If we take the course of action that is proposed in the DUP amendment and reject the determination, we would not be passing any judgement on the nature of the Departments. All the preparatory work can go ahead so that were we to reach the situation in which we were ready for devolution, that could happen.

We would be sending a very clear message to the Government that the Assembly will not tolerate terrorists in government under any circumstances. We would be sending a clear message that no one could misunderstand.

In any form of politics there are times when the dictates of one's party conflict with matters that one believes to be vital to the good governance of the country. This is one such occasion, and in all conscience I will vote against the determination because it is entirely inappropriate.

Members should note that however things go between now and March or in the future, this will be the last opportunity for individual Assembly Members to voice their concern on this issue. Once the motion is passed, individual Assembly Members will not have that opportunity again.

My good friend Dr Birnie - whether he will want to claim that description is another matter; if I am going down perhaps I can take him with me - quoted Stanley Baldwin, who said that power without responsibility was the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages. At that time there was another quote of which I do not know the source, and I fear that it will come into play if we accept the motion. We will be left with responsibility without power, which has been the prerogative of the eunuch throughout the ages. I urge Members not to be the eunuch but to take a stand by voting no to the motion and supporting the amendment.

Mr Dallat:

The report sets out the blueprint for the future of Northern Ireland and its relationship with its neighbours. It is the culmination of months, indeed years, of hard work, and I pay tribute to those Members who worked hard to bring us to this stage in the political process.

It is my wish and without doubt the desire of the vast majority of people of both traditions that this day will mark a new beginning, a new style of politics and a new kind of democracy. Not everyone has welcomed the report with open hands. Some are apprehensive and a few are openly hostile, but we must be prepared for that, because politics should be about taking risks, meeting challenges and overcoming difficulties. It is certainly not about running away or about coming here with a sound bite for the media, and nothing more. [Interruption] I remind DUP Members that when they were speaking I gave them the courtesy of silence. I hope that Mr Robinson hears me. [Interruption]

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order.

Mr Dallat:

Change does not come easy to many people. We have a long history of resisting change, not only in politics, but in many aspects of our daily lives. Some Members came here today by motor car. One or two arrived in chauffeur-driven limousines, and perhaps Sammy Wilson came on his motorbike. In the last century when the motor car made its debut, someone walked in front with a red flag to warn of the dangers. In such circumstances some Members might have arrived with a green flag in front.

Just as the motor car has turned out to be safe if handled properly, let us hope that the new style of politics proposed in this report will be accepted - even if we continue to argue about the colour of the flag.

3.45 pm

We cannot continue on horseback, because we are going nowhere fast. Members must face the future, uncertain as it may be, and we must stop putting obstacles that will prevent political progress in the way. In the engineering world, people from these Northern Counties influenced a rapidly changing world with their inventions. People like Harry Ferguson, John Boyd Dunlop and many others did not turn away just because someone in Parliament said "You must confine your motor car to five miles per hour, and you must have someone walking in front with a red flag."

As Members debate this report the world is moving on, away from the engineering world which I have reflected upon and on to a new world of science and technology. That is the immediate challenge facing Members. Just as there were great innovators eager to encourage change in the past, there are many splendid people in the universities and the world of work today who have the knowledge and skills to put Northern Ireland back on the map. Their work has been seriously hindered by the continued political instability, and it is our task to do something constructive about that. Are Members prepared to be constructive or will we continue to live in the past with our little flags the only security we have to offer? I hope not.

Over the past few months Members have had an opportunity to focus on the political problems of the North and concentrate their minds on possible solutions. We know that the New Assembly must target social need, influence economic development and encourage cultural diversity. There will be 10 Government Departments as well as the six implementation bodies to do just that.

Members have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that education and training is appropriate to today's needs and those of tomorrow. If Northern Ireland is to compete in the ever-changing world of science and new technology, much has to be done to make up for the neglect of the past. Members cannot walk away from this responsibility merely because they disagree on a timescale for redressing decommissioning or whatever.

Northern Ireland has been through hell for 30 years. Is the two-year timescale for sorting out these problems too much to live with? Progress in matters such as decommissioning is important; it will help reduce fear and mistrust, and Members who can influence progress have a responsibility to do so.

But there are other issues to be faced, and the most fundamental is the ability to trust each other and, in turn, to encourage the wider community to do likewise.

In the Assembly there are encouraging signs that people from different backgrounds are making a genuine effort to stretch out the hand of friendship. Slowly but surely they have begun the process of building bridges and have set about laying the foundations of a new future built on mutual respect and a growing sense of confidence. This process is the greatest weapon to ensure that never again will politics fail. Is it too much to ask that Members ensure that people can continue to build bridges, create trust and show leadership?

Returning to the report before us, let us welcome it enthusiastically so that we can at last begin to address the very serious problems in the Health Service, deal with the shortcomings in education and tackle social injustice in all its forms, particularly unemployment.

Over the last nine months, I have had the chance to meet many people, many involved in the world of business and commerce, others running the various Government agencies or holding down key positions in our universities and places of higher education. I have also met a multiplicity of people involved in the community sector working both in a voluntary and statutory capacity. All of them are dedicated people who have ideas for the future and some will, no doubt, become members of the Civic Forum where they can assist and support the Assembly in its work.

How can I, or anyone else, go back to these people to tell them that we have failed? We cannot do it, and if those who say they are opposed to the report were honest with themselves, they could not do it either. They are waiting for someone else to blink, to give way so that they can run to the battery of cameras outside screaming "Sell-out".

