First, the consent principle in the agreement relates only to the issue of the final choice for Irish unity. Secondly, the consent principle in the agreement is not based on recognition of the legitimacy of Unionism. On the contrary, the repeated references in the agreement to "the people of the island of Ireland" and their right to self-determination concedes a fundamental point of Irish Nationalism - that there is a single nation or people on the island of Ireland. Ulster Unionists who took part in the negotiations leading to the agreement were, obviously, unaware that by making this concession to a fundamental tenet of Irish Nationalism they were undermining entirely the legitimacy of Unionism and the status of Northern Ireland within the Union.

The consent principle mentioned in the agreement is not related to any recognition of Unionism but is a purely pragmatic requirement for political stability in a united Ireland. This separation between the principle of consent and the legitimacy of Unionism is a fundamental element in the attitude of Irish Nationalism to Unionist consent. It can also be seen in Dr Mowlam's policy document 'Towards a United Ireland'. This view is that, since Unionism is itself devoid of legitimacy, Unionists have no right of veto over how their consent to Irish unity - or any other issue - is obtained.

The logic of this position is developed in detail by Mr John Hume in his book 'Personal Views'. Mr Hume's central thesis is that the recognition of successive British Governments of Unionists' right to veto with regard to Irish unity was the fundamental cause of the last 30 years of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Mr Hume turns the victim into the culprit and is prepared to follow through unambiguously in the logic of his view on what he calls the Unionist veto. His position is that, if coercion is required to obtain Unionist consent, then Unionists must be coerced. This means that if this report were given cross-community support while its implementation is "parked" Mr Hume would not align the SDLP with those who demand that the IRA should decommission its terrorist arsenal before Sinn Féin can take seats in an executive. On the contrary, Mr Hume would, almost certainly, see such a situation as an appropriate opportunity finally to "lance the Protestant boil".

The presentation of this report to the Assembly brings Northern Ireland to the edge of the Union. The Unionist electorate should, therefore, take this moment to evaluate their leaders coolly, avoiding both political disorientation and defeatism. In short, they must avoid doing what some self-proclaimed leaders of Unionism have done. I take no pleasure in the development of this point.

During the debate on this report the leader of the UKUP set out his reasons for opposing it, just a few days after his party conference had indulged in the political tomfoolery of conferring honorary life membership on Dr Conor Cruise O'Brien. Dr O'Brien is now an unqualified advocate of old-style Irish unity. The argument set out in the final chapter of his memoirs is that Unionists have no option but to negotiate their status as Protestants in a united Ireland. Dr O'Brien dismissed the Union as a mere abstraction and argues that his plan for Irish unity would put the IRA out of business. That is indeed the case, as Dr O'Brien's plan would concede to the IRA everything for which they have terrorised the Unionist community for 30 years.

The political disorientation of the UKUP under Mr McCartney's leadership is such that the author of a plan for Irish unity, involving the appeasement on a massive scale of IRA terrorism, has been reinstated to the party as an honorary life member just a few months after I, with the support of my Assembly Colleagues, and in the face of opposition from Mr McCartney, forced him to resign.

This insight into the politics of the UKUP is entirely relevant to the current situation. A vote to approve the determination of the structures proposed in this report would precipitate a crisis for the Union not seen since 1912. That is why I appeal to UUP Members to vote against the report. If this report is accepted on a cross-community vote, the first task for the Unionist electorate will be to deal with Unionist leaders who have nothing more to commend them than a lethal combination of strategic ineptitude and political stupidity at a time of serious crisis for the Union.

Ms Rodgers:

First of all, I advise Mr Roche to read more carefully what Mr Hume wrote, because he has been quite selective in his dissertation on Mr Hume's views. He might also recognise that it was the SDLP, under John Hume's leadership, that was the first party on these islands to write the word "consent" into its Constitution.

5.00 pm

The report is the culmination of a lengthy process of negotiation and consultation among the parties in the Assembly, and it represents yet another step in the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Let no one forget that this agreement has the support of three out of four people in Northern Ireland and 85% of the people of this island. Those people voted for an agreement which they understood to be a compromise, an accommodation requiring give and take on all sides. They have a right to see the agreement working, and all of us in the Assembly share the responsibility to fully implement the Good Friday Agreement to the letter and, as Seamus Mallon said earlier, in spirit.

