There have been many references to the fact that 71% of the people of Northern Ireland voted for the agreement, and it is said that we should do the decent thing and accept the will of the people. I do not believe that the majority of people who voted for the Belfast Agreement voted for the wholesale release of unreconstructed terrorists onto our streets to become terrorists in government or to destroy the RUC.

We did not need to be told by a 'Belfast Telegraph' opinion poll that large sections of the population - particularly in the Unionist community, though I have no doubt some also in the Nationalist community - who voted for the Belfast Agreement in the belief that it would be the basis for peace, security and reconciliation in Northern Ireland now want their votes back. Those people are saying daily that the agreement does not represent what they believed they were voting for when they placed their X in favour of it.

There has also been meddling by those in G7 who have been used for the second time. They have a notion that they can trade and equate or give up firmly held principles in defence of democracy for the handing in of a few ounces of Semtex or that people, in a barter system proposed by Sir George Quigley, can exchange Semtex for seats: "Hand in some Semtex on Monday, and on Tuesday people can be placed in an executive position over the people of Northern Ireland."

I wish to end by saying that I want to see implemented for the people of Northern Ireland a programme for government that will succeed in delivering efficient, accountable, transparent government that will enable us to achieve economic growth and development, the benefits of which would be shared by the entire community.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

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

Mr C Wilson:

We want to address the needs of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, imbue the community with a sense of enterprise and self-reliance and tackle the educational disadvantage -

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am afraid that I must ask you to draw your remarks to a close, Mr Wilson.

Mr C Wilson:

I am sorry, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. It is rather sad that when -

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I must ask you to draw your remarks to a close. I am not sure that reading into Hansard material which is already printed is entirely necessary.

Mr C Wilson:

May I just finish?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am sorry, but you are now a full half a minute over your allotted time. From the point of view of order in the Chamber, it has been drawn to my attention that in other places when a Member's time is up, the Speaker rises and simply switches off the microphone. I do not want us to get to that because if a Member is in the process of completing a short sentence it is perfectly in order for him to finish. However, with nine seconds to go, to embark upon an attempt to read into the record a reasonable length of script is going beyond what I can permit.

The Deputy First Minister (Designate):

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. In this instance, for the information and knowledge of all of us, would you make an exception and allow Mr Wilson to begin again at the reading of the final paragraph so that, once again, we may have the benefit of hearing those words of wisdom from the agreement, have them written into the record, and remind ourselves of the absolute wisdom at their heart? [Interruption].

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. I am content to ask for leave of the Assembly for that to be done. The requirement is that all must be agreed. Are all Members agreed?

Several Members indicated dissent.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am afraid that I do not have the leave of the Assembly. There are clearly some objections.

Mr C Wilson:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. The record will show that when I attempted to make a positive contribution outlining what I would like to see - a matter on which I have been chided by Members on the other side - I was denied the opportunity.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I must confess that it was I who denied you that opportunity. However, it was not the quality of your speech, which is undoubted, but its length.

Mr Dodds:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Seamus Mallon obviously wrote the bit to which the Member refers. That is why he wants it to be repeated. People are prepared to respect the Chair in terms of calling time, but you have to be absolutely fair and apply the same limits to everybody. Yesterday, Mr Mallon was allowed one minute and almost 20 seconds to finish his speech. I have no objection to that. In many cases we in this party have tried to increase speaking time for Members. It is a bit irksome to hear people shouting "Time" when some here have been more generous to those on the other side of the House. Members of the SDLP should take that to heart.

11.45 am

Mr Ervine:

Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. This is not a memory lapse or paranoia. When I was speaking yesterday Members from the Democratic Unionist Party, whom Mr Dodds speaks for, were chiding and shouting "Time" when I was just two or three seconds over the time.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The House must be aware that there are two possibilities. One is that we proceed as they do in another place and as soon as the times comes, whatever is being said, however grave, however substantial, and even if it is only a few words from the end of the sentence, the microphones go off. We can certainly proceed on that basis. There have been times when the Assembly has taken the view, and I have felt that the Assembly has taken the view, that something was being said which bore completion - so long as it was only the ending of a sentence or so. In this case it was clear to me that, some 10 seconds before the end of time, a script was being embarked upon - I could see the highlighting from here - and I had some idea of how long the speech would be.

We have only two possibilities: either we have that little degree of flexibility to allow something substantial that sneaks over the time to be completed, or we are absolutely rigid, I get to my feet and we stop everything absolutely on the time. I would prefer a little flexibility from Members, but if that is not possible, we will have to regress to the other method.

Mr Ervine:

On a point of order, and further to these points of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Is it in order - I am an apprentice here - for you to ask the Assembly now for the flexibility that is required, that being contrary to my suggestion that the DUP was as bad yesterday as others were to Mr C Wilson today? I agree with Mr Dodds that there should be flexibility in this. We are constraining people to prepared scripts, timed scripts, and potentially to prepared-in-front-of-the-mirror scripts. In some ways we are stultifying debate and stultifying the capacity for Members to give way. In one of the meetings I was at, Mr Wells of the DUP made the excellent point that we are discouraging discourse in the Chamber. I ask you to ask the Assembly for leave to have the flexibility required.