For political expediency, they want to gamble with the lives and future prosperity of our people. They do not care about the Health Service, the failings in our education system or the plight of the ordinary working-class people of this Province who have no jobs and no hope.

Mr R Hutchinson:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I take exception to the Member's suggesting that Members on this side of the House who are opposing the motion do not care about education and health. How dare he?

Rev William McCrea:

Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. How can it be that those who are so concerned about education and the rest will waste £90 million to have 10 Ministries and jobs for the boys?

Mr Dallat:

I will accept their apologies.

A few of those involved have made their fortune. Others are waiting, hoping, even praying, that someone else will make the decisions so necessary and they can continue to enjoy the salaries and perks of this House but without responsibility for those decisions. Their only contribution so far is to condemn and crucify those - [Interruption]

Mr R Hutchinson:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer.

Mr Dallat:

No more points of order.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It is not for one to dismiss points of order that arise.

Mr Dallat:

They are not points of order.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

When you find yourself in this Chair, as you undoubtedly will, you can deal with that particular question. If these are not points of order, then it makes me very chary of accepting future ones.

Mr Hutchinson, if it is genuinely a point of order, please give it.

Mr R Hutchinson:

That is not for me to decide, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. It is up to you to decide whether it is genuine or not.

Would the Gentleman be so aggressive if he were asking these Members here to get rid of their arms?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

That is not a point of order, and I will consider that when further points of order are requested. I cannot do otherwise.

Mr Dallat:

At all times I have shown courtesy to other Members when they were speaking.

Their only contribution so far is to condemn and crucify those who have shown courage and leadership. No one will ever know if the parliamentarians of the past who ordered that red flags should be carried in front of motor vehicles were genuinely concerned about the danger of the motor vehicles, or were simply political opportunists playing on fear in the same way as our politicians are today.

This morning Mr Mallon asked us to place our trust in each other. Mr Ervine reinforced that very well this afternoon. I will end with a little prayer of St Francis:

"Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace.
Where there is hatred let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
Where there is sadness, joy."

Northern Ireland needs to take heed of those sentiments. I beg the Assembly to endorse the report in its entirety.

Mr Shannon:

In 1966, following criticism from the anti-O'Neillite opposition to the perceived anti-Unionist policies of Terence O'Neill, Lord Brookeborough gave this warning to his party colleagues:

"Many of us do not like the way things have been going of late. May I offer grave warning at this time - never at any time can we Unionists afford to forget that in unity, and unity alone, rests all our strength."

I appeal to those Unionists who would do today what they have refused to do during 30 years of terror, and that is to hand over to Dublin the right to dictate to people in Northern Ireland the way in which they should run their lives. This is the greatest concession ever to Republican violence in the history of Northern Ireland, and it is being made in the name of peace. Peace means that there are no bombs in London, although a certain level of violence can be accepted in Northern Ireland. This peace will only last until such time as Sinn Féin/IRA grows frustrated and returns to doing what it does best. [Interruption]

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. I find myself in the unusual position of having to ask for order from the colleagues of the Member who is speaking.

Mr Shannon:

I appeal to Ulster Unionists to stand by their manifesto pledges and rejoin us as we strive for the return of true democracy in Northern Ireland.

What has changed between 1974 and 1999? In 1974, Unionists stood firm and united to oppose the executive interference of Dublin, through the Council of Ireland, in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. In 1999, some Unionists support executive inference by Dublin, through the proposed North/South bodies. In 1974, it was proposed to establish an Executive based on a wholly unrepresentative and undemocratic Nationalist-to-Unionist ratio of 50:50. In 1999, some of the people who opposed this body 25 years ago are now supporting exactly the same proposal. In the past 30 years, however, more than 3,500 lives have been lost in this country in our attempts to preserve freedom and justice.

Those who support the ratification of this treacherous report say that it is the only way forward, if we do not want the murders and mutilations to resume. We are here today because of that violence, not because we are participating in a genuinely democratic process. For the time being, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and their murderous colleagues are satisfied with the concessions that have been made. But their strategy means that they will inevitably return to terror when these concessions cease. The peace of which these men speak is not based on compromise or on mutual respect but will be possible only when there is a united Ireland. Only then will they cease to have any quasi-political reasons for murdering Unionist people.

We all welcome investment in Northern Ireland, and the jobs and prosperity that go with it. However, what precluded peace and prosperity in the past was violent terrorism. There has been huge destruction of both life and property. The only path to peace and stability is to remove guns and explosives from the situation.

Sinn Féin/IRA demands that all sides carry out decommissioning - not just paramilitary organisations but also the legitimate forces of law and order in Northern Ireland, (the RUC and the British Army). If Sinn Féin were genuine in its wish for equality, it should demand that the Irish Army decommission. In 1969, this Army gathered at the border, in a blatantly provocative operation to "defend" one section of this community. They should be part of Sinn Féin's equation. They could decommission a few tanks, to start with - that is if they have any. Perhaps the Irish Navy could scuttle a gunboat or two. That might stop them from illegally boarding British fishing vessels from Portavogie and Kilkeel in British waters.

Sinn Féin/IRA never stops talking about equality, but what about equality for the victims of their search for "peace"? What about the thousands of families and friends who have been robbed of their loved ones? When will we hear Gerry Adams stand up for the rights of the victims of the IRA? On 12 September last year, troops made a last symbolic patrol on the streets of Belfast before withdrawing to barracks. Yet the activities of all the paramilitary organisations have shown no signs of diminishing whatsoever. People are still being maimed by the weapons which the IRA and other groups continue to hold.