The setting up of Departments, as proposed in the report, will allow Members, as democratically elected representatives, to influence in a practical and accountable way the important decisions which affect the lives of their constituents. It will put an end to situations, such as the one which arose last week, when the Government, having announced an injection of resources for pre-school education last year, summarily changed their mind and reallocated the resources elsewhere. Members do not know what priorities influenced this volte-face; we do not know why the money was reallocated, and Members had no say in the matter. That is an intolerable situation, one which can be remedied when Members take the next step of assuming the right to influence and make decisions on these important issues themselves.

I listened to the tired old rhetoric of the past from some of the Benches in the corner opposite. Members heard the usual attempts to represent the proposition - and indeed the whole agreement - as a danger to the Unionist identity. Dr Paisley raised the question of victims of violence - an understandably emotive issue, unfortunately affecting all sections of society. However, the real question is how can Members ensure that there will be no more victims of violence. By raising the temperature and, unnecessarily, the fears of the Unionist community - and we know, from people such as David Ervine, the effect that that has had in Northern Ireland in the past - do Dr Paisley and the DUP think that that is going to do anything to ensure that there will be no more victims of violence?

The agreement which is being implemented, and which I hope will continue to be implemented, is about achieving a situation where there are no more victims of violence and where Members can change the face of this community. Sammy Wilson talked about past atrocities and about blighted and lost lives. I want to know what contribution he and his party have made to bring about the changes which will ensure that no more lives will be blighted or lost. I have not seen that contribution to date.

The leaders of the political parties in this Chamber (John Hume, David Trimble, Gerry Adams and David Ervine - all of them) have taken risks when it was necessary, risks to move away from past attitudes. They have seen the option of sticking with past attitudes and where that has brought the community. I do not need to illustrate it; we have seen it all around us for the last 30 years. They have seen this and have taken the option of taking risks, moving forward and changing the face of this community. This is why, as Danny O'Connor said, "We are where we are and not where we used to be."

May I remind the pro-agreement parties that we need to rededicate and recommit ourselves to what we signed up to and what the people supported:

"We, the participants in the multi-party negotiations, believe that the agreement we have negotiated offers a truly historic opportunity for a new beginning. The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering. We must never forget those who have died or who have been injured, and their families. But we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all.

We pledge that we will, in good faith, work to ensure the success of each and every one of the arrangements to be established under this agreement."

What we need to do is to concentrate on the commitment we have made and ensure that we deliver on it. Each of us needs to concentrate on what we can deliver, not what the others must deliver.

We have firmly committed ourselves to achieving mutual trust. Decommissioning has been raised time and time again. The issue of decommissioning is about establishing mutual trust. It is about building confidence. To rephrase a statement made by the late John F Kennedy, it is not about what we can do for ourselves but what we can do for others. It is about what we can do for the agreement and not what the agreement can do for us.

The agreement is the people's agreement. I have not heard people from either side of the community saying that they are desperately concerned about decommissioning. Of course decommissioning is an issue, but what people are really desperately concerned about is that this agreement should be made to work and that it should be implemented as agreed. That means everyone playing his part in achieving that.

Finally, I want to see decommissioning. My party wants to see decommissioning. The people want to see decommissioning, and I want to ask the Democratic Unionist Party in particular how they are going to bring about decommissioning outside of this agreement which they are opposed to and which they want to see ended. How are they going to do it? It has not been achieved in 30 years.

Seamus Mallon rightly said this morning that the only vehicle we have for bringing about decommissioning is the Good Friday Agreement. If we want it to happen then each of us will play our part in implementing that agreement, in building the necessary confidence and trust to make sure that we can implement it. We cannot implement it and work together in a government where that trust is not built. It is a matter for each of us to build each other's confidence.

I leave Members with those thoughts and support the motion as another step in implementing the will of the people of Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

A number of questions arise out of this debate today. A number of questions must be heavy on the minds of Members, no matter what section of the Assembly they come from.

Is Northern Ireland ready for self-government? Of course, every democrat would say that Northern Ireland deserves self-government. Northern Ireland should never have lost its own parliament in the past. It should never have lost the opportunity to govern itself and the citizens of Northern Ireland. However, with that question comes a solemn responsibility. What type of self-government does Northern Ireland want? What type of self-government does Northern Ireland deserve?

In the report offered by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) there is nothing resembling good and stable government for the people of Northern Ireland. My Colleague Sammy Wilson went through the report looking at each Department and pointing out the ramshackle arrangement of the various Departments. It does not make sense.

