleagues and others have argued for serious consultation. Given the response to the Member for North Belfast it would appear that these Members were consulted about the Civic Forum and responded to the consultation by putting forward a paper. Consultation should not have the word "merely" in front of it. Consultation is a serious matter and one should take on board the points that are made as a result of it. The adjectives put in the amendment have done a great disservice to the Democratic Unionist Party. Perhaps it now recognises that the Civic Forum will be established and will encourage members of civic society to put their names forward.
I am also concerned that women's issues, which are to be in the First and Deputy First Ministers' office, will be buried there. Looking at the list that is attached to that office, one begins to ask seriously how any two people will ever be able to do the work that is spelled out in that report. I hope that if junior Ministers are to be appointed - and we still have had no serious consultation on that issue - a number of them will be given these responsibilities to take forward.
Let me address the issue of the Civic Forum. It is a good day for the Women's Coalition. We were the party responsible for putting this forward as an idea in the negotiations. It is true that we almost lost it; there were brackets around the Civic Forum, but we negotiated like everybody else and compromised on its final drafting. But it is there, to our great delight.
Civic society has been strengthened over the years by the number of people who were prepared to get out and become the doers and not just the talkers. It is that strength between and within communities that I would like to address. It is an inclusive body. It will address not just the issues of Nationalism and Unionism but the strengths across all sectors, and most particularly in the community and voluntary sector.
Mr McCartney:
Contrary to what Monica McWilliams has said, it is not easy to be against purse and patronage of two Governments plus the United States, or against UTV and the BBC, to say nothing of 'The Irish News', the 'Belfast Telegraph' and the 'News Letter', all of whom weighed in very heavily in favour of the matters that Monica McWilliams supports.
The only definitive statement of the Government's policy strategy for Northern Ireland is entitled 'Towards a United Ireland'. The present Secretary of State was the co-author of that document, which contains all the essential elements of the Belfast Agreement. Yet Unionists, by giving cross-community support to this determination, will be putting their future and that of the Union in her pro-Nationalist hands. By approving this determination, Unionists will, in effect, throw away the one element of positive control over the process that they can now exercise. They will have placed themselves and the Union at the mercy of a Secretary of State who is totally unsympathetic to their interests.
Once this determination is approved, the Secretary of State can, by Standing Order, put the d'Hondt formula into operation when she chooses. When she does, Sinn Féin will be entitled, as of right, to its appointed places in government, first in shadow and then in substantive form. Over that situation, pro-Union parties will no longer have any control whatever. Such trust in the Minister, in the wake of a string of broken pledges, indicates a faith and a child-like trust that beggars belief.
With the control of the timing of the d'Hondt operation, the Government will have space to arrange the final and fatal fudge on decommissioning. Gen de Chastelain is now claimed by Dr Mowlam and Messrs Hume and Mallon to have a pivotal role on this issue. That is a false claim, and it was reiterated today by Mr Farren. Gen de Chastelain is charged under the agreement merely with monitoring, reviewing and verifying progress on decommissioning.
Mr Farren should read the agreement. The fudge or fig leaf will require a new and unauthorised political role for the general. He will be pressurised to provide a programme for decommissioning commencing at some time after Sinn Féin has been seated. Unionists will be fobbed off with a promise of a review if Sinn Féin/IRA do not meet the required timetable. This arrangement has already been kited by such as Dr Maurice Hayes in yesterday's 'Sunday Independent', and the ground is being prepared by Sir George Quigley and others of G7. The scheme would be worthless because there is no hope of the IRA decommissioning anything, and certainly not before the RUC has been demoralised and disarmed.
Many informed people consider that the Government, under the guise of implementing measures appropriate to and compatible with a normal peaceful society, are preparing to remove all personal security weapons from those to whom they have been issued as a protection against terrorist attack.
This is designed to meet the IRA's requirement for what it calls demilitarisation. The Government will suggest it as a trade-off for decommissioning, and the Minister of State, Mr Adam Ingram, will tell Mr Trimble and Mr Ken Maginnis that he does not usually discuss the detail of such matters with the Opposition. Informed people realise that the Government, after each concession, such as the continuing prisoner releases, will tell us that we have no alternative, as failure to accede to each new demand from the terrorists would bring the entire process to an end and send the IRA back to war.
