Northern Ireland Assembly, 17 January 2000

193 contributions from 40 members. The official report.

Junior Ministers

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

In line with the decision taken by the Assembly at its last sitting, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister met me along with Mr Denis Haughey and Mr Dermot Nesbitt. Mr Haughey having resigned his position as Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee, the First and Deputy First Ministers nominated him and Mr Nesbitt to be junior Ministers. Having accepted their nominations, the two Members took the Pledge of Office and were appointed. Mr Alban Maginness’s name was put forward by the nominating officer of his party to be Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee following Mr Haughey’s resignation. Mr Maginness accepted that nomination and was appointed.

Assembly Business

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As Members are aware, it is for the Business Committee to decide the arrangements for business. It has been decided that the three motions on the Order Paper will be considered today and that, in line with Standing Orders, business will be completed by the end of the day. Members will also note that amendments have been proposed to two of the motions. The time has been agreed, and it is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that those who wish to speak are able to do so and that the argument is balanced.

It would be most helpful if those who wish to speak in any of these debates were to give their names to the Clerk as soon as possible.

I have received notice from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement on the meetings of the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference on 17 December 1999. I call the Deputy First Minister.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is about later business, and I could bring it up then. I note that our Order Paper differs from that in another place whose procedures we have been following closely. In this House, is a person going to be allowed to put down as many questions for oral answer as he wishes? In the other House a Member may put down only one. A Member here has put down five. I would like a ruling on that.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

At this point there has been no arrangement, decision or even, so far as I am aware, discussion about the number of questions that a Member may put down for oral answer. As you have said, some Members have taken advantage of that. One may or may not reach all their questions. It may be that the Assembly will wish to restrict the number of questions for oral answer that a Member may ask, and there are proper channels for that to be considered.

Scottish Trawler Tragedy

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of the tragedy in Scotland in which seven Whithorn fishermen were lost, would it be appropriate for this House to send a letter of sympathy to the appropriate council — in Dumfries, I understand? I represent Portavogie, which has had similar tragedies in the past, and I propose that the House agree to this.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That is not a point of order; it is a proposition. It would not be in order for a motion to be put down on the Floor of the House in this way. However, I have little doubt that the concerns you express are widely shared. If there is no contrary view, I would be content to write on behalf of the Assembly in the way you describe.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

We have concerns. We support Mr Shannon’s idea, but there is no procedure or precedent for such a motion. I am concerned that we would be establishing one by default, notwithstanding that the matter raised is obviously very important. I would prefer that we leave this matter until we decide on a procedure for dealing with such expressions of sympathy.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am in the hands of the Assembly. As Mr Maskey has said, there is no procedure. I am not accepting Mr Shannon’s proposition as a motion, because it is not proper to take a motion on the Floor of the House without due notice. There have been occasions when, for various reasons — sometimes personal — I have felt it appropriate to express condolences and felt that it was not out of order to do so on behalf of the Assembly. I propose to take this matter in that fashion unless the Assembly objects to my doing so. Any motion in that regard would have to be put down in the normal way.

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

At last Thursday’s Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee meeting, following a proposal by Assemblyman McMenamin, the Committee unanimously agreed to send our condolences. Indeed, Mr Shannon is also a member of that Committee. That may suffice until a procedure is established.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member has advised that a representative letter has gone from the Assembly in regard to this matter. I was not aware of that, and I thank the Member for drawing it to my attention. Would the Assembly agree that that is an appropriate expression of our concerns, given that that Committee was the most relevant to this matter?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

This would not set a precedent for the expression of sympathy in a matter such as this. Now that this issue is in the public domain, it would look very bad if the Assembly did not instruct you to offer your sympathy on its behalf, and that would not set any precedent. The appropriate Committee could look at this matter for future occasions.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Are there any objections to my sending a letter about this if it is agreed that no precedent is being set on this or on any other matter?

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I do not want to make an issue of this. However, I am concerned that this could give rise to something divisive in the future. This has happened in other institutions. It is regrettable that this has happened in the past with motions of sympathy and condolence. I am trying to ensure that we do not do something today which we will regret in six months’ time. I do not have any objections to the Speaker’s sending a letter on behalf of the Assembly. However, these matters do become difficult, politically controversial and divisive, and I am trying to prevent that from happening in the future.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Your advice is helpful. Would it be reasonable for me to proceed in this matter providing that there is no dissent in the Assembly? If there is dissent, then clearly it will have to be dealt with on a proper notice of motion.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Dr Paisley has suggested a course of action that would not set any precedent, and the matter should be dealt with in that way. We should not set a precedent. The matter has been raised without its having been considered by either the Procedures Committee or the Business Committee. The appropriate action would be to invite both Committees to establish clearly the procedures, if any, which should be adopted in the future. We have to consider whether it is appropriate for matters such as this to come before the Assembly.

The views expressed today are perfectly understandable. However, we must not set a precedent. We have our own procedures and our own Committees for looking into these matters. I suggest that we refer this matter to the appropriate Committees rather than take a decision on the wing.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

May I clarify what you have just said, First Minister? Do you feel that a letter should be written in respect of this matter — but without setting a precedent — and that the principle should be referred to the Business Committee and the Procedures Committee?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Yes.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That seems to me to be the most appropriate way of dealing with this. If it is understood that this will not establish a precedent, that is the line we will take.

British-Irish Bodies: Meetings (17/12/1999)

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

With permission, Mr Speaker, we will make a statement to report to the Assembly on the first summit-level meetings of the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which were held in London on 17 December 1999.

I will be making the report in relation to the British-Irish Council, and the First Minister —

Roger Hutchinson (DUP, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there something wrong with the sound system this morning? It is very difficult to hear.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am grateful to the Member for bringing that to our attention. Will the Keeper of the House ensure that the problem with the sound system is addressed?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the hon Member for drawing attention to that. In case anyone did not hear what I just said, I will repeat it: we will be making a statement to report to the Assembly on the first summit-level meetings of the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which were held in London on 17 December 1999.

I shall be making the report in relation to the British-Irish Council, and the First Minister will be making the report in relation to the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

This report, as it relates to the British-Irish Council meeting, has been approved by all Northern Ireland Ministers who attended the meeting. The First Minister and I are making this report on behalf of all of us. Representatives of the British and Irish Governments, the Northern Ireland Executive Committee, the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales, the Isle of Man Government, and the states of Jersey and Guernsey attended the British-Irish Council meeting.

The following Northern Ireland Ministers attended: Mr David Trimble, Mr Seamus Mallon, Ms Bairbre de Brún, Mr Mark Durkan and Sir Reg Empey.

The British-Irish Council agreed a memorandum on procedural guidance, which sets out the supplementary procedural arrangements relating to the operation of the Council.

The Council also agreed a future programme of work. Five areas will be taken forward in sectoral format over the first year. The Irish Government will take the lead on drugs; the Scottish Executive and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales will jointly take forward work on social inclusion; the Northern Ireland Executive Committee will take the lead on the subject of transport; the British Government will lead on the environment; and Jersey will lead in sectoral format on the subject of the knowledge economy. The next summit-level meeting of the council will be convened by the Irish Government in June 2000. The principal item for substantive discussion at that meeting will be drugs. The meeting will also take stock of progress on other work in sectoral format.

A copy of the memorandum on procedural guidance and a copy of the communiqué issued following the meeting have been placed in the Assembly Library.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Deputy First Minister and I participated in the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference meeting.

The conference agreed a memorandum of understanding on supplementary procedural arrangements relating to its operation. A copy of the memorandum and a copy of the communiqué issued after the meeting have been placed in the Assembly Library.

The conference noted that it would bring together the British and Irish Governments to promote bilateral co-operation at all levels on all matters of mutual interest within the competence of both Governments. An initial list of issues, which will form a programme of work in respect of bilateral co-operation, was agreed. These include: asylum and immigration, including common-travel-area issues; European Union and international issues; social security, including methods and fraud detection; education; policy on misuse of drugs; combating organised crime and associated money laundering; and fiscal issues.

The Deputy First Minister and I raised the matter of fuel duty and its impact on the economy of Northern Ireland at the meeting. It was agreed that the conference would consider this issue as part of its future work programme under fiscal issues.

The conference agreed that its next meeting at summit level would take place during the first half of 2000, and that its first meeting on non-devolved Northern Ireland matters would take place in January. It was agreed that meetings on other issues would be arranged as necessary.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Can the First Minister confirm that the inaugural meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference marks the end of the Anglo-Irish Conference and secretariat, which for 15 years gave the Irish Republic a say in every aspect of government in Northern Ireland?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I can, of course, confirm that the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 ceased to operate on 2 December, on devolution to this House, and that consequently the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the secretariat no longer function. The British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference that we attended is, of course, dealing with a much more limited range of matters, as can be seen by comparing the Belfast Agreement with the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985.

It is important to bear in mind that cross-border co-operation, as it affects devolved matters, is now controlled by this Assembly through its representatives on the North/South Ministerial Council. The British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference deals with non-devolved matters and, even on those points, representatives of this House are present. It was an interesting experience, both for myself and for the Deputy First Minister, to be present throughout the meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and to be able to observe and to make observations on all matters which were handled. We have today reported the significant parts of those discussions. Members will note how we were able to raise the issue of fuel duty, which is of very great concern to the people of Northern Ireland. We would not have had the opportunity to raise issues in that way under the ancien régime.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is the House going to allow a process at Question Time whereby planted questions— where answers have already been provided— will be countenanced?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member, who is also a Member of another place, is very much aware that the issue of how Members may come upon the questions which they choose to ask is not a point of order.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

With respect to that point of order, you did not answer it.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is not a point of order. How Members come about the questions that they choose to ask is entirely a matter for them. The question of order is that the questioners are called by the Speaker to put their questions and that they are responded to by the Minister involved.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I do not know whether I have been properly tutored to ask this question, but it is of my own volition. I thank the First Minister and Deputy First Minister for their comments on these two very important bodies arising out of the Good Friday Agreement.

My question to the Deputy First Minister refers to the British-Irish Council. How does he see the relationship between the British-Irish Council and the Northern Ireland Assembly evolving in the months and years ahead? Secondly, how will the British-Irish Council work alongside, or how is it compatible with, the British-Irish Interparliamentary Council, which also exists at the moment?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I will take the second part of the question first. Ministers who attend British-Irish Council meetings will have a duty to report back to the Assembly, at which time Members will have the opportunity to pose questions, as Members are doing today. Members of the Assembly will have the opportunity, and will be encouraged, to participate in any interparliamentary activity arranged through the British-Irish Council. The elected institutions of all the members of the British-Irish Council are encouraged to develop interparliamentary links.