Mr Campbell:

Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I do not often find myself concurring with Mr Ervine, and I do not want to miss the opportunity to do so now. Common sense ought to prevail, together with flexibility and discretion from the Chair, when a Member is coming to the end of a speech and it is quite obvious that a few seconds more would allow him to conclude his remarks. That is the obvious and sensible course to take.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It is not possible for me to make any changes by way of the leave of the Assembly as it is quite clear that the Assembly is not prepared unanimously to give such leave in this matter. I am aware that there have been discussions in the Standing Orders Committee and that it has not been possible to reach agreement, and I have received written propositions this morning which are very different from the ones being put down by Members.

I am trying, perhaps presumptuously, to take it upon myself to give a little flexibility. If that proves impossible, either because I misjudged the matter or because Members press me to the point where it becomes unacceptable to others, my only option is to be rather more rigid about it than I would like to be or would think proper. The Standing Orders are crystal clear - 10 minutes for speeches that are not opening or winding-up ones. I do not want to be as rigid as that. I do not think that the majority of Members want me to be as rigid as that, so I ask you to bear with me and I will try to do my best.

Mr Dodds has a point of order, then Mr C Wilson and then the Deputy First Minister (Designate).

Mr Dodds:

There is a consensus that if we can be flexible, then that is all to the good. One possible solution would be to import Mr Cecil Walker's speaking time from Westminster. Members could then speak all week without any interruptions.

Mr C Wilson:

I welcome the comments and endorse the view that a certain flexibility would be helpful. It may be helpful to you, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, in determining what length of time may be needed for that flexibility if I read the paragraph -

The Initial Presiding Officer:

You are a mischief, Mr Wilson.

The Deputy First Minister (Designate):

I apologise for having raised this matter, but I agree with Nigel Dodds. There is a good case for creative flexibility which should be at the discretion of the Chair. That would be much appreciated.

Having read yesterday's Hansard, I recognise that one of the traits in our debates is to have a series of points of order interlocked with the occasional speech. It seems as if we need time-out during the speeches for some relaxation. If we had more flexibility, Members could give way, leaving much more time to debate and less set-piece speeches, and there might then be more communication in the Chamber. I agree with Nigel Dodds that flexibility by the Chair would be of great benefit.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am grateful to Members for their guidance. There seems to be a general desire that there ought to be some flexibility. However, I remind Members that if they use that flexibility more than a little way one way or another, that will be unacceptable.

The guidance that I have given is that if a Member is in mid-sentence at the end of his 10 minutes he will be allowed to complete his sentence. I plead with Members not - [Laughter]

I am aware of the ingenuity of some Members in respect of the length of their sentences, and if that is what they are doing I will have no option but to cut them off. If Members abuse the flexibility, there will be difficulties. I can see out of the corner of my eye that the First Minister (Designate) is uneasy about the matter.

The First Minister (Designate):

More than uneasy.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

More than uneasy. That is why I am quite clear that the Assembly is not going to give leave in regard to this matter. I have set the clocks to try to keep speeches to the 10-minutes limit as set out in the Standing Orders. I will try to accommodate the little flexibility that Members have asked for, but it can be only that. Otherwise I will have to rule a Members out of order and move to the next one.

The First Minister (Designate):

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. You are gravely mistaken in the ruling that you have made. It is entirely contrary to your function and to the Standing Orders. Your job is to see that the Standing Orders are adhered to. If the Standing Orders impose a 10-minute time limit, then it is your job to enforce that limit - not a 10-minute, 10-second time limit. There is no other way. Otherwise you will be treating Members unequally.

The rules must apply to everybody, without fear or favour. Once flexibility is introduced, inevitably, there will be occasions when a Member feels that he has been treated unfairly by not being given the same flexibility afforded to others. I know we all talk too much, and we would all like to have more time. Perhaps a 10-minute time limit is not the best one to have. It may be that we should have a different one, but that is an entirely separate matter.

Any element of favouritism or flexibility will inevitably result in a loss of respect for the Chair, and that is not in the long-term interest of the Assembly.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I will first give a ruling and then take Mr Robinson's point of order.

I accept that it is quite legitimate to argue that I have been at fault in respect of flexibility. One example of that is my preparedness to allow the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to share speaking times in proposition of the motions. That is clearly outside Standing Orders. Of that there is no doubt. Standing Orders make it clear that a Member proposing a motion is permitted 20 minutes.

I have taken the view that we have here a special arrangement, possibly not even fully foreseen by those who wrote the Standing Orders. The First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) ought to be able to make joint propositions with regard to, for example, the current report. They are the joint authors of it, and I think - I may have been wrong to make this judgement, but I have made it - that the Assembly would agree that it was a reasonable judgement.

Further to that, it would not be possible, for example, for the First Minister (Designate) to propose the motion and for the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to wind up. That would be out of order. If one is going to participate in one part he must be able to participate in both parts.

While we are working with Initial Standing Orders, which are a little flimsy at times and do not give us all that we need, let us learn from them to enable us to advise the Committee on Standing Orders on the production of something more substantial and better. If I were to find myself having to be rigid in application, it would, I think, disadvantage the Assembly in not having, for example, the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) able to propose and, indeed, wind-up on a report together.

Mr P Robinson:

On a point of order. I can see once again that the First Minister (Designate) has caught the mood of the House in his intervention. There are some serious issues that flow from his remarks, one of which is hypocrisy. When he and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) were proposing the motion they went over 21 minutes, and I did not see the First Minister (Designate) get to his feet on a point of order to require that they be stopped after exactly 20 minutes.