It is not only the Democratic Unionist Party that has taken this view about the structure of government in Northern Ireland.

Leading members of the Ulster Unionist Party, people such as Ken Maginnis, have said that this is the worst example of snouts in the trough - old Fianna Fáilism - politics that he has ever seen. Other leading Members, who could by no means be described as belonging to the "no camp" of Unionism, have said that it is a waste of £96 million of Government resources. If that is their view - and they are in favour of the agreement - then how can they expect my party, which is critical of this report, to agree with its contents?

Just this morning, Mr Trimble's office passed around corrections to pages that were not in the original report. The accurate report shows us the way in which this oligarchical structure has been designed. Indeed, in the Office of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) there are something like 27 areas of responsibility - three times the size of any other Department. They really trust their friends, you know! They are not prepared to dish out any of this responsibility to anything, to anyone, or to any other Member, even to those in their own party.

The only other Department which comes close, with 14 areas of responsibility, is either John Taylor's or Reg Empey's Department - the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Department - and there will have to be a political carve-up in that one. Mr Trimble's Office has responsibility for freedom of information. Imagine that, when it cannot even arrange for this information to be disseminated among Members in good time.

Going through the report, many Members, including Eileen Bell of the Alliance Party, dwelt heavily on the issue of consultative -

Mr Haughey:

The logic of Mr Sammy Wilson's intervention was that there should really be only one Department of Government. The logic of Mr Paisley's intervention now appears to be that there should be 143 Departments of Government since each Government Department, as set out in the report, is packed with far too many responsibilities.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

The Member for Mid Ulster is just being silly. He should listen to what some of his Colleagues in his new coalition shadow Executive have been saying - one of the Back-Benchers in the Ulster Unionist Party made it clear that with six Ministers in Northern Ireland, we would have three too many. Three could perform the task of administering Northern Ireland adequately. This is the view of the people with whom he wishes to share power.

With regard to the consultative Civic Forum, the share-out of responsibilities is unbelievable - our largest industry gets a minority position on this body. The voluntary/community sector - that sector of failed or aspiring politicians - gets the greatest number of representatives in Northern Ireland. That is a shame, and this consultative Civic Forum will be a waste of space and a waste of resources. Northern Ireland will have about 168 legislators and advisors when other areas of the United Kingdom, which are considerably larger, will have less than half that number to administer those areas.

On 'Good Morning, Ulster' this morning, Mr Trimble said that this was not a significant day by any means and that today's vote does not really matter. If this is such an insignificant vote, why can the Ulster Unionist Whips not lay off their Members? Why can they not say that today there will be a free vote for all of the Ulster Unionist Members? I would like to see just how many would vote for this report then. In their election manifesto the Ulster Unionists made a very straight commitment - they said that they did not wish to sit in a Government with unreconstructed terrorists. This report will usher those very unreconstructed terrorists into government, as Mr Weir said earlier today, and I agree with his view.

The euphoria of 1998 is evaporating - we can see that all around us in Northern Ireland. Look at the recent poll findings in the 'Belfast Telegraph'. A total of 84% of respondents said that they wanted the decommissioning of all terrorist weapons immediately. A massive 93% of Protestants, and almost 70% of Catholics, said that they wanted decommissioning to start straight away.

5.15 pm

I notice that Ms Rodgers, who is a touchstone of Unionist opinion, does not seem to know that 70% of the community that she comes from want decommissioning right away. On day four of this survey it went on to say that four out of five people - over 83% of the population of Northern Ireland - want the early release of prisoners stopped. This deal is currently unravelling, and it is doing so on issues that we predicted.

Then, of course, there are the negotiators of the Belfast Agreement who told us this was the best deal possible but who are now running away from that deal. People such as Ken Maginnis, who boasted that he had negotiated the Police Commission for Northern Ireland, last Friday distanced himself from it and said he wanted nothing more to do with it. If that is the best they can offer us, dear help this country.

The Secretary of State should realise that what she sows in Northern Ireland she will reap, not just in Northern Ireland, but right across the United Kingdom. She will reap what she sows when people bow not to democracy only to terror and she realises that, as has been happening in Northern Ireland for too long, coffins are being put in the ground across the entire United Kingdom. Instead of leading us towards a situation where peace ought to come about, this Government is taking us back to a situation where peace can never come about.