The British-Irish Council will consider how this issue can be addressed. It will be a matter for the respective elected institutions to deliberate upon, and the existing British-Irish interparliamentary body should also be consulted. It is one of those aspects of the British-Irish Council which I think should be encouraged. This is because the more parliamentary interconnection there is among the members of the Council, the more productive will be the understandings and agreements reached in the Council.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. A list of suggestions as to how Question Time should be conducted was distributed to Members. One of these was the possibility that other Members who were not the questioner might be able to speak. There was, however, no indication as to how they should demonstrate to the Speaker their anxiety to do so. Will this be done in the same way as in another place, where Members stand up to indicate their intention to speak, or will it be done by another method?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Members can indicate in the way described, or they can do so in other ways. For example, they could give an indication to myself or the Table Clerks in writing. Either method is perfectly acceptable.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

My question is to the First Minister. Is it not a fact that the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference carries on from the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Is it not a fact, although not mentioned in his statement today, that very important matters are being discussed — matters which people in Northern Ireland would be concerned about? These are issues such as rights; policing, including the implementation of the Patten Report; criminal justice; the normalisation of security arrangements and practices; cross-border security co-operation; the victims of violence; prisons; drugs and drug trafficking; and broadcasting. And the Governments can propose a list of other subjects that can be brought before this body.

What size is this body’s secretariat? Where does it meet? What civil servants from the Assembly are in its secretariat? Can the First Minister tell the House if the Patten report was discussed and what was the consensus of opinion at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference concerning the implementation of the report?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I refer the questioner to the comments I made earlier. We now have a new agreement, with a new Intergovernmental Conference and, consequently, a new secretariat. The matters that fall within the remit of the Intergovernmental Conference are those that are not devolved. The Member read out a list of non-devolved matters. It is quite clear that any matter that is not devolved can come within the purview of the Intergovernmental Conference.

In my statement I mentioned the areas that were going to form a programme of work for the Intergovernmental Conference: asylum and immigration, the European Union, social security, education, drugs and fiscal issues. These were the only issues that were discussed at the meeting. The important thing about the new arrangements is that representatives from this House will be present throughout the discussions. The other matters that the Member referred to were not discussed at the meeting of 17 December. If such matters are discussed at future meetings, we will report on them.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I asked the First Minister about the size of the secretariat, where it meets and whether civil servants from the Assembly are on it. I think I am entitled to an answer to these questions.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

First Minister, do you wish to respond?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Mr Speaker, it is in your hands as to whether a Member can have more than one question at a time. The Anglo-Irish secretariat, established under the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, no longer exists. The staff have been moved to other duties, and some of them have been moved to the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. I recommend to the Member that he pursue the question of the number of staff in the secretariat — which is not known to me — by asking that question in the appropriate place.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the First Minister to say that he is going to answer only one question? He has made a statement. In another place there is always opportunity for more than one question. It would be highly irregular if Members were to be muzzled by being restricted to asking one specific question.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am not aware that the First Minister indicated that Members were permitted to ask only one question. The second part of Dr Paisley’s question may have slipped the First Minister’s mind, though it was put the first time. The First Minister has now answered that question and has indicated the possibility of exploring the matter further.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Dr Ian Paisley referred to the custom and practice in another place. When a ministerial statement is made, it is normal practice for the Speaker to call for questions. Never, in my experience, has the person called by the Speaker asked more than one question.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Indeed that is the case. The reason I permitted Dr Paisley to repeat what he had said earlier is that, in fairness to him, he had actually asked the question. The First Minister had not, perhaps, been in a position to respond immediately. With regard to how many legs a particular question has, most Members have shown a degree of creativity. In some cases the questions have been more like centipedes than three-legged stools. I shall try to keep the questions more restricted.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely Mr McGrady should remember the scriptural exhortation "Physician heal thyself", for he asked two questions.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will not intrude on the question of theological quotations. However, on the issue of physicians, I may have the last word.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I welcome the statements, and I share some of the views put forward by Mr McGrady regarding the Interparliamentary Council. However, I note from the statements that the Northern Ireland Assembly Executive will take the lead on the issue of transport. Will this issue be dealt with on an "islands" basis, and will the need to deal with the A75 Stranraer-Dumfries road,which has such an important impact on Northern Ireland transport routes — be treated as a matter of urgency?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for the question. I agree that one of the benefits of the British-Irish Council is that we will have the opportunity of making suggestions in relation to matters that affect Northern Ireland people and business which are located in other places. The matter he raises was one of the issues we had in mind when we proposed the subject of transport. It is crucially important for business in the North of Ireland that this be looked at, and we will be raising the matter at the earliest sectoral meeting which involves transport.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May we ask the Deputy First Minister, since he holds a position in the Government of a part of the United Kingdom, to have the courtesy and decency to refer to this part of the kingdom by its proper title — Northern Ireland and not the North of Ireland? Surely by now he should have learned that and should at least have respect for this country and its people, not to mention this House.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems that raising a point of order is the only way I can make any reference to the point made unless, of course, you invite me to answer it as if it were a question.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

If the Deputy First Minister wishes to take it as a question, then it shall be taken as such, and he may respond.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Thank you, Sir, for your indulgence. I take the point made by the Minister. I suppose terminology is determined by one’s environment. Let me put it this way: I have never had the experience of saying to my wife, or anyone else, that I am driving down to the Republic of Ireland to do some shopping. The words I use are always "I am going down South to do some shopping." I do shop in the South of Ireland, and I shop in Britain as well —

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Where there is cheap petrol.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I take the point made by the Member, but I would have thought that one of the greatest ways of showing respect for the people of Northern Ireland, the North of Ireland — or whatever you want to call it — would be to be part of the collective responsibility which is working on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, and I invite the Minister to join with us to show that respect and put it into practice.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I welcome these summit meetings; the fact that they took place is an important step forward for politics in Northern Ireland and on these islands. I know that there will be meetings between representatives from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, England, Isle of Man and Guernsey at executive and ministerial levels, but will there be the possibility, at any time, for Assembly Members from these areas to meet and co-operate?

It is important that there be co-operation on these islands at all levels of the decision-making process. That is why I am asking the First and the Deputy First Ministers if there is a possibility of interparliamentary meetings at this level.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I referred earlier to this matter. It is part of the thinking about the British-Irish Council. It was there during all stages of the negotiations, but it has never been fleshed out. It is a matter that I and the British-Irish Council want to encourage. Of course, it will be a matter for each member Parliament to decide, and I suggest, as there seems to be substantial interest in this, that the question of interparliamentary representation should be considered in depth by the Assembly so that we can then proceed to benefit from our relationships with all the other members of the British-Irish Council. The Good Friday Agreement made reference to an interparliamentary relationship with Dáil Éireann. These are not things to be feared; they are things that should be encouraged. As a member of the British-Irish interparliamentary body since its inception, I know that that body would be very keen to enter into discussions to enable us to shape and handle this very important relationship.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The First Minister said that one of the items added to the list of topics for discussion was fuel duty. He will be aware that the Northern Ireland haulage industry is facing annihilation because of gross disparity in the cost of diesel fuel and an outrageous difference in the cost of licensing. If something is not done about this urgently, there will be no indigenous Northern Ireland haulage industry left. I welcome the fact that this issue has been placed on a future and, I hope, urgent agenda.

In relation to the pig industry, which is also facing extinction, will the First Minister consider ensuring that the relationship between the regulations governing pig rearing and slaughter in the Republic and in Northern Ireland are brought into harmony so that pig producers in Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged and that, as soon as possible, slaughtering arrangements will be improved to give our pig producers a level playing field?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Member mentioned two issues, and I will try to remember both of them in my response. Both issues are important. With regard to fuel duty and arrangements for health and safety in agriculture, the Member will recall that it was precisely for that reason that it was agreed by the Assembly that there be co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on food safety. Schemes and an implementation body for food safety were agreed for precisely the reason that the Member has suggested, so I welcome his support for that objective that we have carried forward.

The fuel issue is, of course, a matter of considerable importance in a wide range of areas in the Northern Ireland economy, and it was for that reason that we raised it at the British-Irish Intergovernmental meeting. We were very glad that the British and Irish Governments both responded by including that issue on the list of areas for further work. The Member who raised the issue will, of course, recall that this issue was also debated in another place last Wednesday morning, and I was happy to hear the contributions made in that debate by the leader of the SDLP, Mr Hume, and several of my other parliamentary colleagues. I was sorry that the Member who has raised this issue now was unable to attend.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank the First and Deputy First Ministers for their report on the inaugural meeting of the British-Irish Council. Can they confirm that all parts of the British Isles are participating in that council, which in itself is a remarkable and positive development?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I can confirm participation by the following: the British Government, the Northern Ireland Executive Committee, the Scottish Executive, the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales, the Government of the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I welcome the meeting of the British-Irish Council. I am sure that everyone, certainly on this side of the House, is happy that yet another aspect of the Good Friday Agreement has finally been implemented, and we look forward to productive work arising out of the council. Given the Council’s importance, I would like to ask the Deputy First Minister what provision is being made to keep the Assembly fully informed of its work?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Ministers who attend the British-Irish Council will do what we are doing today, and that is report to the Assembly where Members will have the opportunity to raise questions. I stated previously, on at least one occasion, that Members will be encouraged to participate in any interparliamentary activity that is arranged through the British-Irish Council. I would also like to point out that it will meet in sectoral format as is required in relation to the issues that have been tabulated as matters for consideration during this session. Those range from drugs, which is the immediate one, to transport, where the lead responsibility rests with the Assembly, as well as the other matters that are in the report. This will involve different Ministers being in attendance at those meetings where the intention and requirement is that they will report, not just to the Executive but to the Assembly, in relation to the business that has taken place. That reporting may be undertaken through the First and Deputy First Ministers. Most Ministers might be encouraged to think that they could do a better job themselves, but whatever way it is done, it is important that the Assembly be reported to.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

In presenting his report, the First Minister outlined what was in paragraph 5 of the notes from the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference inaugural summit meeting. Did he feel that he would be extending his statement to an unacceptable length when he failed to mention paragraph 6, which included something which is very near to the heart of the people of Northern Ireland, especially at this time, namely the matter of policing in Northern Ireland, including the implementation of the Patten Report? No doubt this issue will be referred to in the Intergovernmental Conference, as Dublin always interferes in Northern Ireland’s affairs. If the issue has been raised, or when it is raised, what view of the Patten Report will the First and Deputy First Minister express on behalf of the Assembly?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Member will recall that in earlier answers I made it clear that the subject matter of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference includes all devolved matters and, consequently, the particular issues he has mentioned. In the statement we made today I referred to the issues which were discussed on 17 December, and at that meeting there was no discussion of any other matters. If at future meetings there are discussions on non-devolved matters which relate to Northern Ireland, as do the issues mentioned by the Member, we will be present and give a report on those discussions. As no such discussions have yet taken place, I am unable to give such a report, and I do not think it wise to explore purely hypothetical issues at this stage.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

A Chathaoirligh, I welcome the fact that this meeting took place — another instance of the institutions envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement coming into effect.