The more serious point is that he has challenged your ruling. He should know that Standing Order 2(1) indicates that your rulings are final. He will know that, by procedure, he should never challenge the ruling of a Speaker. That is a particularly bad example from the First Minister (Designate), and he should be chided for doing so.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

We are all learning in these matters, and the experience of other places, as I know well, is not necessarily sufficient to help us in this new place with these new ways of going. I think that we should proceed with the debate.

Mr Foster:

On a point of order. DUP Members are somewhat inflexible. They appear to have foot-and-mouth problems. Experience shows that they have no control of either.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The questions of flexibility and fault must remain with the Presiding Officer. It is he who decides such matters.

Mr Boyd Douglas has been waiting a some considerable time to make his contribution. I think we should let him get on with it.

Mr Douglas:

We have been asked to approve the determination by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) of the number of offices to be held by the Northern Ireland Ministers and the functions which would be exercisable by the holder of each office on the appointed day. We have made it quite clear that we cannot support this motion, and I would like to reiterate that point.

When the Deputy First Minister (Designate) spoke yesterday he mentioned normalisation, trust, lasting peace, decommissioning and the problems that the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Fein/IRA have in moving forward. I would like to use those words but to rephrase them. To have normalisation and trust in the Assembly we need decommissioning and IRA/Sinn Féin excluded from ministerial positions. That would allow us to move forward with a process for lasting peace.

12.00

There was an interesting poll in the 'Belfast Telegraph' at the weekend which showed that 84% of people in Northern Ireland want decommissioning now. Many others, such as Bertie Ahern and Seamus Mallon, also want that. We have stated clearly that we could not support this motion without decommissioning, and many others have now joined us.

Sean Farren said yesterday that we needed to compromise. He also said that we needed to have a stable situation in order to get inward investment and that he wanted decommissioning removed from the debate. He went on to attack those of us who, he said, were anti-agreement. I suggest to Mr Farren that they did not compromise in Dunloy and that inward investment will come only when he is prepared to allow others equal rights. Instead of removing decommissioning from the debate, he should help to remove the weapons and the Semtex. That would be better than attacking those of us who have stood on principle, and it might have won more support for the report.

We cannot approve the report because it would allow Sinn Féin/IRA to take up two ministerial positions. Mr McGuinness said yesterday that he had worked tirelessly with many people over the years. I suggest that those who would not work with Sinn Féin were those who were shot or blown to pieces, and they included many from his own Nationalist community. Mr McGuinness said that we need to move forward. The Ulster Unionist Party also said that, and I hope that it realises whom it is moving forward with. This is the person who not long ago spoke about demilitarisation, but I do not see much sign of it from his party. They are not the type of people whom I would like to join with.

We are debating the report because more than 70% of the great and the good - to quote a Member who uses that phrase quite often - voted for the so-called Belfast Agreement. Under that agreement, one can be a thug, a murderer, a gangster or a racketeer and still be able to sit in the Government of Northern Ireland, yet a person who is bankrupt cannot become an elected member of a local council.

Mr McGuinness said that he knew that the report was difficult for some Unionists. I suggest that it is much more difficult for the families and friends of those who have been blown to pieces and for those of us who see Unionist Members supporting this hypocrisy.

A fellow Member from East Londonderry said that we need to be constructive, show leadership and build bridges. Unless I am mistaken, that was the Member who a few weeks ago accused electors of not being prepared to sell property to some of his party. He caused so much offence that he had to send a letter to the local press apologising for the distress caused to his own community. So much for building bridges.

Brid Rodgers praised David Trimble for taking risks. I never thought I would see the day when the only praise that the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party received was from the SDLP. She also talked about mutual trust and about building confidence, but she has not built much confidence in Portadown.

We are told that the Civic Forum should comprise 60 members but that there will only be three representatives from agriculture. That is the largest industry, yet it is to have only 5% representation. Surely every party in the Assembly realises that that is unacceptable and needs to be addressed.

Many Members, including Dara O'Hagan, Mary Nelis and Barry McElduff - if we could understand him - would like to have equality in the Civic Forum. So would I. I live in the highlands ward, which is the most deprived in the Limavady Borough Council area. Indeed, the Limavady Borough Council area is the third most deprived area in Northern Ireland. The sooner we get some of the hundreds of millions of pounds that were pumped into Mary Nelis's constituency, the better. I am all for equality too. Could the proposed Civic Forum be a replacement quango made up of professional "quangoites"? The Unionist community has no confidence in such bodies.

As for the report, I find it difficult to understand how members of the Ulster Unionist Party can say that they are protecting the Union when by agreeing with this report they are allowing a foreign country a say in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. A senior member of the Ulster Unionist Party recently said that Mr Mallon had described the proposed Executive of Northern Ireland as a "curious coalition" - that is to say, it is a permanent and unchanging coalition of parties who are in total opposition to each other on the very existence of the state they govern.

In the light of our permanent coalition arrangements, I invite the Ulster Unionist Party to consider what they would put into any future election manifesto. How would they set out a distinctive Unionist policy for defending the Union and how would they carry it into effect? Would they need the support of Messrs Adams and Mallon to do so?

I urge all Ulster Unionist Party members to vote against this report. They should vote with their conscience and not with their leader.