At the end of September last year, soldiers of the Royal Irish Regiment stationed along the border had their personal protection weapons decommissioned. Perhaps the IRA could give their defenceless victims a week's notice of their assassination, so that they can pop down to the barracks and sign out a personal protection weapon

Rumours about an escalation in Republican terrorism in those areas have substance. This is an ongoing problem for the security forces who, in spite of the supposed peace, are once again wearing flak jackets.

4.00 pm

The IRA has yet to decommission one single round of ammunition. There can be few families in the Province which have not been touched by the deadly, cold hand of terrorism. While the Unionist and the Protestant people have felt the brunt of IRA violence, it is often forgotten that the organisation which was singularly responsible for the deaths of most Roman Catholics during the past 30 years was the IRA - the so-called protectors of Nationalists.

Two victims in particular come to mind. First, Kenneth Smyth, a UDR sergeant - my cousin - murdered on 10 December 1971, and, secondly, his colleague, Daniel McCormick, an ex-UDR soldier. Kenneth Smyth had been a B-Special; he was a UDR sergeant and a Protestant. Daniel McCormick had been in the UDR; he was a Roman Catholic, who left behind three young children. That is an example of a Protestant and a Roman Catholic both defending their country and both murdered by the IRA. As on most occasions throughout the troubles, the murderers simply made their way back to the sanctuary and confessional box of the Irish Republic.

Some people see fit to question the integrity of the security forces because of their religious make-up. The fate of the two brave men that I have mentioned can only be a major factor in this.

I will list some details of the terror that we had in the month of January to give Members some idea of what these boys are up to in their spare time. They seem to be pretty busy: 15 shootings, 35 beatings, 65 exiles and 69 intimidations - 184 incidents, six for every day in January. These incidents took place, behind backs, in Holywood, Bangor, Cookstown, Londonderry, Dungannon, throughout Belfast and all over the place - an ongoing plan of terror against the good people of this Province. That is a phenomenal set of figures and makes interesting reading considering that we are meant to have peace. The conclusion of the peace process should have been peace, but that has not happened. There is not even a basis, a framework, or a foundation for peace of any sort.

All that Members have succeeded in getting is a growing list of demands from Gerry Adams and his pan-Nationalist colleagues. When one considers that it is estimated that the IRA has been responsible for over 1,000 knee-cappings and other forms of torture, which have left people maimed or disabled, one can really grasp the true spirit in which these people operate.

Sinn Fein/IRA has continually reaffirmed its pledge never to decommission, while in the same breath it, and its political masters, demand the destruction of the gallant Royal Ulster Constabulary and the decimation of the criminal justice system. This is the accountable democracy that certain politicians love to eulogise about. Thanks, but no thanks.

Armed terrorists cannot be allowed to take up positions through which they can dictate how we should run our lives when, for over 30 years, they have done their very best to destroy those lives. To do so would be to abandon every principle of freedom and justice that we have ever stood to defend and protect.

Gerry Adams was reported in a recent newspaper interview as having said that hundreds of people who would otherwise have died in the conflict are alive and well today because of these endeavours. He seemed to be implying that had not the ongoing concessions process offered up sufficient gains to satisfy the insatiable tapeworm appetite of pan-Nationalists, his colleagues would have killed hundreds more people in protest. Gerry Adams makes it crystal clear that that is what would have occurred, and he is saying that if his demands are not met, this is what will happen in future.

It is blatantly obvious that this Executive, this report, the agreement and this whole process are in no way accountable to the people of Northern Ireland, who have paid the price for a 30-year campaign of terror waged against them. On the contrary, it is based simply on the whim of those who were responsible for 30 years of violence, people who were, and still are, committed to the destruction of this country.

These people retain every ounce and bullet of their weapons capability to enable them to recommence their terror campaign, and their words indicate that that is what they intend to do, yet this report proposes to give them seats in the Executive of the Assembly, to see the destruction of Northern Ireland from within. At the same time, Dublin is given the first tentative reins of executive power over us.

Other Members have referred to their children. I am the father of three young boys, and I will be doing my best for them by taking this stand. It is for them and for the thousands of other children that the DUP takes a stand, and it is for the children and the grandchildren that we urge Unionists not to support this report. It is a total travesty of justice and represents a profound adulteration of all democratic principles.

This report must on no account be ratified, and I urge every democrat in the House to take the resolute action which is necessary to restore democracy to Northern Ireland and vote this report into the annals of history. This could be the day that Unionists recaptured their Unionism.

Mr J Kelly:

A Chathaoirligh, we have heard all morning, and into the afternoon, about decommissioning. I contend that the issue which is central to the success of this agreement is not decommissioning but a commitment to equality in all its strands. Equality is at the core of this present peace process.

One has only to reflect back to 1985, to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, when there was no Sinn Féin, no decommissioning, no guns outside the door, inside the door or under the table. There was only the SDLP and the Alliance Party, and mainstream Unionism could not bring itself to share power with those constituents at that time. It is not about decommissioning, a Chathaoirligh, it is about equality.

Sinn Féin has campaigned strongly for a Department to deal with equality issues and we will continue to do so. We will continue to do so, a Chathaoirligh, because equality must be cardinal in the governance of the Six Counties, and a dedicated Department is the only way of beginning to do that. The equality agenda must be developed on an all-Ireland basis. We need to demand the same level of equality promised in the agreement for the 26 Counties as for the Six Counties.