With reference to this body’s taking the lead on transport, I presume that the Minister for Regional Development was in agreement with that. That would be welcome because the issues of transport on this island and transport between the two islands are important. My question is about resourcing and, given the bleak picture painted by the Minister for Regional Development of our infrastructure and the problems we face with transport here, whether we can take the lead on this. Are the resources that will enable us to take this lead coming directly from the Department of Regional Development or from some other source in the Executive Committee itself?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

There are two parts to the Member’s question. One concerns how we intend to take forward our lead role in transport, and we have both made it clear that the needs of the people of Northern Ireland are what matter. Transport is a sectoral format in both the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. It is vital that work on transport be taken forward in both contexts, irrespective of the attitude taken by any Minister to those institutions. I hope that all Ministers will participate in the relevant institutions. The decision on ministerial participation in the transport sectoral meetings is one for the First and Deputy First Ministers, which, under legislation, we will take at an appropriate time.

In relation to the second part of the Member’s question, it is true that the Council member taking the lead in any of the sectoral issues identified will bear the cost of any meeting which takes places within its jurisdiction. Who foots the bill for the research and compilation of the final product is a matter to be decided by the Council members.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the statement, and I am pleased to hear the list of subjects which the British-Irish Council will be addressing. It is particularly appropriate that the Northern Ireland Executive should be taking the lead on transport, but can the First Minister confirm that the British-Irish Council will not be a mere talking shop? Is he confident that it will develop practical co-operation between the Administrations?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

As with all of these institutions, it will be what we collectively make it to be. I do not believe that it will be a talking shop. The participants of the British-Irish Council are all conscious of the fact that this institution must show that it can impact properly and truly on people’s lives. By splitting the work into sectoral formats from the start it will be possible to make progress on a range of issues, and those already identified are drugs, social exclusion, environment and transport, as well as the knowledge economy. These are issues which impact on all of us.

It is no coincidence that a number of the issues chosen impact differently on those who are less well off and less fortunate. That indicates that the British-Irish Council is about learning from each other and ensuring that all our policies and practices are brought up to the highest quality. The British-Irish Council is one of the institutions at the core of the Good Friday Agreement, and, as with all the institutions, we must show that we can deliver what lay behind the concept.

I look forward to progress being made across the sectoral formats in the next six months and to taking stock of progress in June at the next plenary session of the British-Irish Council. These institutions — what they do and what their ultimate results will be — will be as good as the effort we put into them.

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

The statements from the First and Deputy First Ministers show that we have taken another important step on the road to securing permanent peace and reconciliation on these islands. May I ask the Deputy First Minister what benefits will derive from the British-Irish Council?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

The ultimate benefit is the co-operation with the other Administrations and Governments. We live cheek by jowl with all of those involved in the British-Irish Council — even though in some cases there is a sea or a border between us. However, in reality there is no border, for the days of borders in international business and national life are gone. We will benefit by learning from the experiences of other areas, by dealing with those experiences in a collective way and by producing, in conjunction with each member of the council, policy positions from which we can all benefit, individually and collectively.

Sometimes we believe that this is the only place with good ideas and good policies. That may or may not be true, but we should not be afraid to learn from other places and help to create a relationship between all members of the Council which will begin to transcend their differences, not just in practical and economic terms, but also in political terms.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

We know from the answer given by the First Minister that we have a secretariat serving the British-Irish Council and that some of the members of that secretariat were previously members of the Anglo-Irish secretariat. Does he agree that his answer to Mr McClarty’s question was misleading in that he said that the Secretariat had now been done away with? Will he tell the House where the secretariat which was supposed to have been done away with is now located? Is it located in Maryfield or somewhere else in Northern Ireland?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The latter point is not within my responsibility. Consequently, I am not in a position to give an answer. I suggest that the Member approach one of his Colleagues who is in a position to table an appropriate Question in another place.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Can the Ministers assure us that the benefits of the British-Irish Council will have the resources needed to tackle unemployment and all the other social ills that currently afflict Northern Ireland?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I should remind myself and everyone else that the decisions taken in relation to matters pertaining to the British-Irish Council will be taken by the Executive Committee here and, through the Executive Committee, by the Assembly.

I trust that in their wisdom all Ministers, the Executive Committee and the Assembly will make sufficient funding available so that we can maximise the benefits of membership of the British-Irish Council. We should also remind ourselves that government on these islands becomes more de-centralised as power is devolved. It is important that strong links be established and maintained between the various Administrations. As set out in the Good Friday Agreement, the British-Irish Council is established under the British-Irish Agreement

"to promote the harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of relationships among the peoples of these islands".

Through membership of the British-Irish Council we will be able to exchange information and use our best endeavours to reach agreement on matters of mutual interest with our neighbours on this island. To do that properly we need to have a proper attitude towards the funding of policies which the Assembly and Executive adopt as a result of their experience in the British-Irish Council.

Assembly Members’ Pensions Bill: Second Stage

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Assembly Members’ Pension Bill (NIA 1/99 ) be agreed.

This stage provides an opportunity for a general debate on the Bill and for Members to vote on its general principles.

The purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the payment of pensions and gratuities to, or in respect of, persons who have been Members of the Assembly. I should make it clear that this is only in respect of Members – it does not cover their staff. Members need to make a separate provision for staff using the allowances available in the Members’ Allowances Determination.

Members will recall that while in shadow form the Assembly agreed that the recommendations in the Assembly Commission’s first report of 22 February 1999 dealing with matters of salaries, allowances and pensions for Members should follow the recommendation of the Senior Salaries Review Body. I would like to point out that at that stage no one in the Assembly knew what those recommendations would be. Subsequently, the review body recommended that in proportion to a Member’s salary and service, a pension scheme for Members of the Assembly should be established to provide the same categories and, substantially, the same levels of benefits as are available to MPs at Westminster under the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Scheme.

Since then the Commission has been engaged in developing a pension scheme for Members which would give effect to the review body’s recommendations, and that has resulted in the Bill that I am taking forward on the Commission’s behalf. It has not been possible to introduce a scheme before now, since the powers to do so did not become available until devolution.

A sub-committee, chaired by Mr Denis Watson, has helped the Commission considerably in preparing the scheme. The Commission has spent a great deal of time scrutinising the Bill’s very detailed provisions, and I wish at this point to record the Commission’s appreciation of the sub-committee’s work. I will come back to how the Commission sees the group’s being involved in the long-term management of the scheme.

While I do not wish to go into the Bill’s detailed provisions today, perhaps I may give a brief summary of the benefits of the scheme. In doing so, I should emphasise that these benefits apply to all Members of the Assembly. The Commission believes that all equal- opportunities issues are addressed in the detail of the Bill.

Members’ pensions will be based on final salary and length of service. A Member’s pension will amount to one fiftieth of final salary multiplied by the number of years’ service. Members will pay 6% of their salary into the pension fund, with the Assembly making up the balance of the cost. The maximum pension that can be accrued is two thirds of the final salary. Part of the pension can be commuted into a lump sum.

The normal retirement age is 65, but, subject to Inland Revenue limits, Members who are currently over 65 will continue to accrue their pension in the same way as those below this age. In certain circumstances Members may retire earlier than 65 with a reduced pension, although there is no reduction if a Member retires early due to ill health. A lump sum of three years’ salary may be paid if a Member dies in service. Widows’, widowers’ and children’s pensions are also provided for. There is a facility available for the purchase of added years and for additional voluntary contributions. Members will be able to transfer service to, and from, this scheme.

Pensions will be increased in line with inflation, and enquiries have already been made to have the scheme contracted out of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme. A supplementary scheme will be available for officeholders on the same basis as for Members of Parliament. The pensions of Members who are also Members of the Westminster or European Parliament will be based on their reduced salary.

The scheme cannot come into effect until this Bill is passed. At that time, all Assembly Members will automatically become members of the scheme. Additionally, Members’ service between the time they took up their Assembly seats and the Bill’s being passed will automatically count towards their pensionable service. Unless other arrangements are made with the trustees, deductions of 9% of salary, in addition to the normal 6% deduction, will be made to cover the contributions that Members would have paid had the scheme been in place from the date they took their seats.

On this basis we hope that these retrospective contributions would be paid for within a year of the scheme’s coming into effect. Provision is also made for the scheme to apply retrospectively to any Member who dies between now and the Bill’s coming into effect. The sub-committee, under Mr Watson, has spent a lot of time looking at the detail of the scheme. It has also started to consider what administrative arrangements would be needed for the practical operation of the scheme as soon as it is in place.

Subject to the Assembly’s approval, the Commission’s view is that this sub-committee, given the expertise it has developed, should take on responsibility for the administration of the scheme once it comes into effect. In other words, the sub-committee’s members would become the trustees of the scheme. The arrangements for appointing the five trustees, their powers and responsibilities are set out in Part B and in Schedule 1 to the Bill. Therefore the trustees and not the Commission will be responsible for running the scheme. An important part of their responsibilities will be communicating with Members, explaining the scheme’s provisions to them in more detail and dealing with queries such as the transfer of service from pension schemes relating to Members’ previous employments, assisted, where appropriate, by the scheme actuary.

The Commission hopes to produce a note shortly on the issues which Members should consider in coming to a decision on such transfers. For instance, some Members retained their previous pension arrangements on election to the Assembly. However, unless these arrangements relate to another current employment they will probably have to be cancelled for any period in which the Assembly scheme applies to them. This is an example of one of the detailed matters on which the trustees will be offering assistance.

I hope that this has given Members an appreciation of the principles and main provisions of the Bill, which, because of its subject matter, is necessarily complicated and involved, and that the Assembly is content that it should now pass to the Committee Stage for more detailed scrutiny.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

The Bill will now pass to the Committee Stage for further scrutiny, but there are two points of principle which should be considered. The Committee should look at the principle of giving some discretion to Members over when they may transfer or pay back contributions. If the Committee were to consider that, it would be extremely useful to Members. As Mr Coulter said, this is a complicated piece of legislation. It would also be helpful if the Committee understood that many Members come from various walks of life. Mr Coulter pointed out also that some continued to contribute to other pension schemes and that it would be illegal for them to continue to do that and thus hold two pensions. They must decide either to transfer into this pension scheme or to remain in their current one.