Mr B Hutchinson:

I support this report. I support it because it is the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, but I have to say that I have a number of concerns about it. I was going to limit my remarks to the report, but I feel that I have to respond to a number of comments made by Sinn Féin Members yesterday. Cedric Wilson's outburst this morning also requires a response.

It is all very well for Mr Wilson to talk about people who front paramilitary organisations. We have never denied that we are the political confidants of the UVF and the Red Hand, and I make no apology for it. But I have to say to Mr Wilson that, along with me, he must take responsibility for what has happened in this country over the last 30 years. Mr Wilson protested everywhere on his own. He was known as a serial protestor. Like myself, he has been responsible for wrecking this country, for breeding hatred and for everything else.

Mr C Wilson:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. You must intervene when one Member accuses another of wrecking and causing mayhem. My record clearly shows that I have been involved in no such activity.

Mr B Hutchinson:

No other Member, including Mr Ervine, had the chance to refute what Mr Wilson said. [Interruption]

I know that it is true, Mr Wilson, and I have already said so. If you admit your responsibility for the last 30 years -

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Will Members please address their comments through the Chair.

Mr B Hutchinson:

This is the problem. Mr Wilson thinks that this is all very easy. He shouts across at these people in Sinn Féin. Where has he been for the last 30 years? I did not see too many dead IRA men or Sinn Féin members from him or anyone else. It is OK to shout at these people, but they shout in the safety of this Chamber.

People had better get real. It is OK to sit in here and talk about this agreement and whether it is working or not working. But the reality is that there are those out there who, because of what people are saying in this Chamber, are prepared to lift up a gun or plant a bomb. Are people prepared to accept that responsibility? Are they prepared to support Loyalists if they have to go back to war with Republicans? I bet they are not.

No matter what happens, my party will stand over this agreement. If people are being killed on the streets, we will be standing up shouting. If Sinn Féin is supporting the IRA or anyone else killing Loyalists, I know where I will be.

It is about time these people on my left got their priorities right. The future of my children and everybody in my constituency rests with the Assembly. We may not all like it, but we had better find a way forward which is an accommodation for the British and Irish citizens in this society.

I am not interested in religion, Protestant or Catholic. What I am interested in is my British identity on this island, and I will not allow Sinn Féin or anybody else to take that away from me. If I have to die for my Britishness, I will. If it is at the hands of the Republicans, so be it. Yesterday Mr Adams began to lecture us about Unionism. I do not agree with the Unionism that he referred to - the old fur-coat brigade. I am not looking for patronage. He attacked some DUP Members. I remind him that it was Mr Paisley, to his credit, who pointed out the need to do something for the working-class people. He was the first person to raise the issue about the "big house" Unionists.

Do Sinn Féin Members not realise that when they attack any part of Unionism they attack us all? It is about time Mr Adams - I am sorry he is not here - realised that by selling this agreement as part of a united Ireland he damages me, David Ervine and others who are trying to find a way forward. We are here to accommodate. I am quite prepared to accommodate Sinn Féin, the DUP or any other party.

There is no united Ireland. There will never be a united Ireland. The accommodation is in the Chamber. It is a halfway house between our Britishness and our Irishness. It is not on my terms; it is on the Good Friday Agreement terms, and nowhere does it say that there will be a united Ireland.

Mr Martin McGuinness proceeded to tell us about all the hurt - the hurt of "bloody Sunday", the discrimination, the gerrymandering. I remind Mr McGuinness that I lived in a two-up, two-down on the Shankill Road, with an outside toilet. And, yes, in the winter, I probably had to do my poolies in the yard. So Mr McGuinness was not the only one. My parents did not own property; they had the same rights as any Catholic. There was relative deprivation in this society, and I want Sinn Féin and others to recognise that. My hurts are from the past.

Mr Molloy:

I remind Mr Hutchinson that we in the civil-rights campaign encouraged the Unionist community to come out on to the streets and protest to ensure that it got the same standard of living that everyone was entitled to.

Mr B Hutchinson:

I recognise what the Member says, but Republicans hijacked the civil-rights campaign. The point that was made by my Colleague from North Belfast was that in 1966 there was a protest on the Upper Falls Road, which was then Protestant. Members of the Republican movement went to prison because they were not allowed to carry a tricolour through a Protestant area. How times have changed. They have short memories.

We are here and are prepared to accommodate, but I will not be lectured by members of Sinn Féin telling me about how bad things are. I ask the DUP Members to understand what Republicanism is about. It is about a blood sacrifice. But Republicians have removed it themselves. So what do Republicians do? They now turn themselves into the victims. We must ensure that we do not allow them to do that. It is about time people started to analyse what Republicans are doing and stopped falling into their traps.

Mr McGuinness spoke yesterday about the British military and Loyalist death squads. It is all right for the IRA to murder a judge coming across the border - a brilliant operation. Who gave it the information that the judge was coming across the border? When Loyalists kill anybody, either it is blatantly sectarian on an innocent Catholic or they have colluded with the RUC. It is about time we got real. We have all got hurts in the past. A friend of mine was murdered by the INLA while I was standing 15 feet from him. He was under surveillance from the RUC, yet no one was caught for it. Is it not amazing that they got away while he was under surveillance? I did not hear Sinn Féin or anybody else complaining about that.

You, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, have dealt with the matter of Mr McGuinness's bringing in a part of a grenade. What was that all about? Are we about who carries arms and who does not carry arms, and about what is happening in Members' constituencies?

12.15 pm

I could have brought in a number of reports from some of my friends who have been told by the police that Republicians are carrying out surveillance on them. Only last night I was warned not to go to a house in my constituency because I was being watched by INLA members. Is that what Members are going to do? Are we to come every day to the Assembly and trail it all out and tell everybody about who is following whom and who is going to shoot whom? That is not what I want.

I am prepared to accept that there are Sinn Féin Members in this Chamber who know that the only way forward is through the political process. I do not necessarily say that I trust Sinn Féin, but I accept that it is trying to find a different way forward. I want to do that too. I do not want to bring bits of grenades into the Assembly and talk about these being thrown in the constituencies. We could all do that. We could all talk about "bloody Sunday", Teebane, "bloody Friday" and the Shankill bomb, but that is not what we are here for. We are here to find a way forward.

Gregory Campbell was very positive yesterday. I honestly believe that what he said about Unionism was very positive. However, it was my Unionism he was talking about. I do not recognise it in the DUP. I am sorry about that, but I do not. He said

"We want a dynamic, determined, confident, assertive Unionism."

The only thing he did not say was that that was the PUP. But whatever the party label, we want to be able to bring about change for our people. I hope that the Nationalists will listen to what I am saying. We want to bring about change for our people and for the Nationalist community so that we can go towards the future and put the past behind us. I thought that was what the agreement was all about. I accept that Mr Campbell has problems with this view. However, I thought that he summed up Unionism very well.

I do not care what shade of Unionism a Member belongs to - and this is for all the Nationalists to listen to. We may be fractured, as Mr Adams said, but the one thing that binds us all together is our love for the Union. However, it has to change. We cannot have the Union of the past. We have to make sure that we have a confident Union, one that can change.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Before Ms Morrice speaks, may I advise Members that the heating is not working. I know that some Members have not noticed this, though I shall not speculate why. Staff are doing their best to have the heating repaired.

Ms Morrice:

I rise in the warmth of this House.

I do not want simply to commend this report but to welcome it with open arms - warts and all. I want to applaud every person who worked to make it possible - not just the architects from every shade of political colour in the Assembly, but everyone in this Province and outside, in Europe, in America, in Britain and in Ireland. These people worked tirelessly over decades to bring about change, reconciliation and, ultimately, peace.

This report represents that change. This debate is history in the making, but I feel no sense of that in the Chamber. The report represents a unique opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to govern themselves, yet I feel no sense of admiration, of awe or of opportunity in the Chamber. Have Members forgotten how far we have come? Have Members forgotten that we are being watched by people who have lost loved ones and who have suffered terribly over the past 30 years? These people are desperate for change. They are watching us squabbling over speaking times and must be disgusted. We must stop, remember where we were 18 months ago, and realise that not one person in the Chamber or in this Province wants to go back there.

Yes, progress has been slow, but when we walk a tightrope we must take small steps. I listened intently to the debate yesterday and today, and I am deeply disappointed at what I have heard. Only a few have risen above the ritual of bitter, scornful, adversarial politics that have been the trademark of this country - a trademark that has been our downfall.

Mr Morrow:

The Member has asked whether we remember what went on before. Yes, we quite clearly remember. I would like the Member to comment on the Civic Forum, where the victims' voice will be represented by two members. Does she agree that that is a big omission?

Ms Morrice:

There is no doubt that the Women's Coalition has been pushing, sometimes against a brick wall, for proper representation of victims. The answer to the Member's question is that we do believe that the role of the victims is paramount for the future of this society. They must play a very constructive role in working out the way forward.

The double-barrelled politics of intransigence and political violence - what I call anger and apathy - have been dominating politics in this land for far too long. We must move forward, and the report represents the right way forward. We must also find a way to rise above the mealy-mouthed squabbles of the public arena and show the people that we are capable of dignified, civilised human interaction. We are capable of that. I have seen it, as have all Members in the House, when the cameras are off. The House is not a stage, with each of us playing a part, depending on our political colour. This is not a Greek tragedy or a Shakespearean farce. This is real life, and we have only one chance at it.

As political leaders, we have a duty to point the way forward and to set an example for our youngsters and others to follow. It is our duty to show our people that the politics of bigotry, hatred, violence and sectarianism are the politics of the past, not the future.

It is incredible that yesterday and again this morning, when we were debating the pros and cons of decommissioning as part of this peace process, Members from all parts started discussing whether firearms should be left in or outside the House. What on earth is going on? Can no one see the double standards?

The Women's Coalition wants what every right-minded person in this Province wants. We want our children to be able to live in a society that is free from guns. We want a society that is free from anger and violence in all its forms. I remind the Assembly that paramilitaries do not have a monopoly on terror. The man accused yesterday of allegedly killing his unborn child in the abdomen of his teenage partner used a brick and a baton, not a gun. We need to change the mindset of the people who carry out these terrible deeds - be it in the name of their country, their culture, their religion, or even their manhood.

What we need to do now is build trust between ourselves and in our communities. We need to show that we can work together for the good of all. We need our own government. It must be good government, accountable to those who elected us.