Equality is a right for all our people, North and South, Protestant and Catholic, men and women, black and white. Recognising this truth is the first step towards cherishing all of the children of the nation equally.

A Chathaoirligh, during the 18 January discussions on the report from the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) Sinn Féin strongly criticised the proposal to locate the responsibility for the equality agenda within the office of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). We did so, A Chathaoirligh, because even now, 30 years after the Civil Rights Movement began its campaign to end discrimination, and after 25 years of fair employment legislation, Nationalists are 2·2 times more likely to be unemployed than Unionists. This is why Sinn Féin puts such store by the equality agenda and the establishment of a Department to deal with it.

Neither the Unionist parties nor the British Government, with their proven track record, can be fully trusted to deliver on equality unless it is open and subject to public scrutiny on an ongoing basis. In that context, A Chathaoirligh, Sean Farren, speaking on behalf of the SDLP in an earlier discussion, indicated support for our call for a scrutiny Committee. Unfortunately we have not had any further details of this proposal placed before us today. We hope that this is not an empty promise, and I invite the First Minister (Designate) or the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to share their thoughts on this vitally important matter with us in their concluding comments.

A Chathaoirligh, those who advocated placing responsibility for the equality agenda under the influence of David Trimble have clearly disregarded his inability, thus far, to act impartially on issues of equality. The most glaring example of this lack of impartial perspective is his support for the Orange Order and other Loyalists in their attempts to trample over the rights of the Nationalist residents of the Garvaghy Road. He too has persistently refused to meet with the residents or their elected representatives even though they are his constituents.

We believe that the SDLP has advanced the rather disingenuous argument that Unionists would take control of the equality Department under the d'Hondt system and apply a dead-hand policy to prevent any implementation of equality policies. The SDLP, in making this argument to journalists and to ourselves, appears to accept that the Unionist parties will continue to behave in the discriminatory fashion that has characterised their attitudes in councils throughout the North over the years.

Discrimination must be confronted, a Chathaoirligh, and the parties in this Assembly must set their faces against any practice that discriminates against any section of our community. This is the basis of the Good Friday Agreement and the new political beginning that we all signed up to. Discriminatory policies and practices -

Mr A Maginness:

Does the Member agree that the SDLP's position is to be preferred in relation to equality since this is not the province of one individual Minister? Rather it is a cross-departmental matter that is controlled, directed and inspired from the centre by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), a much more effective means of equality-proofing the policies of the future administration.

Mr J Kelly:

The short answer is no. The reason - if I may continue - is that this is the basis of the Good Friday Agreement and the new political beginning that we all signed up to. Discriminatory policies and practices have distorted the political landscape in the North for many generations, and the Assembly should make it clear that that situation will no longer be tolerated.

We should, indeed, go further and ensure that there is no room for those who would discriminate or for those who would return to the bad old practice of Unionist domination and the denial of rights to Republicans or Nationalists or, indeed, Unionists. The argument that the matter of equality would become a battleground if placed in a separate Department ignores the fact that equality will be a battleground in any case.

It is better to have a dedicated Department with a cross-party scrutiny Committee than to let the issues become an ongoing bone of contention between the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) at the centre or, alternatively, to ignore or long-finger them in order to avoid dissension. If equality is placed at the centre and then ignored or treated with less importance than other issues, we will all come under severe criticism from a community that will feel let down in respect of the promise made to it by the agreement.

The First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) can play an arbiter's role in any dispute between Departments on this matter. They cannot be independent arbiters of their own Department. Equality in all of its dimensions is a critical element of the peace process and cannot be left to the vagaries of internal Unionist political dynamics. Equality of treatment, in all walks of life, has long been a central plank of Sinn Féin's political agenda. Equality, and the eradication of discrimination, are central to the building of a stable and cohesive society.

Paragraph 3, under the heading "Human Rights", in the Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity section of the Good Friday Agreement, sets out a mode of working for public bodies which will be very different from the relationship that such bodies have had with the public until now. New Departments with new Ministers will need a great deal of help, advice and encouragement if we are to set out proper work practices from the outset. A new Department of the centre will simply not be able to give sufficient weight to this along with its other responsibilities in the early months.

In overseeing the new statutory duty on public bodies, both inside and outside the Assembly, an Equality Department could have worked successfully with the new Equality Commission, thus creating a strong internal and external mechanism for bringing about equality.

There can be no lasting political settlement which is not built on a solid foundation of equality. This is a fundamental democratic right which must be seen to be being delivered, and the most transparent manner by which that could be achieved is through an independent Department of Equality which was subject to examination by a cross-party scrutiny committee.

The Good Friday Agreement, a Chathaoirligh, was heralded as the beginning of the end of our shared history of misery, conflict, violence and grief. Throughout the island of Ireland our people have welcomed and voted to support the political accommodations and compromises that were so painstakingly negotiated over so many months. In all of this, a key concept - possibly the key concept - has been equality. The brave new beginning that the people of Ireland voted for, the democratic society that we are attempting to create, can only be built on the most solid foundations of equality.

4.15 pm

Mrs E Bell:

First, I would like to concur with the remarks of my Colleague Mr Neeson on the report as a whole. However, I will concentrate on the proposals for the Civic Forum. The Alliance Party will be supporting the report of the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) as we are very keen to see this Forum established. We do have some concerns over certain aspects of the proposals, and I will outline them now.