I would like the Committee to give some further consideration, as a point of principle, to the fact that the legislation as currently drafted allows only for a start date of 25 June 1998 or the present date, and some thought needs to be given to variation in terms of dates that lie in between.

I would like it put on record that we owe a debt of gratitude to the trustees and to the Chairperson of the Pensions Committee for the work that they have done and, in particular, to Mr Denis Watson.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

We shall contact Ms McWilliams with a detailed reply.

There will be an opportunity to examine the detail of the Bill at the Committee Stage scheduled for 27 January and to move amendments then.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Assembly Members’ Pensions Bill (NIA 1/99) be agreed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Bill stands referred to the Finance and Personnel Committee.

Assembly Business

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Under Standing Orders we move to questions at 2.30 pm. The decision of the Business Committee was that if we completed the business up to this point in advance of a reasonable time for a suspension for lunch, we would proceed to the motions that are down for debate for today. That being the case, we will move now to the three motions.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you give us some guidance about the timing of the debate? As I understand it, there is a time limit for the overall debate. If there is an amendment, presumably you do not want the person moving the motion to speak all of the time. Is there a time limit for the debate and for the speeches?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Business Committee’s decision was to accept three motions for debate today, along with any amendments that might come forward, and to finish our business by 6.00 pm, as laid down in Standing Orders.

The intention was to try to have the first motion dealt with before the suspension for lunch. Questions would then be taken in the absence of any statements from Ministers. I have received no notice of any statements. Questions will be completed between 2.30 pm and 4.00 pm, and there will be an opportunity to take the second and third motions between 4.00 pm and 6.00 pm. That will allow one hour for each motion — one before lunch, one between 4.00 pm and 5.00 pm and one between 5.00 pm and 6.00 pm.

There are amendments for the first two motions on the Marshalled List, and we will proceed in the usual fashion.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Are there limits on the individual speeches?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As you may recall, I asked at the start of the day that those Members who wished to speak should let me know. I find it extremely difficult to define time limits unless I have some indication about the number of Members who wish to speak. I am also required to ensure that there is a degree of balance in the arguments put forward. I have to say that Members have not been hugely to the fore in indicating that they wish to speak. At present there is a very limited number of Members who wish to speak. I shall therefore have to judge that as time goes on.

In the first instance, we should perhaps allow the proposers of the motions and amendments to speak, since that may well, in itself, stimulate some speakers to come forward. At this stage, however, there are no particular limits, although I may have to introduce them as we move along in order to achieve a reasonable spread of speakers.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will the proposer of the motion have time to reply?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

In the normal course of events, the mover would have the right of reply. I shall have to give some consideration to the question of timing. We move on to the first motion, which stands in the names of Dr Paisley and Mr Peter Robinson.

Decommissioning

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move the following motion:

This House demands the handing over of all illegal terrorist weaponry and its destruction in accordance with legislative provisions; acknowledges that the people of Northern Ireland will not accept token decommissioning; and calls for the process of decommissioning to be verifiable, transparent and credible.

The issue of decommissioning continues to frustrate the people of Northern Ireland and constrain genuine political development in the Province. The Unionist people are sick of being misled and lied to over the issue of decommissioning. Even the "Yes" voters must be embarrassed by their misplaced political judgement in putting their trust in the word of the IRA.

It remains my firm conviction that the IRA has no intention of decommissioning. That is confirmed by a recent statement made by the leader of IRA/Sinn Féin before he left these shores to go to the United States. He pointed out that he was talking about the decommissioning of all weaponry, including that of the security forces, members of the Army, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary Police Reserve. Decommissioning in the so-called peace agreement, as any ordinary individual reads it, has to do with terrorist weapons and not with legally held weapons. Not so with the leader of IRA/Sinn Féin.

At present it appears that the Official Unionists will be satisfied with, if not relieved by, a token gesture — one which will be hyped up by Gen de Chastelain and the two Governments as a credible start to decommissioning. It will, of course, be no such thing. Like all of the First Minister’s previous claims about decommissioning, the idea that the IRA will give up its guns when their presence has secured it a place in the Government of Northern Ireland is simply untenable.

I noted, with a sense of some irony, the statement by the recently knighted Josias Cunningham that the Official Unionists would not stomach any more drift over the issue of decommissioning. We have had nothing but drift from the Official Unionists on this matter. In June 1996, Mr Trimble told the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ that he would end the talks if decommissioning did not commence. That was in June 1996. He did no such thing. Since then the leader of the Official Unionists has twisted, turned, digressed and avoided dealing genuinely with this issue, while the IRA has held to its position and held on to its arsenal of murder weapons.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Is the Member aware of a statement and, indeed, an article written by the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party on 18 April 1998, just before the referendum? In that article the First Minister said

"As for the eligibility of those seeking to hold ministerial positions, the Unionist Party negotiators have, in writing from the Prime Minister, an assurance that no member of a terrorist-related party can hold such office until it has commenced the decommissioning of all its illegal weapons. Without this there should be no early release of prisoners."

He went on to say

"Any attempt to bring into office paramilitaries who have not proved a commitment to peaceful means by decommissioning will precipitate a crisis in the Assembly. We will not serve alongside such persons."

Can he tell us his view on the Ulster Unionist Party’s change of heart on this most critical matter?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Lines have been drawn in the sand by Mr Trimble, but he always drew the line where the tide could reach it. When the tide came in, the line was conveniently wiped out. That has been happening all along on this issue.

I resent the attempt by the scurrilous ‘News Letter’ to tell us that we have no right to discuss this matter in the Assembly. Who does it think it is? Has Geoffrey Martin suddenly got the infallibility of the papacy? Does he feel that he should tell us what we ought to discuss? Mr Martin never submitted himself to the electorate. He has no mandate. He is the paid stooge of the Mirror Group, and he will no doubt advocate what they are advocating. As long as I am in this House, Mr Speaker, I will be using my mandate to speak up for what I believe, and no amount of ‘News Letter’ garbage will keep me from doing my duty.

I am reminded that when I first came to this House the same newspaper, on the day of the election, had a full banner headline across the front page "Minford X". That is exactly what the people of Bannside did. They axed Minford and put me into this House to represent the constituency of the former Speaker. Well done, the Belfast ‘News Letter’! Let it continue its acts of folly if it will.

Far from being penalised, the IRA has been put into government without a single shred of evidence that there will be any decommissioning and without a single shred of evidence from the other partners in the Government. I am glad that there is an amendment. It is very interesting — a sort of attempt by the SDLP to be neutral, as if that were possible. The SDLP and the UUP are together on this matter. There will be no punitive action against the IRA when it fails to decommission.

I am angry at the deceit of the Official Unionists and at the way Mr Trimble, in conjunction with Tony Blair, has tricked a number of the Unionist electorate into supporting the Belfast Agreement. But I am equally disgusted at the behaviour of the SDLP. That party poses as a party of peacemakers, yet it has ridden to political advantage on the back of IRA violence. It has refused to take on IRA/Sinn Féin but has been taken in by them.

The release of 30-year-old Government papers reveals that while they may have talked publicly about peace, privately their members sought to arm Nationalists in Northern Ireland on the pretence of self-defence, but really for the murder of Protestants. There is no prospect of the IRA’s disarming. It knows that the SDLP will not take it on or vote to eject Sinn Féin/IRA from the Executive.

It was claimed that under the Belfast Agreement, decommissioning would happen. I do not see where or how it is going to happen. The "Yes" campaign claimed that it would be achieved. Gen de Chastelain claimed that IRA weapons would have to be destroyed, as well as their residue. In June, "destroyed" was changed to "put beyond use". I challenged the general to define "put beyond use". He said that it had the same meaning as "destroyed". In that case, why use it?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Given the Member’s comments on the 30-year-old papers, would it not now be appropriate to call for a public inquiry into the SDLP-inspired gun-running by the Irish Government?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

There can be a public inquiry provided that it is against the overall Unionist position. Those who call for a public inquiry on anything that might vindicate the Unionist position will not get it. If the public inquiry into "bloody Sunday", which has been very slow in starting, does not come out with the answers that the Nationalist community in Londonderry wants, it will be rejected. That will be £20 million down the drain. Public inquiries are acceptable only if they come out with what the Nationalists want.

I understand that the Official Unionists are being briefed privately to the effect that the deadline is not February, or any meeting of their council, but has been moved to May. More drift and indecision seem to be the order of the day for the Official Unionist Council meeting. Public confidence demands movement on this issue. I note that even Bertie Ahern said in South Africa that the public will not accept excuses on decommissioning. According to Bertie Ahern "No surrender" is not an option, but he will be the first to bow the knee before the IRA when the day comes.

Action must be taken against IRA/Sinn Féin. They should be punished if they do not decommission. The people cannot be held to ransom. There must be decommissioning. If there is not, it is not Unionists who should be put out of the Executive but IRA/Sinn Féin. Some people, even in the Unionist camp, seem to have a twisted imagination on that issue. There is a concerted effort to move this issue away from the politicians. There was an attempt to get a leading South African publicly to call on Ulster politicians to leave this matter in the hands of the general. In an interview that was embarrassing for the "Yes" campaign, he changed his mind and called for politicians to get involved.

This key political issue must be faced. The largest arsenal of terrorist weaponry in the Western world is in the charge of IRA/Sinn Féin and can be used at a moment’s notice, as the Canary Wharf tragedy showed, against the peace-loving, law-abiding citizens of any part of this United Kingdom.

Time is very limited, and Members are getting hungry and desire to eat. One of them said that he was flummoxed and tired by the amount of work that he had to do as an Assembly Member. I would not like that man to pass away. I will therefore draw my consideration of this matter to a close, and I look forward to having a brief opportunity to respond to any vital points that may be made.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "House" and add

"will work to implement all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement, including decommissioning, consistent with the three principles agreed on 25 June 1999 and reiterated by Senator Mitchell in his concluding report on the review."

The amendment which has been tabled in my name, on behalf of the SDLP, seeks to address the question of decommissioning on the basis that has already been agreed by the parties participating in the Executive.

One would have hoped that at the first meeting of the Assembly in this new year, this new century and this new millennium the Northern Ireland community would be treated to a much more worthwhile and meaningful debate — a debate on health, education or employment, instead of on the endlessly rehearsed subject of decommissioning. Members are faced with so many problems whichever way they turn — problems with health and education, jobs, farming and fisheries — but yet again we are debating decommissioning, even though the framework has been put in place for its total achievement.