I listened carefully to many of the speeches. Mr Trimble said there were functions missed out of the 18 January report, and it has taken until now to include them. Of course there were functions missed out. The most glaring omission in this report is the absence of any mention of decommissioning - it has not got a look in. Mr Trimble must have been really embarrassed yesterday whenever he was shown up by Bertie Ahern who dared to mention decommissioning, while he has been running away from it and not daring to mention it in his reports.

The Deputy First Minister (Designate), Mr Mallon, said that we have overcome the difficulties. The only reason he is able to say that the difficulties have been overcome is that he has avoided including decommissioning in this report; he has avoided grappling with that issue; he has avoided tugging that little flower that he said he wanted to tug.

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

Mr Paisley Jnr:

The Member's Colleague tried to interrupt me. I wish I could give way, but I have only two minutes left.

Mr Mallon also said - and I quote him directly -

"Outside of this agreement there is no prospect of decommissioning."

The reality is - and I speak to you solemnly today - that within this agreement and this report there is no prospect of decommissioning either. Everyone must face that reality - and I wish we all could. There is not the slightest chance of our seeing decommissioning coming out of this report or this agreement.

Mr Farren, in his little gambit to be a Minister in Northern Ireland, said that there was no alternative. There are countless alternatives to this agreement but none which will suit the Provisional IRA, and that is why Sinn Féin/IRA are for this agreement. That is the reality. There is no mention of decommissioning in this report.

I say to the Back-Bench Unionists that they should not put their faith in Bertie Ahern; they should not vote for this because Bertie Ahern says he will give them some support further on down the road. They cannot trust his words. They should not put their eggs in Bertie Ahern's Fianna Fáil basket; they should put them in the basket of Unionism; they should stay with Unionism today and give it the endorsement it requires.

Mrs Nelis:

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I was absorbed in the Reverend's young son's rhetoric.

I want to address Section 5 of the report which deals with the setting up of the Civic Forum. Sinn Féin subscribes to and supports the setting up of the Civic Forum. We have made constructive and positive inputs through our full and active engagement in the working party set up to bring forward proposals to the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). Over the weeks of its deliberations Sinn Féin brought forward comprehensive proposals for the setting up of a Civic Forum. During those deliberations we flagged up a number of concerns such as representation, nomination bodies, remit - all the issues which have the potential to make the Civic Forum a truly representative body reflecting civic society.

We were concerned lest the Civic Forum become a performing poodle. We note that some of our concerns have been addressed in the final report. However, we are disappointed that this report today contains fundamental flaws and falls far short of producing a body that will address the democratic deficit and its effect on civic society that 50 years of Unionist misrule and 30 years of direct British misrule have given us.

Sinn Féin believes that our proposals for the development of a Civic Forum would address the democratic deficit, complement the work of the Assembly, add to the quality of decision-making and be not only consultative but innovative as well. Sinn Féin set out proposals which we hoped would impact on civic society by structuring the Civic Forum in such a way that it would provide the potential for establishing a new relationship between people and politicians - a bridge from the community to the Assembly.

In the working party we argued for quality time for the Civic Forum, more and wider consultation, equality of representation, the core principles of accessibility, transparency and accountability. We promoted and encouraged the concept that the Civic Forum, by embracing core democratic values, could become a dynamic body influencing and contributing to the process of real change.

Our proposal for setting up Comhdháil an Phobail, the people's forum based on constituency panels connecting directly with local Assembly representatives, had the overall aim of providing an effective and expert structure to the Assembly on development, policy performance, legislation and administration. We argued and will continue to argue that such a structure would be preferable, in terms of democratic participation, to an exclusive and predetermined clutch of organisations designed to meet the needs of the First and the Deputy First Ministers (Designate) in meeting the needs of civic society. Constituency panels would also ensure an effective mechanism, not only for equality proofing and maximising representation, but also for providing a sound basis for debates, drawing upon the knowledge of those who are expert in any given area of discussion.

Some of our concerns have been addressed in the report, but there are still areas where we have serious misgivings. We argued in the sub-group for a further period of more extended consultation to address the concerns and the suspicions in the broader community that the Civic Forum would be nothing more than a body of the great and the good, already well represented in civic society - a sort of Trimble and Mallon fan club.

Despite these concerns Sinn Féin has struggled to uphold the principles which underpin the agreement and to devise mechanisms for developing the Civic Forum which are consistent with the core principles of equality, accessibility, transparency and accountability. It is for those who have participated in the formulation and endorsing of the report to explain, not only to the Assembly but also to the pro-agreement public, how precisely this report can overcome the inherent and fundamental flaw which gives ultimate control of selection, remit and representation of the Civic Forum to the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate).