The agreement and this report, which brings it into operation, have not been cobbled together at the last minute by people far-removed from the realities of life in Northern Ireland. It has taken years to negotiate this. It has taken blood, sweat and toil. It has taken years to reach agreement. It was written by people who care about this country and, above all, about the future of the people who live here and of our children.

We need to start governing this country, to start making laws. We need to do what we are paid to do, and that is work together for the good of this land. We have now an opportunity to move from dead-end politics to the politics that will take us along the road to peace. I commend this report. My Colleagues and I in the Women's Coalition will support it.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

There is one matter which I would like to draw to Members' attention before the sitting is suspended. Members may not be fully aware of all the implications of everything that they say and do in the Chamber. In particular, once we know that we have absolute privilege, Members may feel that there will be a considerable degree of latitude. However, if Members refer here to a matter that is sub judice, they may not be creating problems for themselves but may be creating problems for the courts.

I advise Members to be careful about what they say about particular matters. Although the House itself does not have a sub judice rule, which means that Members will not be creating difficulties for themselves, they may be causing problems for others.

The sitting was, by leave, suspended from 12.28 pm until 2.00 pm.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am happy to advise Members that the heating has been fixed.

Sir John Gorman:

Yesterday Mr Alban Maginness referred to my work on the Messines Tower as a journey of reconciliation - a very proper way of describing it as the tower is much more than just another war memorial. It acknowledges, as the Member pointed out, the wonderful work and sacrifice of Irishmen from every province of Ireland, from north, south, east and west and from both main religious denominations.

In his lively speech he mentioned that the object of the Assembly was reconciliation. I agree. It would be very difficult to see any purpose in having an Assembly other than to get people of goodwill and talent to work together in the interests of all the people of this Province.

Mr Ahern made a statement which, as Mr Trimble mentioned, has since been sugared mildly, but Mr Ahern has not changed the view which he so firmly expressed in 'The Sunday Times' interview. He went on to talk about some other matters of intense interest to Members - for example, the real possibility of Ireland's rejoining the Commonwealth, and he talked in positive terms about a visit by Her Majesty The Queen to Ireland next year. What good examples of reconciliation these would be.

The Ulster Unionist Party wants an Assembly. Do not believe any nonsense about our hanging about, deferring or trying to avoid joining it. We want to join it, and we want it to be power-sharing. Anyone who does not realise what an advantage it would be to have such arrangements is very much mistaken. We have given a pledge to have a power-sharing Executive with our whole heart and soul. That means what the words suggest: sharing power with all those who have been elected to this Assembly. However, it does not mean that those who have been elected to this Assembly and still have the advantage of weaponry, and who have not just power but killing power, should be allowed to take seats in the Executive.

That is the pledge which the Ulster Unionist Party has given. This will not happen, but if we were to renege on that pledge and take seats in an Executive with Sinn Féin, I wonder what the DUP's position would be. Would it also refuse to take its seats? Would it find it expedient to be in there to represent all Unionists?

The Ulster Unionist Party stands by its pledge, and I would like to believe that the other parties to the agreement, and Members of the Assembly, are totally disabused of the view that there is going to be any change in our pledge. This is about the way the country is going to be governed.

I have spent a lot of my life working on housing issues, and I have been rather disappointed that Members have not had much opportunity in the course of these few months to discuss housing. I am not sure if Members are aware that the programme for new homes in Northern Ireland requires the building of 2,600 houses per annum for the next three years - from April 1999 to March 2002. That will require £1 billion of extra money. Do Members know how many houses the Housing Executive is building in the forthcoming year? Forty-five. I know that housing associations are going to take up some of the load, but they are comparably small and it is unlikely that they will be able to produce 2,600 extra in a year.

I would like to believe that the Department of Social Development will be concerned not just with housing but with planning as well. There is the most appalling powerlessness of planning in this country. Those Members who are aware of what occurred in Bangor last weekend will know that a developer took masked men and bulldozers to knock down a substantial 140-year-old building, cutting off electricity to surrounding people, and setting the place on fire. That is the kind of thing that our present planning arrangements permit: there was no law to prevent it. He may get into trouble for cutting off electricity and starting a fire, but what will that cost him? One thousand pounds? Here is someone demonstrating the powerlessness of planning in the Province.

During my last speech, Mr Chairman, or Mr Initial Presiding Officer - I am sorry, but I am used to the word "Chairman" from my two years in the Forum - I mentioned the need to address the question of Semtex. This is a ghastly explosive second only to a nuclear explosive in its killing power. I concentrated my efforts then on persuading Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, in the wake of the Omagh bombing, to see how appalling this killing power is that they say must be retained in their hands. I was trying to demonstrate how impossible it would be to say with any logic that Semtex was required as a defensive weapon. My plea fell on deaf ears then. I repeat it now.

Every party to this agreement, with the exception of Sinn Féin and the Progressive Unionist Party, has carried out everything required of it. Why should we give Sinn Féin the excuse today by showing a Unionist party divided - making petty points about the various arrangements here and taking up time - when we have an opportunity to show a united front in the Unionist camp by saying that the one thing we must have is decommissioning and disarming?

We hear excuses from Sinn Féin. I have heard Mr McGuinness describe how his great friend Gen de Chastelain loves him dearly and believes everything he tells him. Has anybody heard any words from the general about the promises given or statements made by Martin McGuinness? I suggest not. I heard, and appreciated, what Peter Robinson said yesterday. Sinn Féin and the IRA are the same body. They are not even two sides of the same body but the same body.