In the past, the IRA threatened us with violence if we did not do what it wanted. Now the Government threaten us with violence by proxy. The reason is that there is no sacrifice that Unionists will not be asked to make in order to protect the lives of the first-class citizens and the economic targets on the mainland.
Are we so naïve, so trusting and so blind that we do not realise that once Sinn Féin has taken its seats in government, it will never be put out as long as there is a threat of a renewal of terrorism on the mainland? This process has always been driven, and will continue to be driven, inexorably by terror and by the threat of terror until Sinn Féin/IRA achieves its political objectives. Those who think otherwise are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. The Ulster Unionist Party has said that it will refuse its seats in government if Sinn Féin takes its seats without decommissioning. This could only be compared to the defenders of a city throwing their weapons over the walls to the besiegers before announcing that, if the besiegers did not go away, they would march out and abandon the city to them.
The Assembly and any devolved government that it may produce under the terms of the Belfast Agreement are poor enough instruments for defending the Union, but they may turn out to be as much as we are ever likely to get in terms of local democracy. However, to throw it all away now, after giving everything else away and discarding all one's cards, would be to commit political suicide. Unionists should realise that the tide of democratic opinion - here, in Britain and especially in the Republic of Ireland - has turned in their favour. There is an increasing awareness that without decommissioning democracy is dead and that no institution of government worthy of the description "democratic" can exist and, at the same time, include a minority that attempts to determine policy by using the threat of violence from a private army.
The case for excluding Sinn Féin from government until the IRA decommissions has never been stronger. Now is the time to take advantage of that growth in public support and to refuse to approve this determination until such time as substantial decommissioning has begun. One way of dealing with this problem, so far as the Ulster Unionists are concerned, is to vote for the first motion - the one on the report - put it on the table and say "that is what we voted for and what we are willing to agree", but to withhold support from the second motion, which would transform acceptance of the report into a determination that would enable the Secretary of State to use the d'Hondt system whenever she wished.
Thus the Ulster Unionist Party would have fulfilled all its commitments. It would be able to say that it had agreed to the bodies, to the Ministries and to the functions contained in the report while, at the same time, saying that it refused to vote for the determination until such time as substantial decommissioning had begun and had been carried out. Thus the Ulster Unionist Party could disarm its critics: it could not be accused of not being constructive, and it could not be accused of placing obstacles in the way of progress.
3.00 pm
A clear marker would have been put down: there cannot be a determination until Sinn Féin/IRA shows its determination to enter fully and properly into the democratic process.
I say this to Members: "Do not place your future, the future of your children and that of the Union in the hands of this particular Secretary of State, but declare that without decommissioning there will be no determination." Such a decision is the last card within their control, and now is the time for the Ulster Unionist Party to play it. Without decommissioning, democracy is indeed dead, and the approval of this determination will enable the Government, and their allies, to pressurise the Unionist parties into Government without a single gun or a single ounce of Semtex ever being decommissioned. Members are simply storing up further pressure for the day when they will have to make a decision on whether they remain in an executive or go. I ask them, I implore them, to vote against the motion approving the determination.
Mr Foster:
The Ulster Unionist position is quite clear: we will not be sitting in ministerial positions unless there is decommissioning. That is an absolute, and there is no getting away from it. I support this motion. I support my party leader, and I compliment him on his conviction, his bravery and his knowledge in this matter.
Reference has been made to the Civic Forum. I want Members to know that the DUP and Sinn Féin are very much agreed on the Civic Forum and on other issues - in case people have the wrong impression. Earlier, Mr Peter Robinson, in his nauseating, sanctimonious way, referred to a denial of freedom of speech. I wonder what he has to say about the attempt to deny freedom of speech in Fivemiletown a fortnight ago tonight, when there were despicable scenes aimed at stopping Unionist folk from going to a party meeting. I was kicked, jostled and subjected to taunts, scorn and gibing - that is what the DUP calls free speech.
I want this state to prosper, but it can only be built upon foundations of a moral character. Such character is the principal element of its strength and the only guarantee of its permanence and prosperity. I do not want Government by stampede - not by any means. The situation must be appropriate, and at present it is not. The politicians of our time could be characterised by their vain attempts to change the world and by their inability to change themselves. Evidence of that manifests itself in the Assembly today.