No matter what the recommendations of the sub-group, the invitation to the umbrella groups, the process of selecting the voluntary community sector, the public advertisement, appointments, and so on, at the end of it all the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) - not the Assembly - will hand-pick 60 individuals. This will be a double-edged sword for them. In terms of equality proofing the buck stops with the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate). Despite the fact that it allows for review after a year in terms of the Civic Forum delivering what everyone expects of it - participative democracy - this report falls far short of such expectations.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I know that we are getting well on in the day, but I would appeal to Members to give this Member the same good hearing that has been given to most other Members. If Members wish to have conversations they should slip out for a minute or two to do so.

Mrs Nelis:

In this report, democratic principles are secondary to the opinion of the First Minister (Designate) who, it seems, never wanted a Civic Forum. When it was written into the agreement the First Minister (Designate) hoped that his inactivity and hostile approach to it would make it disappear - like other issues in the agreement which he did not like, but signed up to. But it did not. Indeed, the UUP's submission contained in the synopsis to the working party says

"keen on the business community being represented, but conscious that, however worthy, bodies such as the Institute of Directors do not fully represent the business community. Keen on Chambers of Commerce and Chambers of Trade as having a role."

Could this be crony corporatism? Not exactly a recipe for democratic participation, nor does it reflect equality, which is to become the responsibility of the Office of the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate).

The DUP, the party that said "No" and continues to say "No", refused to participate in the working party. It was scared that it might learn something about democracy, which it keeps shouting about here. It is called political cowardliness.

A Chathaoirligh, I raised my party's concerns during working party meetings that the submissions made to the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) represented a narrow cross-section of civic society. I raised the issues of quangos, which are actually given the authority to nominate members to the Forum. I asked time and time again for consultation to be extended to incorporate the opinions and ideas on the Civic Forum of marginalised and excluded communities.

This report does not accommodate such communities, unless the additional six representatives which the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) have slipped in, outside the recommendations of the sub-group, will be drawn from those excluded by the report - for example, ex-prisoners, travellers, grass-roots community economic organisations, human rights groups and victims of state violence.

It is more likely that the additional 10% of the Forum, the magnificent six appointed by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), will be the friends of friends - the great and the good; a Civic Forum quango in what is supposed to be a consultative body.

Nevertheless, the Civic Forum will be set up, and we in Sinn Féin will give it our critical support. It will be up to the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to demonstrate that the Civic Forum will be explicitly, directly and systematically equality-proofed. Sinn Féin will continue to press for a Civic Forum which will be truly democratic and inclusive.

I would like to end with the words of the great poet Robert Frost:

"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep."

This report has miles to go.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Chomhairle.

Mr A Maginness:

Recently I received a card which showed the monument erected at Messines to commemorate the fallen Irish soldiers of the First World War. The interesting thing about those soldiers was that irrespective of whether they came from North or South, or whether they were Catholic or Protestant, and although they fought in the one army, they fought for different political objectives and from two different political perspectives. A further interesting thing about the card was the name of the group that designed this monument, and I know that the Member for North Down, Sir John Gorman, was actively involved in that design.

5.30 pm

It was called the Journey of Reconciliation Trust, and it struck me today that we are also on a journey of reconciliation. Without that key goal in mind, the Assembly will fail because it exists, not for our entertainment or for political point scoring, but for the creation of genuine reconciliation in this society. The report is an attempt to create a structure and a network in which reconciliation can take place. We have constructed an Executive that has built into it power-sharing between the two communities and among all the Assembly's political parties.

We have a unique opportunity to develop that theme of reconciliation. Today is a good day for reconciliation because the report provides a vehicle for that. I note the sneers from DUP Members when I mention reconciliation. I am used to that and to the negativity of the DUP. Its corner of the Chamber should be called "No corner" because the DUP represents the biggest negative in our politics. Its attitude to the report entirely reflects its negativity. Its Members are the no-men. They are going nowhere and they live in a political nowhere land.

The speeches by Mr Paisley Jnr and Peter Robinson reminded me of a drowning man clinging to the political wreckage of failure and abstentionism that represents the DUP. The Members who support the report represent hope and reconciliation for this community -

Mr Paisley Jnr:

Will the Member give way? [Interruption]

Mr A Maginness:

Listen to them. They illustrate the negativity that I and others, including David Ervine, have highlighted. The debate ended - [Interruption]

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. Mr Maginness may be able to deal with these interruptions, but they are disturbing for everyone else. Are you prepared to take the intervention, Mr Maginness?