By bringing forward this motion and the next two, the DUP is again engaging in the ritualistic performances which seem to me to be geared to grabbing the headlines or creating a confrontation in the Chamber that will make the news later. It does this instead of addressing and participating in the reality of trying to achieve decommissioning in its best form. Perhaps the ‘News Letter’, which Dr Paisley referred to, was right when it said that there might be a bit of headline-seeking in what is currently a rather dull political scenario for the DUP.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not correct to say that every party in the Assembly had an opportunity to put down a motion for today? They could have put down motions on health or on the other matters that Mr McGrady referred to, but they did not do so. It is no wonder that they are mad that the DUP was able to table three motions. Even I was amazed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. It would be inappropriate to go into the discussions and dealings of the Business Committee, save to note that Dr Paisley is obviously gratified at the opportunity to have three motions in one day.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

That request for a ruling under the guise of a point of order merely illustrates the point that I was making: anyone could have tabled these motions. I have no objection to any number of motions being tabled, but I am entitled to address the motivation behind them. Are they effective or simply a means of giving the impression of real political movement? The DUP has failed to prevent the creation of the power-sharing Executive, having lost out to the common sense of the great majority of people in Northern Ireland. Its political credibility is now being reduced to nothing.

How else could one describe the gross, audacious hypocrisy of the DUP in accepting two ministerial positions in the Executive, the very creation of which it says is a threat to Northern Ireland’s existence?

12.00

How can they participate so fully in government? No amount of verbal camouflage can conceal the reality of the DUP’s participation in the Government of Northern Ireland. The DUP knows that this process is going to succeed — that is its real problem. However, it should also remember, in the terms of these motions, that part of the process that I hope will succeed is that the decommissioning of all illegal paramilitary weapons takes place. That is part of the process that we are in.

Do the proposers of the substantive motion think that they have a unique claim to the need and the desire for decommissioning? Let me assure them that they have not. All the people of this island, and beyond, have a deep and pervasive desire to see the end of guns and explosives in this society. Unless the question of arms is dealt with now, we all know the dangers they represent to peace and harmony, to our future and to the future of the next generation.

Decommissioning should not be achieved by the extraction of benefits for those who hold weapons.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I have had enough heckling and interventions from a sedentary position to do me for this particular debate. It is not a question of giving benefits for decommissioning; it is a question of fundamental rights and the demands of this society, as expressed in referenda and in elections, being heeded and protected. One of those demands — and we all know this; it was endorsed and agreed upon — is that all illegal weapons should be decommissioned by May 2000. I do not quarrel with people’s need and desire for decommissioning. Indeed, I support such people in their proper endeavours to achieve it, but what I object to is the DUP’s attempt to gain party political advantage by tabling these motions, even at the risk of sacrificing the actuality of decommissioning. I fear that that is the manner and intent of the substantive motions.

We have collectively — slowly and painfully — put together a process to achieve decommissioning. We should now allow it to proceed without placing further pressures on it.

Many Members have sufficient influence in the appropriate quarters to ensure that decommissioning will take place as set out in the agreement and in my party’s amendment to the DUP motion. The amendment deals with the principles of the agreements made on 25 June 1999 and reiterated by Senator Mitchell in his review: an inclusive Executive exercising devolved powers; decommissioning of all paramilitary arms by May 2000; and the decommissioning to be carried out by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. That is what was agreed, and that is the basis on which we sit in this Chamber. My amendment, on behalf of my party, tries to put that in the context of decommissioning.

Decommissioning is a difficult and a delicate task to achieve. The process for decommissioning has already been laid down by the agreement of the parties; by the conclusion of the Mitchell Report; and by the current and ongoing work of the decommissioning commission. We all know that Gen de Chastelain is to report by the end of this month. Let us wait for the outcome of his report and not make the process any more difficult for him than it has to be.

We have seen how difficult it is — sometimes impossible — in other parts of the world. We can achieve a tremendous breakthrough on decommissioning — one which will set the foundations for a new beginning.

It is not only the DUP which is putting unnecessary stress on the current process of achieving decommissioning. One has only to note the recent speech by the Sinn Féin president in which he anticipated a united Ireland within 16 years. There is nothing wrong with that aspiration. Indeed, I support a similar concept for a new Ireland, but how much more easily could that be achieved if the IRA were to immediately, voluntarily and totally decommission its weapons, and the Loyalists were to do likewise. There is a responsibility as well. In the aftermath of decommissioning, decisions regarding our political future would be the result of the only acceptable weapon in any democracy, and that weapon is the will of the people, freely expressed. That too is guaranteed under the Good Friday Agreement.

When this motion was being moved some very scurrilous remarks were made about the SDLP. Since its foundation in 1970 — it did not exist in 1969 — my party has taken on all those who perpetrated violence, particularly those who were operating insidiously from within our own communities. Members of my party were assassinated. They and their families suffered intimidation at the hands of their electorate, and I resent the insinuation made in this House that the SDLP piggybacks on anybody. We were our own men and women, and we stood up to violence while others were creating semi-paramilitary groupings and leaping up and down hills waving gun licences, and the like. I defy any Member of this House, or anybody outside it, to give me one instance of any member of the SDLP participating in any form of militarism.

Not only that, but when the SDLP initiated a new beginning in the early 1970s we created a framework of thought and a new process, the result of which, whether Members like it or not, is that the most extreme groups, the DUP, Sinn Féin — the lot — are in this Chamber today. That has been our achievement, and we are proud of it. We do not accept any scurrilous, unfounded character assassinations of people who are now dead. I have heard all Members comment on the grief and the suffering of members of their community. There was grief and suffering in our community too.

This amendment contains the reality of that, which has been agreed by the parties, by the Mitchell Review and by the process now being undertaken by Gen de Chastelain. I commend it for the Assembly’s endorsement.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

I am broadly in favour of this motion, with which, strangely, I find myself in agreement. I have to say to members of the DUP, however, that they are not achieving much by moving motions like this. They know that it will not achieve anything; they know that they are not going to bring about decommissioning; and they know that nothing that they have done in the past is in any way going to change anything in this society. All they do is act constantly as a catalyst for aggression —

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

Members of your party never give way to members of my party — or very rarely — so I will not give way to you.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you make it clear that the record reflects that in every debate I have given way to every Member across the House on those issues.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That is not a point of order, although may I take this opportunity to draw Members’ attention to the fact that remarks need to be addressed through the Chair.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

I apologise, Mr Speaker. I will make my remarks through the Chair. The debate today is a relatively pointless exercise, but, again, I want to say that I speak in favour of the motion. We have heard from the DUP why it supports this motion. This is the party whose hypocrisy knows no bounds. It takes part in the agreement; it takes part in the institutions of the agreement; it says that the agreement is going to lead to the sky falling in and a united Ireland in its members’ lifetime, yet it feels that it can take part in it somehow. If the agreement is such a disaster, why is the DUP not outside this place? But I think we all know how hypocritical the DUP is.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

If it is so meaningless, why is the Member taking part in it?

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

This is coming from a Member who said he did not even think that decommissioning was a priority.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Enough said.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

It is not a point of order; you know it is not a point of order.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Let me be the judge of that one.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Is it in order for a Member to grossly mislead the House by stating that I said that decommissioning was not a priority? What I said — and it is clearly on the record — was that it was not the priority. The priority should have been the maintenance of democracy and the upholding of the Union. Maybe it is not for Mr Dalton.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It could not really be a point of order for me to try to ensure that Members do not mislead each other, or the House, in a general sense, but I rather suspect the point has been made.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

My premonition was correct in that it was not a point of order. The Mitchell review took place at the end of last year, and in it there was a general discussion and debate. An attempt made by this party and by Members opposite to find some way of moving the entire decommissioning process forward. We tried to come to a sensible arrangement whereby the institutions of the agreement could be set up and, in reciprocation, expected that decommissioning would progress under the auspices of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. I am one of the more liberal members of the Unionist community who had hoped that the new year would see the destruction of weaponry. I had hoped that the new millennium would bring about a new era in politics and that the gun would be removed from politics in Northern Ireland, but unfortunately that has not been the case.

I have to say to the Members opposite, in particular to Sinn Féin, that some members of the Unionist community, like myself, have tried very hard to make the agreement work. We have tried our best to bring about a society in which there is tolerance, in which there is respect for the diversity of nationality, of identity, and for the aspirations in Northern Ireland. We have tried hard to make this process work. It has not been easy for us.

Many of us have felt a great moral difficulty in dealing with certain aspects of the agreement — prisoner releases and changes to the RUC cut many of us very deeply and are extraordinarily difficult to deal with — but in good faith we have tried to make this work. We find that, as the new year dawns, nothing has happened. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning does not seem to have produced any result, and the decommissioning issue, brought up again by the DUP, raises its head as merely another obstacle in this process. Before the new year I made a number of comments on the establishment of the institutions of the agreement and on the way in which they should be set up. I suggested that we should try to take this process forward by setting up these institutions in order to create the conditions that would allow those members of the IRA to bring about decommissioning — [Interruption]

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is the Member aware that nine months ago, at the Easter celebrations in my constituency of Carrickmore, the present Minister of Education advised those assembled not to hand over a single gun or an ounce of Semtex?

That was a person, now a Minister in the Government, addressing his own flock. The same people have now threatened the local primary school headmaster in Pomeroy, telling him not to allow a representative of the Pushkin award, the Duchess of Abercorn, into their school. Threats and intimidation are still part of the IRA policy of the ballot box in one hand and institutional or violent intimidation in the other.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

I would like to be able to say to the Member that we live in a society where threats and intimidation are not part of day-to-day life. I woke up this morning to find that two members of my constituency in Newtownabbey had been shot through the legs by members of Loyalist paramilitary groups. This type of thing does occur on a daily basis, but we are trying to make it stop. We are trying to bring about a society where this does not happen; where there is not that degree of intimidation on a regular basis; where paramilitary groups do not walk about and wield weaponry threatening people whenever they have political disagreements with them.

Roger Hutchinson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

No.

Before the beginning of the year I suggested that the institutions should be set up. This is something which it seems has now come about through the Mitchell review. At the time some senior Members of Sinn Féin — the Member from Mid Ulster in particular — suggested that others should listen to me. May I say to that Member that he should listen to me now. There is no more room for compromise on this side of the House. Members of the Unionist community, like myself, will not give any further. We are not able on this occasion simple to allow things to change yet again and for the Unionist community to slide one more time in order to allow a little more room, or opportunity, in the hope that one day the weaponry will be destroyed. I want to make it clear to the Members opposite that under the terms of the Mitchell review there is an expectation that there will be a report from Gen de Chastelain by the end of January.

Roger Hutchinson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

No. I expect that the report on 31 January will contain some reference to decommissioning. I, unlike other Members, do not expect the IRA to surrender weapons, to bend the knee, or in any way to indicate its surrender. We are asking that those weapons, which are a threat to the lives and well-being of this community and of this society, both in the North and South of Ireland, are got rid off. I do not care whether this is done by way of a big bang in a forest and watched by Gen de Chastelain or by some other method. I want to see those weapons destroyed and the threat of the gun removed from politics in Northern Ireland.