This Assembly would almost be ready to begin to govern Northern Ireland, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but for one big, vital issue - decommissioning. Republicanism has reneged on the Belfast Agreement; it has failed to deliver on getting rid of arms and explosives; it has not honoured the agreement. Therein is the denial of democracy, and Sinn Féin - the front for terrorism - has failed, and failed miserably. I question whether it has ever really tried.
The Assembly cannot govern with credibility if political parties, from wherever, ignore the fact that there are weapons of war and destruction out there in the undergrowth. The potential for another Omagh, another Enniskillen and all the other dastardly acts of evil is still very real. If there is honesty, if there is integrity, let it show itself now.
The use of the words "inextricably linked to the IRA" is, in my opinion, wrong because it suggests that Sinn Féin is different from the IRA. One has to ask "Is it?" How often have Members of this Assembly, and others, been seen at the funerals of terrorists? Did not Mr Gerry Adams act as pall-bearer at the funeral of the Shankill bomber who, just two days before, had murdered eight people in that dastardly act of aggression? Did not Mr Francie Molloy state "We can go back to what we do best"? Was that a threat or an act of bravado to a receptive audience?
Are the leader of Sinn Féin and his associates not fooling some? Are they bluffing terrorist associates, or are they bluffing society? It seems they want to be part of both. They cannot be.
The IRA/Sinn Féin group must prove itself to society and not vice versa. They can make or break the benefits we seek from government in Northern Ireland. Do we wish to accept that they, without any sign of conscience, compassion or concern, once again associate themselves with those who have bloodied this land by their acts of terror? They expect this Assembly to ignore the fact that loved ones, dear ones, were torn to shreds. There have been broken hearts and broken limbs, and families have been scarred for the rest of their lives by base deeds. Decommissioning would be an act of trust, an act of faith and an earnest of an intent never again to sink to the depths of the past 30 years of evil. We are not getting that action or trust.
Not only the Ulster Unionist Party should be emphasising this requirement of the IRA and Sinn Féin. Every party should seek it rather than evade it or turn a blind eye to the IRA/Sinn Féin movement, which can wreck the Assembly.
If IRA/Sinn Féin fails to deliver, the rest of us should agree, without any compunction, to go on without them. They will then have debarred themselves, and the world should be made fully aware of their deceit. It was destruction physically over the years, and now it is destruction politically by using democracy to deny and destroy democracy. Mrs Mary Harney, the TD in the South, has stated
"There is no distinction between the IRA's political wing, Sinn Féin and the IRA, and now is the time for them to decommission."
'The Irish News' recently referred to attacks on people in Nationalist areas of Belfast. Of the appalling death of Mr Andrew Kearney it says
"All the attacks were plainly in breach of both the IRA ceasefire and the Good Friday Agreement. They state these punishment attacks must be brought to an immediate end yet Sinn Féin still continues to seek Executive positions."
Sinn Féin and the IRA are holding this country to ransom. They inhibit progress and stifle trust, and for more than 30 years they have denied people the benefits of good citizenship. The whole world must now be made aware of the deceit and falsehood of Sinn Féin. If there were decommissioning, a Government would be in action here. That is as plain as day. They should move out of the darkness of evil into the light of democracy. We seek that, but Sinn Féin deny it to the people. It and any other terrorist-associated grouping cannot be allowed or excused such base behaviour.
The Ulster Unionist Party wishes to set up the institutions that are envisaged in the agreement. We need to tackle the mass of urgent social and economic issues. Action on those is vital to the future welfare of our people.
I close with a sentence that Members should ponder. Show me the person who does not want his gun registered, and I will show you a person who should not have a gun.
Ms Hanna:
I wish to speak in support of section 5 of the report relating to the consultative Civic Forum. I was the SDLP representative on the study group, and I should like to thank the representatives of the other five parties for their commitment towards producing that report. No party got everything it wanted, but the proposals in Section 5 are an acceptable compromise.
I regret that two parties, the Democratic Unionist Party and the then United Kingdom Unionist Party excluded themselves from the study group. The proposals for a consultative Civic Forum are an indispensable and integral part of the Good Friday Agreement. The SDLP is committed to implementing all aspects of the agreement. We made many specific proposals, some of which are incorporated in Section 5 and some of which are not.