First of all, I would like to take the opportunity, as a member of the consultative sub-group, to thank all those organisations and individuals who made submissions. As a local representative and a community activist, I can appreciate the need for the Civic Forum, and I do hope it will be set up as quickly as possible. The development of civil society in Northern Ireland, and the Assembly's interaction with it, are fundamental requirements upon which to build on the foundation laid by the agreement. The Civic Forum can complement the institutions of representative democracy and provide a greater sense of legitimacy to their decisions. It should not, and will not if it is set up effectively, threaten anyone. It is accepted that the Civic Forum should be consultative; nevertheless, there is great scope for its having a substantive and innovative role that will complement the Assembly.

The Civic Forum should be encouraged to look at cross-sectoral, inter-departmental themes. It could initiate new strategic thinking, bring forward fresh ideas and show policy creativity in areas where the Assembly would perhaps not be so flexible. There are a number of policy areas in which it would have important things to say - for example, on sustainable development, social inclusion and the competitiveness of Northern Ireland. It could also play a useful role in addressing society's divisions and help to promote reconciliation, and we need that. It is noteworthy that we in Northern Ireland are lucky to have a large part of civic society organised on cross-community lines.

This report, at times, bears no resemblance to the areas in our sub-group report, and I am sorry about that. Comments and suggestions made by all parties have been left out, and those omissions take away from the credibility of the report. It is disappointing that the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) have not reflected the hopes expressed by myself and others for the success of the Civic Forum - sometimes even their own hopes.

It is important that the Assembly take the Civic Forum seriously. The Civic Forum should act largely on the basis of matters referred to it by the Assembly, and it should have a useful role to play in commenting on any programme of action coming from the Executive - if we ever get that far.

The report is not clear about whether the Forum will have the ability to raise matters on its own initiative, nor is it clear on the relationship that should be built up between the Assembly and the Civic Forum.

I am also concerned about the proposed nomination process for the 60 members. It should not just comprise the great and the good, although those people have made a contribution, they have been to the forefront of the voluntary, community, trade unionist and commercial worlds; but it should also include people who have worked long and hard in dreadful conditions and without recognition. They have had a great effect on their own communities and on Northern Ireland in general.

I am therefore concerned that the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) have the authority to nominate six personal choices. That was never suggested to us in the sub-group. We have heard a number of Members expressing concern that the UUP and the SDLP have taken too much power onto themselves. It is vital that this Forum maximise, as far as is possible, the diversity of opinion in Northern Ireland. We would lose an opportunity were we not to do it. I therefore ask the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) that information be given to us with regard to the criteria for nominating these six direct appointees. There must be no chance of marginalisation of any group or section, and no preference should be given. The rigid division of the make-up of the different sectors is, perhaps, overly inflexible. I hope that no significant groups have slipped between the cracks and, as a consequence, will feel aggrieved.

I am also unclear as to what was meant by the First Minister (Designate) when he said that they would have oversight of the nominations. Does that mean that the public will nominate these individuals for selection by the First and Deputy First Ministers? Or will they select them after they have discussed it with them and reached an agreement as to who they would put forward? Oversight is not enough. We must be clear regarding the line of selection and nomination.

I do hope that paragraph 10(2) will be adhered to: that the evolution of the Forum will produce an ongoing monitoring programme in the remit of the proposed subcommittee that is mentioned. The review must be effective and constructive to ensure the maintenance of a Civic Forum that represents truly the rich and diverse civic society that abounds in Northern Ireland. After the proposed review of 12 months they can have an ongoing monitoring programme by way of a proper and effective review. It will be like the Assembly, an evolving thing. It is new.

We are starting off from a completely new scenario, and in the Civic Forum we must take all the advantages of the work that has been done in society over the years. We have had more than enough of majority rule in Northern Ireland, so politicians and citizens must now go forward to build an equitable, responsible, accountable and truly inclusive Northern Ireland. The Civic Forum must be equipped to do this and to proceed with the confidence and the respect of the Assembly.

I support the motion.

Mr O'Connor:

Tony Blair stated at the time of the Good Friday Agreement that he felt the hand of history on his shoulder. Twenty-five years after the collapse of the Sunningdale Agreement, history must not be allowed to repeat itself. This process is not perfect, but it gives us the best chance in 25 years to deliver good, accountable government to the people of Northern Ireland on the issues that really matter - health, education, jobs and economic development.

As we consider the contents of the document before us, we must make that step forward. The overwhelming majority of the people voted for that accountable government, and we must deliver it to them. The determination must be made to agree the numbers on departmental responsibilities in order to be able to take this process forward and be ready to assume power on the appointed day.

The agreement is a principled compromise which allows Nationalists and Unionists an equal say in the way our country is to be governed. It is fitting, therefore, that an Executive should reflect this equity by having 10 Ministers and 10 Departments. By having five Nationalist Ministers and five Unionist Ministers we will have to work together for the good of all the people.

Some people have suggested seven ministerial Departments: four Unionist and three Nationalist. This would be a perversion of the election. The combined first preference vote of Nationalists and Republicans for the SDLP and Sinn Féin was 320,821. The combined first-preference vote for the Ulster Unionist Party and the DUP was 318,142. It is inconceivable that with Nationalists and Republicans achieving more votes at the polls than the DUP or UUP, the process should be gerrymandered to allow Nationalists less representation on an Executive. That would be totally unjust. The designation of the 10 Departments provides many overlaps, thus making it necessary for all the Ministers to work together collectively for the good of all the people.