I must indicate to those Members that I would be unwilling and unable to support the continuation of the institutions of the Assembly if decommissioning does not occur by the end of January. I say that as one of the most liberal Members one could probably find on this side of the House. On this occasion I want to make sure that the Members opposite realise the strength of feeling that exists in the Unionist community.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way? [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I have noticed that there is a little pattern developing. Because there is no limit on the time Members may speak, there is a tendency for them to give way to members of their own party merely to increase the number of speakers and the amount of speaking time available. Mr Paisley Jnr looks shocked. I assure him that I think it may be so. Therefore, whilst it is not inappropriate to give way to members of their own party, neither is it inappropriate to give way to members of other parties.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Further to the point of order, Mr Speaker. You cannot accuse the Member of that, as he is refusing to give way to a member of his own party but quite willing to give way to a member of Sinn Féin/IRA.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I was not begging any questions of what this Member was doing; I was merely responding to a singularly noisy response from others when he gave way to a Member from another party.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

When a person is making a motion in another place he is entitled to give way at least two or three times to people who are naturally questioning him about his motion. It has always been the custom that when a person is proposing a main motion he has the flexibility of giving way.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am not suggesting that Members have gone outside what is appropriate; I am just a little aware that when patterns develop they can become inappropriate.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I have a comment to make through you, Mr Speaker, to Mr Shipley Dalton . I sympathise and empathise with many of Mr Shipley Dalton’s comments in relation to how the people within the community he represents feel about this whole vexed question of decommissioning. By the same token, he neglects to understand that there are many views on that issue within all the communities on these islands. Most importantly, when he says that he will not be able to support the institutions after next month that runs directly contrary to the position adopted by his party leadership during the Mitchell review, particularly at the conclusion of the review. I am making the point that, regardless of the promises and guarantees which were given by its leadership at the Ulster Unionist Council meeting, what Mr Shipley Dalton is saying is contrary to the position adopted by his party at the Mitchell review, when the deal was done. I think the people on the UUP Benches need to bear that in mind.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

The Member is saying that we must not set up more preconditions; that we are attempting to lay down a condition that the IRA is not going to agree with or accept; and that it is unreasonable for us to do that. The institutions of the agreement are set up in order to provide an opportunity for those of us who have hugely different aspirations and views about our way of life to try to find a way to accommodate those within a democratic political framework. The maintenance of standing armies and weaponry cannot in any way be compatible with that. That is something accepted on this side of the House and also throughout the entire island of Ireland. The Member knows that.

It is quite clear that at this stage in the process of the agreement, the future of the institutions of this Assembly is in the hands of the IRA. It is now up to the IRA to decide if it is going to see these institutions continue; if it genuinely wishes to see the agreement work and if it wants a genuine attempt to be made to bring about toleration, acceptance and accommodation between the two vastly different communities in Northern Ireland and throughout Ireland. That decision is the IRA’s, and it is one which must be made quickly, because there is no more room or patience, even amongst those who are the most moderate, most liberal and most willing in the Unionist community, to try to make this process work.

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have now had some of the main contributors, and you indicated that you would look at the possibility of some sort of time limit to enable as many as possible to speak. Have you come to any view on that, and at what time do you aim to have this debate completed so that Members may know whether they will get a chance to speak?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I requested that Members indicate at an early stage whether they wished to speak. That did not happen, which makes it rather difficult for me to indicate a time limit. The Business Committee thought that one hour was reasonable in respect of each of these three debates. We started at about 11.40 am, so this debate would end at 12.40 pm. Within that time both the proposer of the amendment and the proposer of the substantive motion have the right to respond. It is clear from that that the amount of time available for speaking is now very limited, and I appeal to Members to limit themselves as much as possible.

Under Standing Orders, time can be limited only at the beginning of the debate. Members did not raise that until after the debate had started, and that makes it difficult. I will try to ensure that the different sides of the argument are put, but that is not necessarily the same thing as everyone’s having a chance to speak.

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The next business is Question Time at 2.30 pm. If we were to break at 12.40 pm, or shortly after, we would be allowing ourselves almost two hours for lunch. As some Members who have not had the opportunity to speak wish to do so, should we not break later than 12.40 pm?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will consider what the Member says, but he should understand that under Standing Orders the Business Committee set down the time, and the question was whether there would be three hours for one debate or three hours for three debates. The Member needs to be aware of that, but I will see what I can do.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to the point of order, Mr Speaker. Will we still have the vote immediately after this debate?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That is correct.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Chathaoirligh.

I start by saying that it is not within the remit of the House to demand the handover of anything. The Good Friday Agreement and the Mitchell review both state quite clearly that decommissioning, when it occurs, will be a voluntary act. Setting deadlines or making demands will not achieve decommissioning. For years and years the Unionists have stalled and used the tactic of deadline and demand. They have wasted — [Interruption]

Does the Member wish to intervene?

Through the tactic of deadline and demand the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party — Unionists in general — have succeeded only in delaying matters for two years and wasting very valuable time which would have been more productively spent establishing the political institutions and demonstrating that politics work. Decommissioning has been dealt with in the Good Friday Agreement and in the Mitchell review, and it should be left where it rightly belongs — with Gen de Chastelain.

The Good Friday Agreement requires all parties to use their influence to create the conditions to remove the gun from the equation. Sinn Féin has been using its influence to bring this about. Other parties have failed to do so.

I ask the proposer of the motion what the DUP is doing to bring this about. What is it doing to establish the status of the weapons brought here from South Africa by a British agent, Mr Brian Nelson, for the Ulster Resistance movement, a movement with which it is clearly inextricably linked? This was evident at the Ulster Hall, where they wore the red beret and insignia of the Ulster Resistance, in Portadown and on various hillsides throughout the country where members of the DUP waved weapons, both licensed and unlicensed.

Where are those weapons now? They are still being targeted at the Nationalist community in the North. The party in question was instrumental in forming the Ulster Resistance, so we need to have an answer. What is it doing to bring about decommissioning?

The House should get on with the business that it was elected to do — fill the vacuum and demonstrate that politics works. The decommissioning issue is now where it should be — with Gen de Chastelain and his committee.

We should not underestimate the efforts made by the IRA in creating the opportunity to bring about the political climate in which progress can be made. It created the opportunity by calling the cessation of violence in the first place, and it has also linked in and co-operated with Gen de Chastelain, meeting him regularly to try to bring about the decommissioning of weapons. When decommissioning happens, it will be a voluntary act — it cannot be brought about by force or demand.

I ask the House to support Mr McGrady’s amendment. Decommissioning should be dealt with under the terms of the Mitchell review and in keeping with the three principles set out on 25 June 1999.

Go raibh maith agat.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

I support the motion standing in the names of Rev Dr Ian Paisley and Mr P Robinson. It is important to consider why decommissioning is such a crucial issue for the entire community in Northern Ireland. It is vital to remove from those who have terrorised Catholics and Protestants, Unionists and Nationalists, the tools of their trade, the guns and explosives that are required to carry on, sustain or resume a campaign of death and destruction that has so far resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 innocent victims, citizens of Northern Ireland.

Let us not lose sight of the true nature of decommissioning and of exactly what it means. There has been an attempt to equate decommissioning with a devolved administration in Northern Ireland and to sanitise the issue beyond all recognition. We need to remind ourselves and the community — if it needs any reminding — exactly what the past 30 years have meant to the people of Northern Ireland. The terror has been directed by Sinn Féin/IRA not only against the forces of the Crown, the British Army and the forces of law and order in Northern Ireland. They have also terrorised those in their own communities and their co-religionists.

I shall give a few examples in order to make people aware or to familiarise them with some of the past atrocities. A book by Mr Peter Taylor, entitled ‘Provos: the IRA and Sinn Féin’, gives an account of an incident which went beyond the bounds of human decency for any group of people in the world, let alone Northern Ireland. It says

"The IRA took hostage the family of Patsy Gillespie, strapped him into a car loaded with a thousand pounds of explosives and told him to drive to the checkpoint. The IRA told his family he would be released when he carried out their orders. Patsy Gillespie became a ‘human bomb’ and when he arrived at the checkpoint the IRA detonated the explosives by remote control killing him and five soldiers. The IRA claimed Gillespie was a ‘legitimate target’ because he worked at an army base."

In fact, Mr Gillespie was baking buns for the Army. That was his crime.

Others who are too numerous to name are documented in the book ‘Lost Lives’. People were taken by Mr Molloy’s, Mr Adams’s and Mr McGuinness’s associates in the IRA to destinations and tortured for days. They were nailed to barn floors, killed in the most horrific fashion, their stomachs gouged out and filled with explosives. When we talk about the handing in of weapons and explosives, let us never lose sight of how these guns and explosives have been used or of the families who still suffer mentally and physically and who will bear the scars for their entire lives.

It is with great regret, in light of the incidents I have mentioned, that I have to say that some members of the Ulster Unionist Party view decommissioning not in light of the atrocities or of the fact that no civilised community can continue with such people in its midst, let alone in its Government, but simply as a way of getting around the issue that faces them in relation to sitting in government with unreconstructed terrorists.

They do not seek, as they pledged to the electorate many years ago, to put Sinn Féin/IRA out of business, rather they seek to find a way to sit in government and work with them as full partners in the Government in Northern Ireland.

The fear of Mr Shipley Dalton and others in the Ulster Unionist Party is what Gen de Chastelain may come up with on the issue of decommissioning. We have heard Mr Molloy say that he has great faith in the General’s future plans, which worries me slightly. The fear in the Ulster Unionist camp is that the General may find a way around the decommissioning issue. He may find a way of allowing the Ulster Unionists to continue beyond their February deadline that would be acceptable to the other side of the House and to the weaker brethren in the Ulster Unionist Party. They may hope that it might be sufficient to swing the Ulster Unionist Council.

However, Mr Trimble’s dilemma is that it will not cover their nakedness before the majority of people whom they have deceived, both in their own ranks and in the wider community. They told the people that they would not sit in government with murderers. The Northern Ireland Unionist Party will continue to oppose the presence of Sinn Féin in government while the IRA exists and while Sinn Féin remains inextricably linked to that organisation. We do not support the concept of guns for government. We do not accept the barter system whereby a feeble gesture guarantees the continuation of those fronting terrorist organisations in the Government of Northern Ireland.

The implementation of the Belfast Agreement has politically institutionalised the very opposite of democratic practice and the rule of law. The outworking of the agreement has secured a central role in government for Sinn Féin, backed by the terrorist arsenal of the IRA. This means that the threat of force has been fully incorporated into the government of Northern Ireland.