The overall principle, which I am glad to see is implicitly acknowledged, is that the Assembly is free-standing. There are several forms of democracy, the most important of which is representative democracy whereby the electorate choose a relatively small number of people to take decisions on their behalf. By the standards of western democracy, we have a high rate of electoral participation. About 70% of the electorate voted in the Assembly election. That is comparable to the turnout in a general election. It is certainly a lot higher than in the US Congressional elections of last October where the turnout was 33%.
The Civic Forum can broaden and deepen the political and public process by bringing a rich diversity of viewpoints to discussion about matters of public policy. Indeed, it could foster a healthy and creative relationship with the Assembly.
Another principle held by the SDLP is that the Civic Forum must be as broadly based and inclusive as possible. Representation and selection are vital issues, and we want the net to be cast as widely as possible in order to allow the broadest possible representation. People will be nominated by various bodies, and they will, I believe and hope, not only have the confidence of their nominating bodies but the breadth of vision to empathise with the broader needs of society, as well. The process of selection must be gender-proofed, ensure an equitable geographic spread and be broadly balanced. We do not just want to see the great and the good, who, in fairness, have contributed a lot to our society over the past 30 years. We now have an opportunity to include the marginalised and some fresh faces.
The make-up of the Civic Forum is not set in stone. The SDLP would have preferred, for example, that the Chairperson be selected from within the Civic Forum's membership rather than an appointee. Also, there are groups that are not mentioned in the report who should have the right to nominate people, such as the Credit Unions. The fact that a group's name is not mentioned does not preclude it from making negotiations.
The Civic Forum must be effective and it must start working as soon as possible on a number of subjects, such as social exclusion, long-term unemployment, selection in education, sectarianism in our society and civics education in our schools. Discussion of these thorny and endemic problems in the Civic Forum would allow a consensus on the way forward to build up before an issue made its way on to the Floor of the Assembly.
The Civic Forum will not necessarily depoliticise these problems, but it could ensure more rational and informed discussion among the parties. Democracy in all its forms has had a difficult time here for generations. It has been tested almost to the point of destruction by those who have resorted to violence. We have been given the chance for a new beginning. The proposals for a Civic Forum give us a chance to underpin our new start for democracy, and I hope to God that we do not waste that chance. If we do, what are the alternatives?
On behalf of the SDLP, I support this report.
Mr M McGuinness:
Go raibh maith agat, Initial Presiding Officer.
I, along with my colleagues in Sinn Féin, will be supporting this report by David Trimble and Seamus Mallon. We have expressed, through our party Leader, our reservations about the report and about the way in which it was brought together. That said, this is an important day, and when the vote is taken to determine this report, that vote will be crucial, particularly for those people who voted in the referendum.
If things go according to plan, there is no reason for the shadow executive's not being appointed in two weeks' time after the triggering of the d'Hondt mechanism by Mo Mowlam and by yourself, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. There is no reason for devolution's not being triggered on 10 March by the British and Irish Governments - no reason at all in this wide world. Yet we continually hear a reason for this not taking place. We are hearing a grievous re-interpretation of this issue all the time, particularly from the DUP Benches and, somewhat more disappointingly, from the Ulster Unionist Benches.
3.15 pm
Sinn Féin has been working at the peace process for the greater part of this decade. I know that many people do not like it and find it very difficult to face up to it. We have worked hard, assiduously even, and we have worked with people like John Hume and Albert Reynolds. Over the course of that period we have built up a relationship with people like Tony Blair, Bertie Ahern, Albert Reynolds and with the President of the United States. All of them have stated, time and time again, that they believe in the Sinn Féin leadership, that they believe we are serious about this process and that they believe that we can be trusted to press forward with a process which is designed to end conflict, to bring about justice, to bring about equality and to bring about a peaceful future for ourselves, our families and our children. For us that is what the process is all about.
We hear Unionist representatives saying that they are for decommissioning but that perhaps Sinn Féin is not. Some go further and say that Sinn Féin is opposed to it. All our efforts over the greater part of this decade, I contend, have shown - and we have proved this to the highest people in the highest places in this world - that we, as well as wanting to bring about an end to conflict, injustice, inequality, discrimination and domination, want to bring about the removal of all guns from Irish politics. It is not true that the Ulster Unionists and Sinn Féin are generally divided on this issue. The difficulty comes when the Unionists wrongly, as David Trimble admitted in a recent debate in this House, interpret the Good Friday Agreement as stating that there is a precondition to Sinn Féin's participation in an executive. There is not, and we all know it.