I welcome the proposals for the Civic Forum. I pay tribute to the six parties which took part in the round-table discussions on it. The Civic Forum is very important in that it will complement the Assembly. It will act as a valuable consultative body, and its membership will be inclusive. All sections of the people will be represented through industry, trade unions and voluntary organisations.

Mr Kelly, a Sinn Féin Member for Mid Ulster, touched on the Equality Department and why his party felt that it was necessary to have a separate Equality Department. I welcome the fact that the Equality Department is being retained within the office of First and Deputy First Ministers. It is much too important an issue to be the remit of one Minister.

Mr Kelly said that the Unionists, the British, could not be trusted with equality. That is exactly why it cannot be the remit of either a Nationalist or a Unionist. It is much more important than that. By retaining it within the office of the First and Deputy First Minister, each can police the situation for the benefit of both Nationalist and Unionist; they can ensure that equality is a real issue in each of the 10 Departments, and it is not sidelined. The political integrity of the whole equality issue will be maintained as long as it stays at the centre.

There can be no blaming Unionists for doing this or Nationalists that. By retaining it within the collective office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, we ensure that it is dealt with correctly.

Every Member is responsible for ensuring the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Within the agreement parties must use their influences to achieve full decommissioning of all illegal weapons by May 2000. This is still the case. The Deputy First Minister (Designate) has said that if it does not happen he will vote to exclude those who do not fulfil these obligations from ministerial office, and I support him in this.

But today violence in our streets has subsided. People now focus on punishment beatings. They are terrible and an abuse of human rights. We all accept that. But people are walking our streets today who would not otherwise be. Before the ceasefires between 80 and 100 people lost their lives through terrorist violence each year. Since the ceasefires in 1994, there are between 300 and 400 people alive in this country who would not be otherwise. This is something that we should not lose sight of. Had only one person been still alive, this whole process would still have been worthwhile and to suggest otherwise is total nonsense.

Many Members have talked about decommissioning, including the decommissioning of guns. Perhaps some of them - those former members of the Ulster Resistance - would use their influence to ensure that the illegally held weapons brought in from South Africa are also decommissioned.

4.30 pm

I remind the House that guns do not kill people. People kill people. Guns are sometimes used, but the weapon can be a knife, a hammer or a crowbar. It is far better to decommission the mindset that makes people want to kill. That can be achieved through the democratic process in which we are engaged. By listening and learning from each other we can build the trust that will move this society forward.

I should like to finish my maiden speech by quoting Martin Luther King. He said

"We are not where we want to be, but thank God we are not where we used to be."

Mr S Wilson:

We have had a useful debate in which many of the issues that surround the report have been well aired. Perhaps it has not been as colourful as the debate on 18 January. Mr Mallon has not been flying his aeroplane, and Mr Close has not been pushing his wheelbarrow, but we have dealt with some of the issues.

Two aspects of the report have been skirted. The Ulster Unionists have been guilty of that because they fear where the report will take them, and Members of other parties have done it because they know that the contents of this report, the compromise as they call it, is not the essence of good government for Northern Ireland.

I will use a metaphor which I am sure Members, and especially Sinn Féin Members, will understand. The report is a political time bomb that people started to construct in December. Bringing the report to the Assembly has put in place its timing mechanism, and the leader of Sinn Féin has said "When we take the vote, we will trigger that mechanism." Perhaps he knows all about triggering mechanisms.

The First Minister (Designate) has told us that we then simply hand it to the Secretary of State to do as she wants. She has no intention of defusing that bomb if things do not go the way that the Ulster Unionists think they should go. It will explode and destroy democracy and the Union because it will blow into government members of Sinn Féin/IRA.

I do not care what we have heard from Members of Sinn Féin in the debate. Gerry Adams spoke about being concerned that there was no Minister for children. Many were left as orphans by the work of his organisation. Gerry Adams also talked about there being no special provision for the elderly, many of whom have lived all their adult lives in the shadow of the gun and the bomb, and perhaps lost loved ones as a result. Sinn Féin portrays this new image, which was probably just as nauseating on the television upstairs as it was in the Chamber.

David Ervine turned all his bile on DUP Members because they dared to highlight the true nature and affiliations of Sinn Féin. I do not regard him as a traitor. However, I do regard him as a sad case, who comes from the Unionist community and spends the 10 minutes he has in the Assembly attacking fellow Unionists and defending Sinn Féin. You would think that he might have learnt by now - the man who gave Gerry Adams the benefit of the doubt at the time of Canary Wharf. You would think he would have learnt by now not to trust IRA/Sinn Féin. [Interruption]

I will come to the Member in a minute. I do not want him to feel left out.

We have this new face of Sinn Féin - Martin  McGuinness tells us he is offended because when he walks along the corridors in this building, David  Trimble will not say "Hello" to him. Of course, he does not say "Hello" to half of his own party, so it really does not make much of a difference. This is the new sensitive face, the caring face, of Sinn Féin that is being presented - they plant trees instead of bombs, and we are supposed to think that this is progress. Well, I do not believe it is progress to set in train a string of events which will place people who still wish to retain their arsenal in a government.

The second thing I wish to say is this: quite a lot of Members have mentioned aspects of this report which they do not like. It is not a report set for good or efficient government - it was never designed for that. The First Minister said that it had been his aim to have seven Departments, and indeed Members of his own party have said that more than seven Departments were unnecessary. Anyone who wanted more than seven departments just wanted to get his snout in the trough. Yet the First Minister (Designate) said that he gave up the idea of seven Departments not because it would be good for efficient government but because it gave him a negotiating tool. We have finished up now with 10 Departments which will cost the taxpayers £90 million and give us a form of government which is most inefficient.