The outcome of the Mitchell review fully legitimised this state of affairs. It established that decommissioning, if it ever occurs, must be voluntary, as Mr Molloy has just informed us. An act on the part of the terrorist — and this has to be fully endorsed by the Government of the United Kingdom — is absolutely incompatible with democracy. The conduct of politics, free from threat or use of violence, must be the core of democracy. Democratic practice is ultimately rooted in respect for the fundamentals of human rights. Democratic government must be based entirely on electoral support, which means that no political party can claim a right to be involved in government on the basis of a so-called electoral mandate, while at the same time retaining at its disposal the persuasion that comes from the barrel of a gun — to use one Sinn Féin Member’s comments.

The implementation of the Belfast Agreement has institutionalised the combination of the Armalite and the ballot box into the Government of Northern Ireland. This is entirely incompatible with the most fundamental of human rights. Northern Ireland citizens are now, in effect, governed, not on the basis of respect for human rights, but on the basis of nothing more commendable than the strategic thinking of Sinn Féin/IRA.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

We are now coming to a point where I can only move to the winding-up speeches by the proposer of the amendment and the proposer of the substantive motion.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

My comments are virtually at an end.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

In any case, I will bring them to an end.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

The law-abiding community in Northern Ireland is now asking "Where are the church leaders and the captains of commerce and industry?" In the weeks prior to the "Jump together" or "You jump first, David" syndromes they were lobbying Members of the House and encouraging them to put in place Members of Sinn Féin. They have been strangely silent and conspicuous by their silence. There have been no marches to Stormont demanding decommissioning. I have heard nothing from Sir George Quigley and his "Magnificent Seven" — the G7 — encouraging or commanding them to jump in the same way as they did of the Unionists. We will not hear that. It does not fit in with the plan. The plan is that Sinn Féin/IRA will remain in the Government of Northern Ireland for as long as they wish; it is in the Belfast Agreement.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Mr Speaker, are you going to consider, as you earlier said you would, Mr Weir’s point about an extension?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I did consider the question, and the fact that we are now about to hear the winding-up speeches at 12.40 pm rather than having completed the whole debate by 12.40 pm shows that I have looked kindly upon what Mr Weir said. I would have been bringing the debate to a close at an earlier stage in order that the winding-up speeches for the amendment and the substantive motion could have been completed by 12.40 pm. One could argue that I should have moved to the vote before that time. I have been flexible.

Members need to understand the importance of indicating their wish to speak before the start of a debate so that I may make a decision about the amount of time to allow for it. However, if they look at those who have spoken, they will have to agree that the range of views has been as fully expressed as I can make it in the time.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I have to say, with the greatest respect, that there was no indication that this motion would be taken at the time it is being taken. There would have been the luncheon interval and other intervals in order to give you — [Interruption] May I have the courtesy of being allowed to finish, unless you do not want me to speak. I have not been able to speak in this debate. I believe I would have had a relevant and material contribution to make. There is small purpose in being here if one is not allowed to make a contribution.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Let me respond to the point of order. First, the reason that the Member is not aware of that fact is that he and his Colleagues do not have a representative on the Business Committee. The matter was discussed and decided by the Committee; that is one of the problems of not having representation.

Secondly, there is no requirement that all parties have an opportunity to speak in a debate, and it is clearly impossible for them to be able to do that. Thirdly, the Standing Orders Committee, of which the Member was a member, decided to remove the question of time limits and to institute only a time limit put in by the Speaker on the basis of the requests made to speak received in advance. That has tied my hands in that regard, and it is very difficult to ensure that Members are able to speak.

From such experiences Members will begin to understand the Assembly’s imperfections and the way in which we conduct ourselves may then lead to changes in the Standing Orders. That is the proper way to proceed.

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you acknowledge that some Members who, before the debate began, expressed a wish to speak have not, as yet, been called?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Yes. The Member needs to be aware that that is a perfectly common experience in other places. Members frequently travel many miles to get to other places and do not get a chance to speak. The Speaker has to make a decision based on the balance of those who wish to speak and their arguments, and also, perhaps, the fact that Members have had the opportunity to speak at other times.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

In all of the contributions to today’s debate there was no absence of a desire to have full and immediate decommissioning. All of the contributions were really determined, and, in good faith, I would like to see decommissioning take place. It should happen, not just for its own sake, but in order to underpin the peace which we have and the more permanent peace we would have following decommissioning.

Regarding the remarks about timing, what my amendment is trying to do is to make sure, as far as we can in the process, that decommissioning takes place. There is no point in having futile and empty debates unless there is a mechanism there to achieve what we want.

My amendment says that we should proceed and support the principles laid down by the agreement between the parties on 25 June and subsequently endorsed and reiterated by Senator Mitchell. That process is still ongoing in terms of the de Chastelain Committee and its report at the end of this month.

The practical way for the Assembly to go forward and achieve decommissioning is to support this amendment. If we support the Executive and participation in it, if we really want to achieve decommissioning as a fact, the only way forward — one which has been agreed by all parties, those representing paramilitaries and others — is the way I have described.

That is the purpose of the amendment, and for that reason I am sure it will commend itself to the entire Assembly, including the mover and supporters of the substantive motion. I exhort the Assembly to give it its full endorsement.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

It is to be regretted that more time was not allocated to this debate. It was neither in your gift, Mr Speaker, nor in mine. However, I wish to state that I took 14 minutes to move the motion. Mr McGrady took 12 minutes for his amendment. Mr Shipley Dalton spoke for eight minutes and Mr Wilson for 10. The time taken by the DUP, the sponsor of the motion, was extremely short indeed compared to that which would have been taken in another place. Members of this House say that I am to blame for their not getting permission to speak. It has nothing to do with me. Their row should be with the Business Committee. I do not see why the Business Committee did not say that this debate could go on until at least one o’clock rather than saying that it should end before that time.

We have before the House today a pan-Nationalist amendment supported by IRA/Sinn Féin and the SDLP. I shall not pass any remarks about the Gentleman from South Down. I understand his beliefs. I understand how he feels. No man can feel sorer than he, having been passed over for office. I can understand his frustration, especially since he is sitting beside the two hon Gentlemen who are hounding him. I think we shall leave it there.

The Mitchell review has been bandied about. The Mitchell resolutions, however, were sell-out resolutions. At the time of the review I said at Westminster what would take place. Nobody refuted it, not even Mr Mitchell. I faced Mr Mitchell on these issues.

A deal was done for the Mitchell review — get Sinn Féin/IRA into offices at Westminster. A deal was done for the Patten Report. A deal has been done for all these things, yet in spite of all their wheeling and dealing and agreement, they have got nowhere. We even have a man who has gone down the road to Damascus and has completely changed. Who would have thought —

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

He is still blind.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

No, he is not blind. He is beginning to see the nature of the beast across the House. He is beginning to see what it is really after.

We are entitled to talk about this matter today. Mr McGrady told us that we were putting decommissioning at risk by talking about it. Then he said that we should not put it at risk. We need to see the decommissioning of all weapons held by outlaws and terrorists. We are not dealing with Army weapons; we are not dealing with police weapons, be they those of the Reserve or otherwise. Of course, since 10,000 soldiers are about to leave, that will mean 10,000 fewer weapons. Eight thousand RUC men will be paid off. Eight thousand Reserve men will go. The rest of them will be disarmed. That is how they will be decommissioned. The IRA, however, will still have its weapons, and those on the so-called Protestant side who wish to hold on to their weapons will hold on to them.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I would like to thank my hon Friend for giving way. Let us bear in mind that this is the eighth anniversary of the slaughter at Teebane in my constituency.

I stood with my constituents at a headstone to remember. There are Members in this House from IRA/Sinn Féin who know all about Teebane. Will my hon Friend tell the House that this idea of voluntary decommissioning is total nonsense? The IRA has never wanted to give up one of its weapons and will not give up one. Now it is a demand of the people of Northern Ireland. Would my hon Friend agree that, rather than sanitise IRA/Sinn Féin, it is about time that McGuinness, Adams and Molloy were arrested for war crimes against the people of this country?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I advise the Member that I will be studying Hansard afterwards to see whether some of his remarks constitute unparliamentary allegations.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Mr Speaker, you will have great difficulty. You will have to read Hansard at Westminster to see some of the things that have been said by Government Ministers. We can leave that to your good intentions.

This matter runs right into the depths of this community. There is no use brushing it under the carpet. There is no use saying we are going to get it when we are not. The IRA leadership and the Sinn Féin leadership have told us that we are not going to get it, but they are going to get every concession they can squeeze out of a British Government that is terrorised. The Government are afraid of a bomb going off elsewhere in the United Kingdom. They can bomb here, and the British Government will close their eyes to it. However, they cannot bomb across the water for that would disturb the peace of one Tony Blair. To every Unionist and every person who believes in law and order and believes in the safety of the community, I say that, from whatever side these terrorists come, they have got to be faced up to. I say that we can do it in the House today by reflecting the real wishes of the people.

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

Will the hon Member agree with me that the people of Northern Ireland will not accept what might be described as the "David Copperfield" solution to decommissioning? David Copperfield, the well-known American magician, appeared to make the Taj Mahal and the Empire State Building disappear when it was, in fact, a trick with smoke and mirrors. Will the hon Member agree with me that the people of Northern Ireland will not accept a trick with smoke and mirrors with regard to decommissioning? Decommissioning must be real and transparent. It must not only be done, but be seen to be done.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I am sure that the hon Member will take hope from the conversion of his erstwhile Colleague and realise that the holy smoke is over and the mirrors are not reflecting right as far as he is concerned.

Question put

The Assembly proceeded to a division.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

May I remind Members that there are three minutes between the Division bells sounding and the Questions being put again, and four minutes from the Questions being put and the Doors being secured. Members have, in total, seven minutes from the Division bells starting to ring to get to the Chamber to vote.

The Assembly having divided: Ayes 43; Noes 45.

AYES

Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Seamus Close, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Billy Hutchinson, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

NOES

Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, James Leslie, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

This House demands the handing over of all illegal terrorist weaponry and its destruction in accordance with legislative provisions; acknowledges that the people of Northern Ireland will not accept token decommissioning; and calls for the process of decommissioning to be verifiable, transparent and credible.

The sitting was, by leave, suspended at 1.10 pm.

On resuming —

National Flag

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move the following motion:

This House condemns the refusal of the Health Minister to grant permission for the flying of the national flag on appropriate Government property on the designated period over the Christmas holidays, in flagrant breach of settled policy.

This motion has been prompted by the actions of the Minister of Health, whose arrogance leads her to think that she can attack the symbols of British identity and do so with impunity. A message must go from the House that this will not be tolerated, it will not be accepted. With apologies to Winston Churchill, may I say that never before in the history of Western democracy have so many Ministers been paid so much money to administer so little.