Mr A Maginness:

No. [Interruption]

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. The Member has made it clear that he is not taking the interventions. I therefore ask Members to let him proceed.

Mr A Maginness:

The debate ended around 2.30 pm after David Ervine's -

Mr Campbell:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Is it in order for Alban Maginness to lambast Members in this corner for being negative? When I was speaking I gave way to him, and he adamantly refuses to give way to anyone on this side.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

As you know, it is in order for a Member not to give way.

Mr Wells:

Mr Maginness will recall that I gave way to him during my previous speech. The Member speaks about negative approaches. Does he remember that it was his party which boycotted the Assembly from 1982 to 1986? It also boycotted the Forum, the Police Authority and Stormont in 1969. Which is the negative party in the House?

Mr A Maginness:

I am talking about a situation where we all have an opportunity to rebuild this community. The DUP is not taking that opportunity because it is so negative in its attitude to everything at present. And the problem for some people is that they made a mistake about a year or 18 months ago when they refused to go back into the negotiations. Now they are left in a situation in which we have an agreement which has the support, not just of the political parties that signed it, but of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, in the whole of Ireland. Their boycott, negativity and abstentionism have brought them into the cul-de-sac that David Ervine has rightly described them as being in, and they cannot get out of it without losing face. But if they had had a leadership that was brave enough and imaginative, they would have got out of it long before now.

The people who are giving leadership in the community are Seamus Mallon and David Trimble. Through today's report they have provided - [Interruption]

I am not surprised at this layabout attitude coming from those Benches. The problem with them is that they have narrow minds, and worse than that, they have withered hearts. They have neither the bigness nor the generosity to get on with rebuilding the community and trying to repair its divisions and wounds.

Today we have a report that provides a way forward. It creates institutions of government that are innovative and imaginative. The Department of Social Development, for example, will do much to help a community that suffers from multiple deprivation. The creation of a Department for Regional Development will do likewise, in terms of developing our resources in the community and providing a new infrastructure as we approach the new millennium.

In addition, we will have a Department which will ally Higher Education with Training and Employment. That is innovative and a major step forward. We will also have a Department of Enterprise, Trade and Development that will create a new basis for industry and commerce in the community. And that is what we need because the public sector here, which employs 40% of the total workforce, is too big. By developing an alternative enterprise-based economy and culture here we can do much to develop our human resources and physical and natural resources.

That is why this is a good day for the people of Northern Ireland. Members who sneer at this report have nothing at all to put in its place. This report provides us with a common way forward. It provides the basis for sufficient trust in the community, and all the major political parties here who are dedicated to rebuilding the community can help to build on that together.

Many Members have talked about time running out, about there being little hope and about people despairing. Between little hope and despair there lies an ocean of opportunity. We have that ocean of opportunity. Let us now embark on that journey of reconciliation, through that ocean of opportunity, and provide for our children in the years to come.

Mr Carrick:

I will first pick up on a comment which the Deputy First Minister (Designate) made this morning. I was quite mystified when he referred to the fact that there would be no decommissioning outside of the agreement. I wonder if the thought ever crossed his mind that a straightforward solution would be simply to do the proper and honourable thing: renounce terrorism as a means of obtaining a political objective, dismantle the war machine and disband the terrorist organisations and decommission all the weaponry. Sometimes we are guilty of overlooking the obvious, but I would have thought that that was a fairly obvious solution to the problem.

Comment was also made today in relation to democracy and the core democratic values that we all should be embracing. I remind Members that the graves of the murdered cry out this evening for justice and for equality. No doubt this evening the families of the victims marvel at the hypocrisy of some Members' contributions today.

As elected public representatives, we have a duty to provide stable and credible government for the citizens of Northern Ireland, and the establishment of a local accountable Assembly is an objective that all democrats can identify with. And the machinery for achieving that consists of free and fair elections. The problem is that, as a result of the Belfast Agreement and the subsequent legislation, which the DUP opposed, we have a mongrel form of Administration. This hybrid system of government was of course devised to placate Republican terrorists and other terrorists who want to have their cake and eat it.