People have asked why the DUP did not put forward proposals. We did. We said that there was nobody in the House who had any experience of government in Northern Ireland in the past and that, rather than jump in with both feet, we should start with what we had. Then, if we needed to expand Government Departments after we had learnt about how they operated, we could do that later. But, oh no. Now we have a set of new Government Departments.

Let me talk about something that was mentioned this morning. The education and library boards will now find themselves responsible not to one Minister but to three Ministers. For schools, it will be the Minister for Education; for student support, the Minister for Higher Education; and for libraries the Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure. Is that going to lead to better government? In no other part of the United Kingdom are, for example, schools and libraries separated.

We have got a programme which the Department of Education has been promoting and which I understand all parties in the Assembly have been promoting - Education for Life-long Learning. The whole essence of this programme is that we have an integrated system of education. Libraries, schools and further education are all integrated. What has this report done? This report has fragmented that.

I also have some knowledge of planning. In England, unitary authorities are being set up because it has been recognized that it is a nonsense to separate development control from strategic planning. What does this report do? It separates strategic planning from development control, and transport planning, urban planning, social regeneration and social development are elsewhere. Three elements of planning are in three different departments - and this is supposed to give us more efficient government.

Indeed, some of the report's authors do not have a clue about what is meant by some of the terms. I always understood "sustainable development" to encompass all aspects of government - where one integrates it, and where one plans to make sure that communities are sustainable. Therefore one has to make sure that schools, roads and housing, for instance, are in the right location. Sustainable development is a kind of overarching concept in planning, yet it has been stuck into one department. I suppose the rest of those engaged in planning will feel that it is not their responsibility.

I could go on, but I do not have much time. Were Assembly Members to be honest with themselves, they would recognise this report for what it is - a piece of political chicanery and nothing to do with effective government. That is why we will be rejecting it.

Mr Wells:

On a point of order. We have just listened to another outstanding contribution from the Member for East Belfast, and the reason everyone in the Chamber listened to his every word was that he did not read from a prepared text. All Members of the Assembly have made their maiden speeches. There is no excuse now for any Member to read verbatim from a prepared text. Can we not encourage Members to stop reading their speeches and engage in proper debate?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I accept that that is an interesting point of order, and I shall make two responses to it. First, should Members wish this to be included as a note in Standing Orders, the proper thing to do would be to bring it to the attention of the Committee on Standing Orders. It is constructing the draft Standing Orders which I hope will be presented to this Chamber fairly soon. Should it be included in Standing Orders, I hope that Members will also indicate how the matter might be policed - for the sake of myself or whoever else is in the Chair. Secondly, in the absence of a Standing Order, should the Member concerned be very persuaded by the value of speeches being produced with the tremendous vitality and enthusiasm of his Colleague, he could perhaps draw that to the attention of some of his other Colleagues who have perhaps been a little less impressive.

Ms O'Hagan:

A Chathaoirligh. First, I give today's report a qualified welcome. It is a welcome if belated step forward in the political process towards setting up the Executive and the all-Ireland bodies. My Colleagues have been outlining our party's concerns with this report and I share those concerns, especially with regard to the placing of equality in the centre. Equality and human rights provisions were central to the Good Friday Agreement. Outside the confines of this Assembly, equality and human rights have been scarce commodities in Portadown. The small Nationalist community in that town has endured more than seven months of an orchestrated campaign of sectarian terror and intimidation carried out by the Orange Order and its supporters.

Since last July there have been more than 150 protests and demonstrations, most of them illegal, held by the Orange Order and Loyalists in the town. These have been carried out on an almost nightly basis, effectively corralling the small Nationalist community centred on the Garvaghy Road into their homes. The Nationalist population of Portadown cannot go about their normal, everyday business in the town. They cannot shop, go to the bank or to the post office or visit the local leisure centre for fear that they will be attacked and beaten. Those areas are out of bounds to them. Loyalists have verbally and physically abused schoolchildren whose uniform marks them out as Catholics. The case of Robert Hamill -

Mr Dodds:

On a point of order. The Member has just referred to the phrase "out of bounds". In terms of the motion her speech is very clearly out of bounds. We are not debating the Garvaghy Road or the Drumcree situation today, and I ask you to direct the Member to be relevant in her remarks.

4.45 pm

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I was waiting to see how her speech related to one of the Departments. I trust that Ms O'Hagan will speak to the motion.

Ms O'Hagan:

The case of Robert Hamill, who was beaten to death in Portadown town centre by a Loyalist mob as the RUC looked on, graphically illustrates the reality of sectarianism in Portadown.

Mr P Robinson:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. At the last sitting there was a clear direction by the Chair - not by you but by the person who took over in your absence - that Members had to confine their remarks to the issues that are contained in the motions on the Order Paper. It is clear that that is not being done. I ask you to ensure that Members confine their comments to the matters on the Order Paper and not trot out some hobby horse that a Member might like to ride up and down the Garvaghy Road.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

We are debating the Departments, and I ask Ms O'Hagan to speak to the motion.

Ms O'Hagan:

If I am allowed to continue the House will see the relevance of my comments because I will refer to equality being under the auspices of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate).