What did the Good Friday Agreement do about this issue? It made decommissioning or the removal of weapons from Irish politics the responsibility of us all, at least of all those who signed up to that agreement. It is the responsibility of us all. We in Sinn Féin are not going to take on our shoulders sole responsibility for resolving this issue. I think that both Governments are listening to the argument that the key phrase in the agreement is that responsibility for this lies with all the participants.
I have met Gen de Chastelain on many occasions. I was glad to see many of the other parties going to meet him last week because up until then I had met with the general more than the other parties put together. I have told Gen de Chastelain that there is a responsibility to be shared and that Sinn Féin is not going to accept responsibility for this alone.
The Ulster Unionists talk about decommissioning as if its taking place is proof of a party's or parties' commitment to peace and democracy. It is no such thing. It does not prove that at all, and the LVF's decommissioning clearly shows that. I know that this is a difficult process for Unionists, but it is also a difficult process for Republicans.
One of the big difficulties, even the great sadness, of this process has been the lack of connection between the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin. I do not know Roy Beggs Jnr; I do not know Pauline Armitage; I do not know Peter Weir. They never gave me the chance to get to know them. That is their right, but is it how a peace process should work? Most people in the international community would be shocked to know that if I were to meet David Trimble walking along a corridor here today he would not even say "Hello". Is that how a peace process should work?
Over the weekend I spoke on the telephone to a very senior businessman who is a Unionist and a supporter of the Ulster Unionist Party. He told me that he was shocked to discover that the last time David Trimble met with Gerry Adams was 18 December of last year - two months ago. Is that how a peace process should work? I think not.
There needs to be a real engagement between the Ulster Unionist Party and ourselves. They have hurts. They see us as people with a lot of baggage. I understand all of that. We have hurt them, but they must also look at it from our perspective. The people that we represent have been hurt. They were hurt on "bloody Sunday"; they were hurt by the introduction of internment; they were hurt by gerrymandering; they were hurt by discrimination; they were hurt by the killing of Pat Finucane; they were hurt by the fact that, as we can now prove, elements within British military intelligence, involved with Loyalist death squads, were involved in the killing of our people - probably by the hundred, the Pat Finucane case being only the tip of the iceberg.
Stephen Leach, one of the architects of decommissioning, has been in the United States in the last two weeks, and he told people he met that Sinn Féin would not get positions on an Executive unless - these are his exact words -
"there is an actual surrender of weapons by the IRA."
This is Stephen Leach, the man who thought up this issue and gave it to John Major in order to prevent negotiations taking place. If John Major had won the 1997 general election none of us would have been standing here today. We are now facing a situation where the Ulster Unionist Party is threatening to use this issue against Sinn Féin's participation in the Executive, using the same veto. I hope the British Prime Minister will not allow that to happen, because behind all of this, ongoing attacks are still being carried out by the Orange Volunteers and the Red Hand Defenders.
I have here a component part of a hand grenade which was thrown in my constituency in recent weeks. I believe it is one of those hand grenades imported into the North of Ireland in the last 10 years by Brian Nelson with the assistance of British military intelligence. These were the weapons that were divided between the UVF, the UDA and the Ulster Resistance. We heard "Peter the Great (the Clontibret raider)" and the "Grand Old Duke of Paisley" - who climbed up many a hillside - claiming this morning that they had absolutely nothing to do with all of this.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I must ask you to bring your remarks to a close.
Mr M McGuinness:
The point I am making is that the agreement is clear. In the next four weeks there will be a shadow Executive, and if there is any justice whatsoever in this process, we will on 10 March see a full-blown Executive with Sinn Féin Ministers in it.
Mr Campbell:
Mr Initial Presiding Officer, the security implications of the device brought in to the Chamber will not have escaped your notice. I am sure you will investigate that.
I wish to commence with a brief reference to the consultative Civic Forum and the intention to have the same.