Let us isolate Sinn Féin. Actually, it is pretty much isolated already. Listen to the television and radio. Who has any time for these little semantic pieces of nonsense about what the words in the agreement actually mean? Those words were not used and those timings were not needed for the numerous other things that every other party has done. But not Sinn Féin.

I will read to Members the last words of the leader in 'The Irish Times' today:

"Sinn Féin's exclusion is not of David Trimble's making. Securing Sinn Féin's participation in the executive rests within nobody's hands but its own - and those of its affiliates in the IRA."

Mr McGrady:

Over the past two days we have listened to many powerful and sincere contributions, some of which I agree with, and some of which I do not. Unfortunately we have also heard many contributions of petty party point-scoring, personal insults, gross discourtesy and idle - and sometimes dangerous - accusations. There has been little contribution to the debate by way of alternative suggestions - what we will do if today or tomorrow the Assembly does not endorse the report and we do not make today or tomorrow the determination day.

I have heard little by way of alternative constructive propositions to address the problems that will ensure if we fail to endorse the report. There will be a political vacuum, rapid deterioration in our social and economic status, and rejection by the world of Northern Ireland as a place to invest in or, indeed, to holiday in. Many Members do not seem even to recognise these appalling prospects. However, the community that we represent recognises them very well indeed.

Leaving aside the prospect of renewed violence of a nature that we thought had gone for ever, people will say that it is not worth investing time and energy in the political process. The international community, to which I have just referred and which has done so much for us - whether we agree with it or not - would see the rejection of the agreement as a total rejection of their commitment and financial assistance.

We should take heed of the measured political comments in the editorials of our local newspapers whose personnel have their ear to the ground about what our community is saying. The 'News Letter' of 11 February stated

"The people of Northern Ireland are not only capable of self-government - they have demanded it with a resounding referendum vote which supersedes any and all preceding or subsequent opinion polls."

We have all come too far from the depths of anguish to fail now - and we all know the alternative. The 'Irish News', referring to Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon, said

"Both men should take encouragement from the real desire for movement within the community they serve."

Indeed, the much-maligned G7, which seems to be the butt of adverse comments in the Chamber, on behalf of the sector of interest that it represents, speaks about

"the institutions envisaged in the agreement up and running".

It says that they are the only way to provide a future for us, and, of the politicians here,it goes on

"They can provide the leadership to tackle the mass of urgent social and economic issues which are central to the future welfare of the entire community . For everybody to wait for somebody else to move before moving themselves is a sure recipe for a permanent immobility. Northern Ireland has no future of any quality, except as a stable, inclusive, fair, prosperous and outward looking society."

What clearer signals from this cross-pollination of the opinions of the community do we need than those in newspaper editorials or from the representatives of commerce and industry?

2.15 pm

Much of the debate has been taken up by the issue of decommissioning, notwithstanding the fact that the report deals only with, and should deal only with, the Executive, the Civic Forum and the British-Irish Council. What civilised, right-minded person would not want decommissioning? Those who use the lack of decommissioning as a reason for not approving the report are bereft of real substantive arguments on the matter. They are using decommissioning as an emotive vehicle by which they hope to defeat the purposes of setting up our own government.

Let there be no doubt about this: I want decommissioning, my party wants decommissioning, and the community wants decommissioning. Also, in the fullness of the terms of the agreement on decommissioning, I want weapon destruction. If weapons and explosives are not destroyed, one of three things will happen. Either they will fall into the hands of criminals - that has happened in other societies - or they will fall into the hands of dissident groups (a distinct possibility), or they will be used again by their present owners. That is what will happen with those weapons and explosives if they are not just decommissioned but destroyed as well.

It is through the implementation of this report that we have the best - some would say the only - means of obtaining total disarmament and weapon destruction. I am not simply speaking to put something on the record in Hansard; I am asking Members from all parties to support the report, to take a chance and to take a gamble with me and with others on the way forward.

Apart from the issue of decommissioning, there have been two major areas of debate in the Chamber. Criticisms of the Civic Forum have come mainly from the DUP but from others as well. It puzzles me that the DUP is opposed not to the principle of the Civic Forum, according to Dr Paisley, but to its composition. Only last Saturday I heard Mr Paisley Jnr deny its validity in principle, never mind its composition. Do we have a contradiction there?

I am glad that Mr Paisley is in the Chamber as I would not want to say anything about him, good or bad, if he were not here. Mr Paisley said that the Civic Forum was against his principles and that elected people only should have a role in what is happening in Northern Ireland. He also said in an aside that he would be delighted if the whole process failed. My interpretation of that is that he would be delighted if what the people willed were to fail.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

I am surprised at the Member's feigned surprise at my delight if this process is in any way under threat. My party has been open and honest and above board with the electorate. If we are working to undermine the process, why should he be so surprised?

Mr McGrady:

I am surprised because the very name of his party is the Democratic Unionist Party, and there is nothing democratic about failing to take cognisance of the democratic decision of 71% or 72% of the people of Northern Ireland - end of story.

The other main theme that has come across, mainly from Sinn Féin and certain others, has been to do with the equality agenda and the establishment of the equality unit in the office of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). I cannot understand the rationale behind this attitude. Where better to locate the drive for equality than under the joint First Office where the elected leaders of both communities are working together in this respect?