It is against the background of the shameful events in Portadown that the failure to implement the Good Friday Agreement is set. The continuing political vacuum, caused by the failure of Unionism to deal with Nationalism on the basis of equality, is the reason for the crisis in Portadown. David Trimble, despite his roles as MP and Assembly Member for the area and the First Minister (Designate), has consistently refused to meet the representatives of the Garvaghy Road community. His latest refusal occurred just last week. David Trimble is a member of the Orange Order, and he should use his influence to halt the organised campaign of violence that is being carried out by the Orange Order in Portadown.

Mr Morrow:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. At the last sitting of the Assembly, when I tried to speak I was interrupted 14 times. I was challenged because it was claimed that I was not speaking to the motion. Ms O'Hagan is not speaking to the motion, and I ask you to rule on that.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Your colleagues raised that and I asked Ms O'Hagan to speak to the motion. It seems that Ms O'Hagan is beginning to address the matter of the First Minister (Designate) and his Department. If she continues in that direction her speech will be relevant.

Ms O'Hagan:

The report asks Members to make equality the responsibility of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). How does Mr Trimble propose to ensure that the people of the Garvaghy Road are treated with equality, given that he refuses to speak to them?

That community has a right to expect Mr Trimble to ensure that their rights are protected. The Good Friday Agreement, under the section Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity, states that the parties to the agreement affirm the right to freedom from sectarian harassment. From July, events in Portadown show the inability of Unionism to live up to the Good Friday Agreement. Those events also call into question the ability of the First Minister (Designate) to treat Nationalists on a basis of equality. Peace requires change that is based on equality, justice, human rights and respect.

It is time to stop Unionist terror and violence in Portadown. David Trimble has the power and influence to end the Nationalist nightmare in that town and to resolve the crisis in the political process and set about the implementation of the Executive. If he is serious about peace and sincere in his desire to create a new political atmosphere, he must act and act quickly.

Go raibh maíth agat.

Mr Roche:

The report from the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), which has been put to the Assembly for a determination by a cross-community vote, feeds into the Armalite and ballot box strategy of Sinn Féin/IRA. The report does not even mention the word "decommissioning". This means that in its negotiations since July 1998 on the detail of the Belfast Agreement, the UUP leadership has failed to incorporate into this report the logic of its own understanding of the agreement, that the agreement requires the decommissioning of the IRA's terrorist arsenal as a condition of Sinn Féin's taking its seats in the Executive. The failure to build this into the report as an explicit requirement for Sinn Féin's participation in the Executive amounts to total capitulation on the part of the UUP negotiators to what Mr Adams, in the politics of Irish freedom, has called "the vital cutting edge" of the Republican movement.

The UUP negotiators have also capitulated to what Mr Adams refers to as "the non-armed forms of political struggle". The reason for this is that the UUP negotiators have conceded the full Nationalist demand for the number of seats in the Executive. The result of this UUP capitulation is that the role of Sinn Féin/IRA in the Government of Northern Ireland and in the North/South Ministerial Council has been maximised. The overall import of the report can be seen with brutal clarity: the UUP negotiators, in agreeing this report, have finalised the retreat that they have been making throughout the period of the so-called peace process from virtually every position of strategic significance for Unionism. This means that, in the terms of the Belfast Agreement and the detail of this report, the UUP negotiators have capitulated to a moral and political indignity of almost unbelievable proportions.

The terms of the Belfast Agreement and this report provide for the citizens of Northern Ireland to be governed by the architects and activists of the Republican terrorism that has been directed against them for 30 years while the IRA maintains its terrorist arsenal and organisational structures intact.

That is why no Member authentically committed to democracy and to the integrity of the rule of law could possibly vote for this report. But the UUP position is that the report should be agreed by a cross-community determination and then either "parked" or "reviewed" in case the IRA refuses to decommission its terrorist arsenal. The problem with both these proposals - apart from their inherent ambiguity - is that they are not provided for as options in the terms of the agreement.

There is nothing in the agreement that provides for a "parking" of the implementation of the agreement, whatever that term may mean. There are certainly no provisions in the agreement for a "review" in the case of a refusal on the part of the IRA to decommission its terrorist arsenal. These considerations mean that any attempt to "park" or "review" the agreement would not have the support of either the Government of the United Kingdom or the Government of the Republic.

The ultimate strategic blunder on the part of Mr Trimble in putting the report to a determination is that he will either split his own party or the determination will have cross-community support. But in the event of cross-community support, the political initiative will pass immediately to a Secretary of State whose commitment to Irish unity is set out in unambiguous detail in a Labour Party policy document entitled 'Towards a United Ireland', which was co-authored by Mo Mowlam. The determination of the report would mean that the introduction of the Standing Orders to trigger the d'Hondt mechanism to seat Sinn Féin/IRA in the Executive would be entirely at the discretion of a Secretary of State committed to Irish unity.

The Secretary of State would then have to make a choice between "facing down" Unionist opposition to the seating of Sinn Féin in the Executive without IRA decommissioning or a return to terrorism on the part of the IRA. The choice of the Secretary of State is entirely predictable, since the whole political rationale of the agreement is to meet the requirements of Sinn Féin/IRA for what the Mitchell Report describes as "taking the gun out of Irish politics". If need be, this means that the Secretary of State would almost certainly choose the option of neutralising any attempt to "park" the implementation of the agreement, particularly in the wake of the entire detail of the agreement's being accepted in a cross-community vote in the Assembly. A Unionist vote supporting the report would therefore amount to a virtually irretrievable strategic blunder.

The consent principle in the agreement would provide no protection to Unionists once the Rubicon of accepting this report was crossed. The reason for this is twofold.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>