Reference was made to what might be described as our inactivity in coming forward with proposals regarding the Civic Forum, and there are those who would like to try to denigrate our position in relation to that by saying that we are totally and utterly opposed to the formation of a Civic Forum. They obviously have not read the amendment. We would not have had and do not have today any difficulty whatsoever in putting forward constructive proposals for that forum, but we are not going to sit down with the representatives of armed terror, be they called Sinn Féin/IRA or IRA/Sinn Féin - and I know there is a feeling out there in the community about which they should be called. We will not be participating in that sense.
Mr A Maginness:
Does the Member agree that the DUP boycotted the study group that was concerned with detailed proposals for the Civic Forum and that the DUP, by so boycotting, was not in a position to address the issues which it purports to address in the Chamber today?
Mr Campbell:
I do not know whether Mr Maginness is as conversant with ordinary English as he was with the French-English of a recent television programme, but we made a full, written submission about the Civic Forum, and we discussed it in bilaterals. How he can see that as total opposition on our part to the Civic Forum is something that I cannot understand, so I will leave it for others to work out.
The Civic Forum is to be composed in a particular way, and others have outlined the problem - indeed, the many problems - arising from allocating so many positions to the voluntary and community groups, and from allowing the First and Deputy First Ministers to appoint six people and so on. There is no place for any formal local government involvement, yet that could have been considered.
Round-table consultations with six of the Assembly parties established this report, but there is no reference to the fact that consultations are supposed to take place on a whole range of matters. Two weeks ago we were having a serious debate here.
Mr Interim Presiding Officer, you were absent because of the subject matter of that debate. There were those - and they are to be found in almost all the groups that are mentioned under paragraph 5(1) - who opposed my party's motion of no confidence in you, thereby implying they had every confidence in you. Yet today we are told that consultations have been going on for a number of days and that it would not be expedient to proceed. We will deal with that in the coming days and the sleaze that goes on behind closed doors will no doubt be revealed.
The more substantial part of my comments relates to what will undoubtedly be established, and that is the Executive. We could dwell on, as I know some people have, promises made. I could refer to advertisements at the time of the referendum, to assurances given, and to adverts that cost tens of thousands of pounds, and I could well cause some embarrassment if I were to do that. There were Ulster Unionist voices that said "Yes for the Union." I could cause acute embarrassment, but I do not know that that would do any good.
I do not know that that would bring us any further forward because my feeling is that, for the large part, minds have been made up; and people are prepared to live with the consequences of their actions. That is the feeling that I get. We are undertaking a debate today which will result in a vote that will lead to the setting up of a Government: a 10-person Executive, two members of which - and that is one fifth of the Government - are inextricably linked to a terror machine. Whether they are called Sinn Féin/IRA or IRA/Sinn Féin I care not.
3.30 pm
They will be part and parcel of the Executive that will come about because some token action will occur which will allow the Executive to be formed while allowing Mr Trimble to say that decommissioning has started. Whether it is Gen de Chastelain or Mo Mowlam in conjunction with Bertie Ahern, a token gesture will be made, and the Executive will be formed.
My main question is this: what then for Unionism? What do we do then? I have taken it as read that the vote will be carried today. From all the speeches and contributions I detect no feeling of regret. In spite of all that has happened and all the shifts that we have detected in opinion polls - even last week, when the Unionist's community's views were seen to harden - there are still those who are determined, for whatever reason, to press ahead. The self-destruct button must be pressed, and they are determined to do it.
After this vote, and for the foreseeable future, there will be three elements of Unionism. First, the defeatist section of Unionism, who, for whatever reason, has decided that it cannot change anything, that the combination of Sinn Féin/IRA, the SDLP, the British Government, the Irish Government, the Irish Americans and the European Union cannot be defeated. People in that section have thrown in the towel and said "Let's make the best of it." That is the defeatist element of Unionism. They have cut their cloth, and there is no going back after this vote. I am not throwing my lot in with them, nor will I ever do so.
The second element of Unionism contains the quitters or those who opt out. I sympathise with some of them because, understandably, they feel that they can no longer participate in politics. They have decided that they are going to quit political involvement or they have already quit, and we see that from the lower turnout from Unionist communities in the east of the Province. I am not in the lobby of those who have decided that there is no point in getting involved because the process is going ahead.