To put it another way, those wedded to terrorism succeeded in the talks process in duping the other negotiators by pretending to follow the democratic path, yet they had no intention of abandoning the terror tactic. Hence, today we have a report brought about by an agreement, the aim of which is to accommodate unrepentant terrorists and which is designed to ensnare Unionism in a web of Irish Nationalism, leading eventually to a united Ireland.

The whole exercise of establishing local accountable democracy, as envisaged in this report, is seriously flawed, operating, as it has to, on the basis of the Belfast Agreement. And it lacks democratic credibility while representatives of terror remain in the Chamber of democracy.

At the weekend I heard Members express fears about a retreat from the agreement and its possible consequences. But I have never heard the same passionate calls for a retreat from terrorism, punishment beatings, the tools of terrorism, or the threat of terrorism. Democracy cannot afford to be polluted by terrorism or the threat of terrorism which this report contains. Those who believe in the purely democratic process have great difficulty with the diluted system incorporating pretend democrats and unrepentant terrorists.

Another element of the Belfast Agreement is the establishment of the consultative Civic Forum. This is another deviation from true democracy. The system of appointees and the concept of quangos are contrary to proper accountable democracy. There is no substitute for democratically elected public representatives. The Belfast Agreement, however reprehensible it is, makes provision for such a Civic Forum, and, with all its intrinsic weaknesses, that will become a reality.

5.45 pm

It must also be said that, as far as consultation with groups and individuals is concerned, the facility is normally afforded to Government committees to access information and expertise by meeting such delegations as and when required.

I must also state that no Member has a monopoly on wisdom, knowledge or ideas. There are valuable contributions to be made by those outside this Chamber from all walks of life.

The Civic Forum, under the Belfast Agreement, is a fait accompli. It is essential, in the interests of fairness, equity and justice, that representation on such a body should reflect the community as much as possible, but it is questionable whether such fair representation can be achieved under these proposals.

First, according to the proposals before us, the health sector, which is vital in Northern Ireland, is not to be represented. As my Colleague Gregory Campbell pointed out, there will be no representation for local government either. Secondly, nominations by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) are a further manifestation of the undemocratic nature of the proposed forum. Thirdly, the appointment of the chairperson to the Civic Forum by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) is further evidence of the manipulation and the contrived democratic process that we have to experience. Fourthly, the victims of terrorism are clearly going to be under-represented in the Civic Forum and will once again find themselves victimised and discriminated against.

Hence, we will have, under these proposals, a defective and deficient Civic Forum, a conclusion that is inevitable for all true democrats, especially given the other elements of the report and particularly the absence of any reference to decommissioning or dismantling of the Irish Republican war machine.

I appeal to my Colleagues in all shades of Unionism to vote against this report. This report, if adopted, will be damaging not only to the Unionist position but to the Union itself, and I will be voting against it.

Mr McElduff:

Go raibh maith agat, A Chathaoirligh.

Cuirim "fáilte cháilithe" roimh an tuairisc seo. Is é brí mo chuid cainte go gcaithfear leanstan ar aghaidh ar an toirt - gan mhoill - leis na forais atá luaite sa Chomh Aontú.

Ar chlúdach an ChomhAontaithe deirt sé "Baineann an doiciméad seo le do thodhchaí. Léigh go cúramach é, le do thoil. Is é do chinneadh féin é." Thug 85% de mhuintir na h-Éireann a dtacaíocht don ChomhAontú sin.

Ritheann sé liom ó am go h-am nár léigh roinnt Teachtái Tionóil an ComhAontú fiú féin. Ní thuigeann siad aon chuid den mhéid atá le rá aige faoi dhímhíleatú agus faoin ghéarghá leis an chéad chéim eile a ghlacadh sa phróiséas seo - níor mhaith leo é a thuigbheáil, a ba chóra a rá.

This week will be crucial for the peace process. We will be voting on the report to set up the 10 Assembly Departments and the all-Ireland bodies, which are long-awaited and overdue. There should be no further delay in establishing the shadow Executive and the all-Ireland Ministerial Council in preparation for the devolution of power at the beginning of next month. Towards that end, Sinn Féin will give its support, qualified though that may be, to the report from The First Minister (Designate)/An Chéad Aire and The Deputy First Minister (Designate)/An Leas-Aire.

I look forward to working closely with those in the Culture, Arts and Leisure Department and to ensuring that the provisions of the agreement with respect to Irish language and culture are developed to their full in the spirit of mutual respect and cultural diversity. Similarly, I look forward to the establishment of the North/South implementation body with the principal function of promoting the Irish language.