There is a feeling that if we had a new Ministry of Equality it would somehow be the prerogative of Sinn Féin. Is it not much better for the leaders of the main cross-community parties to have this mandate than have it fall to an individual Minister from any party, be it the UUP, the DUP, Sinn Féin or the Social Democratic and Labour Party? It would take ages to establish the trust for that, but the equality agenda that we all want can be established quite quickly in this way.

Much could be said that I cannot address in the time allotted. I am asking those people to take a step with me and the members of my party into unknown territory.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

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

Mr McGrady:

The prize is so great. Please give us the one chance that we have today.

Mr Kane:

Decommissioning is never mentioned in the report from the First Minister (Designate) and his deputy. I wonder why. Sinn Féin's Mitchel McLaughlin dismissed the opinion poll in the 'Belfast Telegraph'. How convenient for him. If the poll was not indicative of public opinion, he can have had his cake and eat it. The poll must have created as much havoc in his search for a response as decommissioning itself. John Hume, the SDLP Leader, wearied us with his contribution, asking us to allow Members to be appointed to the Executive, regardless of decommissioning and punishment beatings. What other Nobel recipient would have such a disregard for peace?

Much as the sentiments and beliefs of the Continuity IRA are foreign to the rest of us, abductions, punishment beatings and killings should not be the means by which members of that organisation are dealt with. These are indicative of the violence at work in the community. There is no place for these things. What about the Mitchell principles?

We have at last established the reason for the recent spate of punishment beatings. It was so obvious that for a while we overlooked it. It is this: the Provisionals and Sinn Féin practise zero tolerance of all who differ from them, whether in the Unionist community or among the Nationalists. What sort of reconstitution has taken place in Sinn Féin? What political business can be conducted with its representatives in the Government? Where has violence been abandoned or any progress made towards that much defiled word "peace"? The answer to these questions is that violence has not been abandoned and no progress has been made towards peace.

Hutchinson and Maskey looked a comfortable double act on the television programme 'Hearts and Minds'. They were faced with great difficulty over decommissioning and the punishment beatings, "Hutch" referring to them dismissively as "a few punishment beatings". If he had been the recipient of one of these beatings, would he have felt so able to trivialise or dismiss the agony, the excruciating pain and the long-term scars? But what can we expect from these two men with such a violent history?

The upshot of the interview was that neither man could agree with the vast majority of Northern Ireland's residents that there should be an immediate call for decommissioning, and neither man possessed enough integrity to concede that there was no place for them in constitutional politics or in a future coalition Government. This clearly demonstrates that, in paramilitary circles, rank-and-file spokespersons are the most objectionable and the most obstructive element to peace. We do not need them at Stormont or in the greater community.

Sinn Féin and PUP can play clever word games if they wish, but "Mr General Public" is not fooled by any of it. The onus is on them to deliver on decommissioning and allow progress. It is unlikely that this will occur since the role they have invented for themselves would no longer exist.

Come off it, boys. The solution lies with you. Either you are politically too fragile in the respective Nationalist and Loyalist communities to deliver on decommissioning or you have become comfortable with the benefits terror has brought you. Those who find difficulty with constitutional politics should be firmly warned that they are becoming marginalised in all sections of the community and that the facade of peace is fitting to no one. The 'Belfast Telegraph' poll bears this out. The claim by Hutchinson and Maskey on 'Hearts and Minds' that terrorists cannot be ignored is fast diminishing.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

May I raise an order point with you? You have several times referred to Members by their surname only. It has been the practice - and I think that it is a proper practice - to refer to Members by both their surname and title.

Mr Kane:

Thank you, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, for bringing that to my attention.

Mrs Nelis:

On a further point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. The Member has not addressed one line of the report either. He is making a political speech.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I have to say in all honesty that if I were to rule political speeches out of order I might be on my feet a good deal. We must continue for the present.

Mr Kane:

The whole community is sick of the implied threat. Even 58% of Sinn Féin supporters want to see paramilitaries hand their weapons over now, and the SDLP is becoming less at ease with its alliance with Sinn Féin. Decommissioning is easier to sideline than the consequences of guns in the hands of terrorists. The SDLP is risking getting its hands dirty. Sinn Féin is less of a certainty, politically, which leaves the SDLP alone in its chorus of "No" to decommissioning.

If constitutional politics were to overtake this misguided pandering to terrorists, as they seem to be doing, how would the SDLP progress without its comrades in Sinn Féin? After all, a cross-community vote would not be so instantly available, and there would be likely to be a normalising of the SDLP's role in the Assembly in the absence of Sinn Féin's military wing. A better suggestion for future policy in both parties would be for them both to decide between the Armalite and the ballot box. Public opinion requires a decision. The ship of politics is now being seen to be seaworthy by the Northern Ireland public, and it cannot sail without those who are reluctant to conduct politics without violence. Constitutional Unionism is poised to progress with politics proper.

The glitch in our history which has allowed terrorism to become involved and then debar itself through its lack of ability to change or make the transition from Mafia-like practices into the open scrutiny of democratic politics seems to be reaching a conclusion. In the conduct of normal, peaceful and democratic matters of state, opinion is growing that there is no place for violent agitators or for those who argue for their existence.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>