The third element contains those of us who are realists. We know what is going on. We see the reality of what is happening, and we have determined to do something about it, irrespective of our party label - whether we be DUP, Ulster Unionist, UK Unionist, United Unionist, Northern Ireland Unionist, or part of the mass of Unionists who simply see the realpolitik in this building and outside and want a change. They have said "We do not like what we see. We do not want the status quo."
I have said here many times and outside the Chamber a thousand times that we do not want the status quo. Why? Because the status quo has brought us to where we are today. We want a dynamic, determined, confident, assertive Unionism, whatever its label, whatever party we belong to. We want that to enable us to bring about change for our people and for the Nationalist community so that together we can go towards the future and put the past behind us.
Mr Weir:
I rise today not with any sense of pleasure but with a very heavy heart. When looking at this report and the two motions that flow from it, I am reminded very much of the proverbial curate's egg.
I will turn briefly to the part of the report which I find quite reasonable. If we are to put up with the necessary nonsense of a Civic Forum, the proposals are quite reasonable, though not ideal. Therefore, I have no reason to object to item 4 on the Order Paper and will be supporting it.
However, anyone who knows about the substance of a curate's egg, knows that it has good parts and bad parts. The whole point of a curate's egg is that the bad parts make the whole egg rotten - which brings me to the business motion. I will be opposing that motion today and supporting the DUP amendment. I will be doing so because I believe that it is a dangerous motion - and I am not referring here to the number of Government Departments, though my preference would be for six or seven Departments only.
There are criticisms that can be levelled at the make-up of those Departments that have been suggested. They may not create the best administrative system for Northern Ireland, but in themselves they are not dangerous to the Union. What is profoundly dangerous in passing this motion and in making the determination today is that it will place Sinn Féin/IRA closer to the heart of Government and remove one of the most vital barriers between it and executive power.
In days of yore in ancient Rome, the great fear of the citizens was that the citadel would be invaded from outside by barbarians. The phrase often used was that the barbarians "rapped the gate". Today we find ourselves defending the citadel of democracy in a not dissimilar position. I will not compare any of the parties opposite to barbarians, because, given some of the vicious things that have gone on in Northern Ireland, to do so would be to insult barbarians. [Interruption]
Nevertheless, in defending the citadel of democracy at this vital moment the effect of passing the determination will be to remove the guard that is there for the Assembly. Take it away, and you put at the gate, as the barrier between Sinn Féin's getting into government and its being kept out, the Secretary of State. She will be the guardian, and I do not have faith in her to defend our democracy. The only remaining option for citizens faced with being overrun by barbarians is to destroy the citadel itself - and that is not a good strategy for Unionists.
I do not, here today, question the sincerity of my Colleagues who will presumably vote in favour of this. I do not question either their integrity or their motives - I know that they are of the highest level. What I do question is their judgement on these tactics. What is to be gained by passing this determination?
It has been said that this determination has to be passed to enable the various administrative acts to go ahead in preparation for devolution. That is not the case. Section 2.4 of the report indicates that the administrative work in setting up the Departments has already started. The number of Departments was confirmed by the Privy Council on 10 February, and those Departments will come into effect on the day appointed for devolution. Thus the necessary administrative work will not be affected by whether this business motion is passed or not. We are correctly informed that before devolution can occur, there has to be some form of determination. I do not doubt that.
As indicated by Mr Foster earlier, the circumstances are not appropriate at present for setting up an executive. Surely we should wait until the circumstances are appropriate before we formally pass any determination. If the circumstances were appropriate, we would be in a position to pass a determination within a matter of days. It strikes me that to pass it at this time would be foolish.
We have been told that the stopgap measure offers an opportunity for a review of the whole process. We have been told by the Taoiseach - and we have no reason to doubt the Taoiseach's word because he is a man who is consistent - that if we reach a review stage, nothing can really change. We have also been told this by Members opposite, particularly those on the SDLP Benches, and to be fair to them they have always been completely straight on this issue. We are going to vote on the agreement, and this is what is going to go through.
In any event, if we enter into that review having made the determination, we will be throwing away one of the Assembly's strongest cards - the final veto over the establishment of an executive, when that is by no means necessary. We will be handing over to the Secretary of State who will, via the Standing Orders, have complete control over its establishment and the timing of its establishment.