Go n-éirí go geal leis na h-iarrachtaí seo, agus guidhim rath agus bláth orthu.

In relation to the system for nominating Members to the Civic Forum, I hope that victims of British state violence will be given a strong voice, because this category of victim has been denied a voice for too long. There must be an equivalency of victim status, an equality of grief, and an equality of memory. There must be no hierarchy of victims, no distinctions drawn between those, on whatever side, who have died because of this conflict.

I expect that when it comes to nominating sporting appointees to the Civic Forum the Gaelic Athletic Association, the largest sporting organisation in this country, will be given due recognition for its contribution and importance in every county the length and breadth of this island, and for its contribution to society generally. If the Sports Council does not see fit to nominate someone from a Gaelic athletic background then I hope that the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) will nominate such an appointee.

We should be getting on with our work. Anxious communities are waiting with bated breath for a more considerate, more local, more relevant and understanding policy approach to many issues. This can be done only by politicians who come from this country and not from England, Scotland or Wales.

In relation to hospitals, the Health Service, rural schools and, as we approach the new millennium, the issue of connecting rural homes to a water supply, I look forward to working with the Department for Regional Development. Those are crucial issues on which English, Scottish and Welsh Ministers have never done a proper job. Let us do a proper job on those matters because we understand our own country best. Let us remember that we have to give political and institutional effect to what the people have said. Eighty-five per cent of the people of this country have voted and endorsed the Good Friday Agreement.

Go raibh maith agat.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The sitting is now suspended. We will resume -[Interruption]

Mr C Wilson:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Will you deal tomorrow with an issue under section 10(2) of the Standing Orders on the conduct of Members in the Chamber? It was touched upon earlier, but I should like to return to it tomorrow at your earliest convenience and to ask whether you think that it is proper for a Member to bring into the building, and into the Chamber, a component part of an explosive device. If it is acceptable and if you think it appropriate, will you refer the matter to the shadow Commission to consider how Members are searched on entering the building? It is a matter for grave concern that any Member could bring into the building and into the Chamber part of an explosive device.

This is not a matter to be dealt with lightly. I said at a meeting of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer that I thought that it might be necessary for all Members on entering this building to be searched if a breach of security took place. I believe that this matter should be returned to at some stage in the future, and I would welcome your views on it.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I would like to respond to that point of order, as it may obviate the need to respond to others. If it does not, I will take the other points of order in turn.

As far as the matter raised by Mr C Wilson is concerned, I have asked for, and have already received, a preliminary report, which I will read after the suspension of today's sitting. It is likely that I will wish to return to this matter tomorrow. Does that answer all the points of order?

Mr McElduff:

May I ask that the firearms held by other Members be left outside the building?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am surprised to find that you are unaware that since the first sitting of the Assembly, there has been an armoury at the entrance to the building, and that all those who -

Mr McElduff:

That means the Members opposite - all the Unionist Members' weapons.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The Member may wish to be cautious about the comments he is making. As regards this particular matter, all those who work in this building, including civil servants who were not Assembly staff but who were in the building in the early days of the Assembly's life, were asked to place any weapons they held in the armoury. Also, anyone who is not a Member of the Assembly - and that has included some very senior people - must submit themselves to an examination on the way in. This is not the case for Members, and the point that the Member for Strangford is making is that we should consider whether this should also apply to Members. Everyone else has to go through the security devices.

I emphasise that Members bringing firearms into the building are requested, on their honour, to place these in the armoury - a request which has been set out in various documents. Members can then pick up their firearms when they leave the building. I am a little disappointed to see that this is not common knowledge, as it has been pointed out on a number of occasions before.

I appeal to Members to observe this. If there is a general feeling among Members that they should not be excluded from the search procedures, this should be communicated either to party Whips or to members of the Commission. The matter will then be raised at a subsequent meeting of the relevant bodies.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Further to that point of order. In previous Assemblies, the procedure you have outlined was operated very successfully, but I feel that it should be put on record that if a person brings an unlicensed weapon into the building, that will be a different matter. In the past, each Member had to produce his certificate, and that should be the rule today, especially as the Government are prepared to allow people to carry unlicensed weapons.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The regulations are there. To my knowledge, they have been used in the case of a small number of Members.

I will return to the other matter tomorrow.

The sitting was suspended at 5.59 pm

<< Prev