Given the flu epidemic over the Christmas period, the Minister should have had greater things to perplex her mind than the flying of the British national flag from Government offices.

The agreement signed in April 1998 says that there must be tolerance and sensitivity with the use of symbols in our country. The Minister has demonstrated no such tolerance or sensitivity with regard to the Unionist population, and she is in breach of the agreement. The agreement says that symbols and emblems must be

"used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division."

The Minister’s approach to the flying of the national flag on her Government offices failed to demonstrate respect for the Unionist community, and her attitude has caused further division. I put the charge to the House that the Minister has breached the Belfast Agreement that she signed and claims to support and to which her party claims to be wholly signed up.

I note how other parties have responded to this motion and, particularly, the way in which the SDLP has put down an amendment to it. I believe that the SDLP — instead of doing what it did earlier today, when it was supposedly defending the agreement — is actually ignoring the agreement on this issue, and one can see that this is so from the amendment. The amendment is not concerned with the agreement. In fact, the amendment put forward by the SDLP is nothing more than flannel. Like Sinn Féin, the SDLP is attacking the national flag. Once again, the SDLP is running away from Sinn Féin, just as it is doing on the ground in the constituencies.

The flying of the Union flag over government buildings is not a party-political or sectarian matter, as is implied in the SDLP amendment. The flag is flown in its proper context, and I cannot think of a more appropriate context in which it could fly. It is non-controversial and non-confrontational to have it flying on government buildings. The SDLP ought to be ashamed of itself for putting down this amendment.

The SDLP has said very little about the triumphalistic display of tricolours by people in this society and the St Patrick’s Day Committee in particular. In fact, the SDLP has said very little publicly about that. One wonders about the two laws in which the SDLP believes. One law attacks, denigrates and undermines the symbols of Britishness, attacks and undermines our right to display those symbols, and the other law permits Nationalist symbols to be displayed at all times.

I believe that the Ulster Unionist Party’s Whip, Mr J Wilson, stated in Saturday’s ‘News Letter’ that he had no problem with the motion, so I look forward to his and his party’s joining us in the Lobbies.

Also in that edition, an unidentified Ulster Unionist Party source also made some very interesting comments, apparently following a marathon session of the Northern Ireland Executive. According to the ‘News Letter’ there had been a very heated debate in the Executive. One party insider said that Unionist Ministers were incensed and gave no quarter as they rounded on Sinn Féin over its approach to the flag controversy. Indeed, they were apparently responding to the way in which Ms de Brún had taken it upon herself to ensure that the flag of this country did not fly on Government buildings.

Of course, we have seen the Ulster Unionist Party giving no quarter in the past. We only have its word that it gave no quarter in the Executive. When it gave no quarter at the talks, we ended up with the Belfast Agreement, which not only allowed for the release of IRA prisoners but substantially attacked on the integrity of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and provided for the establishment of all-Ireland bodies with executive powers. When the Ulster Unionist Party gave no quarter during the Mitchell review, we ended up with the IRA’s entering the Government of Northern Ireland. I can only imagine — and, indeed, I think we should brace ourselves for this — that, since the Ulster Unionist Party gave no quarter last week at the Executive meeting, we will end up with the white flag of surrender flying over Glengall Street.

One of the first duties of the Ulster Unionist Party’s junior Minister, Mr Dermot Nesbitt, was to have a meeting with his counterpart, Mr Haughey. I understand from his diary, which I have seen, that he had a meeting with Mr Haughey about the flying of flags on Parliament Buildings. This meeting lasted for about one and a half hours, and as a result any fears or speculation about the flag were dampened down during the Christmas recess. The Ulster Unionist Party said nothing about the Minister’s refusal to let the flag fly.

This is an attack not only on the symbols of British identity and of this nation but also on people. This subtle, but important, difference should be understood. We have seen in recent hours how extremists in IRA/Sinn Féin have attacked people because of symbols. An example of this is the Duchess of Abercorn. She is identified by Sinn Féin as someone worthy of attack because she is a duchess. They allege that because she is a duchess she must be royalty, and not only royalty but a member of the British royal house and an heir to the throne. The reality is far from the myth that Sinn Féin has created. It is almost like suggesting, Mr Speaker — if you will forgive me — that the wife of the Speaker of this House should be classed as royalty because she is a "Lady".

Sinn Féin has got this completely wrong and has not only attacked people on this issue but attacked and exploited children also.

I have a clipping from the ‘Irish News’ in which Mr Kelly of Sinn Féin, in dealing with the matter of flags, takes great exception to the police’s taking down Nationalist flags. It appears to me that Sinn Féin, like the SDLP, has two rules. First, the RUC, and everybody else, has to bow down and accept Nationalist symbols of identity, and not only accept them but appreciate them — not attack or demean them. However, British symbols of identity have to be removed and demeaned, and Nationalist ones elevated above them.

I understand that part of the Sinn Féin oath is to do with driving Unionists into the sea. Attacking our identity is part and parcel of that strategy. An attempt to outlaw and demean the symbols of our British identity is very much part and parcel of that Republican agenda.

I have a message for Sinn Féin, as every genuine Unionist has. It is that Sinn Féin will fail. It will not achieve its agenda. It failed in 1798, in 1916, and in 1921, and it will fail again in 2016. I understand that Mr Adams believes that, when up close to Mr Trimble, he can persuade Unionists to come into a united Ireland. He is dealing with, and indeed he is up close to, the wrong sort of Unionists. Genuine Unionists are not interested in Mr Adams’s united Ireland.

On 20 May 1998 in Belfast, Tony Blair claimed that there would be no change to the status of Northern Ireland. If that is so, I would like to know why Sinn Féin is attempting to remove the national flag? If the agreement is all that those in the Unionist pro-agreement camp believe it to be, and that it protects our British identity, why is Sinn Féin being allowed to get away with not flying the national flag?

I do not believe that the agreement protects our national identity. In fact, I do not believe that Tony Blair’s pledge of 20 May 1998 is credible. I also want to know why the Ulster Unionist Party does not appear to have taken punitive action against Sinn Féin for this breach of the agreement. Saturday’s ‘News Letter’ said that people were very angry, that voices were raised and that no quarter was given. But no punitive action has been taken against a Minister who took it upon herself to lower the symbol, the national flag, of this country. This is not the only Minister in breach of the Belfast Agreement. So are the other Ministers who attend Executive meetings.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I indicated earlier today that when I had a list of Members before a debate I would attempt to give a timescale for speeches. That was not possible before the first motion, and some Members were understandably unhappy that they did not get a chance to speak.

I had hoped, given the number of Members who have indicated a wish to speak in this debate, to be able to allocate five minutes to each. I must caution the mover of the motion that he will restrict either the number of participants in his own debate or the length of their speeches if he does not bring his remarks to a close.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Thank you for drawing my attention to the clock. I will indeed come to a conclusion.

The Executive has been prepared to abuse its position. Not only has a member of the Executive abused her position, but the Executive itself has done the same thing. The Information Service has issued statements totally in Irish on behalf of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. There has been an acceptance that the pursuit of the Irish identity can be tolerated and treated in a sensitive way. However, when it comes to the British national flag, there is no such tolerance on the parts of Sinn Féin/IRA or those from that party who are now Ministers. It is intolerable that they have taken that position, and they must face some form of punitive action from the Assembly and the Executive or the symbols of our national identity will continue to be exploited, debased and attacked.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "condemns" and add

"the abuse of national flags and other symbols and emblems in our community as party political or sectarian symbols and will work to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division, in accordance with the Good Friday Agreement."

I never fail to be surprised by the total negativity of Members from the Democratic Unionist Party, and today is no exception. There is a negativity in all their motions which reflects their general melancholia over politics and life here in general. They always seek to condemn and reject; never to accept, praise or promote, and Mr Paisley Jnr’s speech has simply reflected that.

This is a sensitive issue. It is a very difficult issue for any divided society. In most societies, flags and emblems are a source of unity and inspiration. That is because there is consensus within those societies about how they should be governed. Sadly, within our society, flags and emblems are seen as a source of provocation, aggravation and division. We have not yet matured politically to the point where we can mutually tolerate the flags and emblems that represent our differing political traditions. Some day, perhaps not too far in the future, we may reach a level of political maturity where Republicans and Nationalists will fully respect the Union flag and associated British emblems. Equally, one hopes that Loyalists and Unionists will fully respect the Irish tricolour and associated Irish Nationalist emblems.

I do not believe that we in the SDLP are being Utopian in seeking those noble aims. For example, in this very Assembly we have accepted the flax flower as our motif, without rancour or disagreement. Those who chose it chose well. Not only is it ornate and attractive, indeed artistic, it is also meaningful. It embodies the most positive aspects of our social and economic history, in which we can all share and of which we can all be proud. It was an inspirational choice, and it will serve as an inspiration for the Assembly in the future.

There are three ways of addressing the question of flags and emblems. First, we could create totally neutral political environments in our public institutions, their offices and spaces. Secondly, we could accord parity of esteem to the flags and emblems of all political and religious traditions in our society.

Thirdly, a new consensual symbolism could be created that the vast majority of society could honour and identify with. I do not suggest that Members can resolve these issues today. But we could reaffirm our common commitment in the Good Friday Agreement to address these issues together and agree on the way forward. This would avoid our being intermittently bedevilled with arcane disputes over flags and emblems that woud unnecessarily disrupt the common quest to create a new, modern and inclusive democracy in Northern Ireland.

I remind Members of what the Good Friday Agreement says about symbols and emblems in paragraph 5 of the chapter dealing with rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity:

"All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division. Arrangements will be made to monitor this issue and consider what action might be required."

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

No. I have very little time.

Let Members act to avoid acrimony and work to create harmony in this institution and beyond. Those who are truly committed to the Good Friday Agreement will find a way to resolve these difficult and deeply emotive issues, and political goodwill will provide the very means of that resolution.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

This is an important issue, and it is important that it be addressed properly and with due deliberation. I do not think that this debate gives an opportunity for that, but I hope that there will be a serious debate on this issue in the coming weeks. Devolution occurred on 2 December 1999, and many things had to be done to get the new institutions working. Because of the pressure of events, it was not possible to get the issues raised by this motion properly settled in the period between 2 December and Christmas.

Members will find over the coming weeks and months that the Executive, and the Assembly as a whole, will address this issue. It is important that it be dealt with properly and in a way that is sensitive to the rights that should be accorded to people in Northern Ireland, of whatever view, and to the essential elements of the agreement. Great care should also be taken not to insult Her Majesty, who is sovereign and the only sovereign in this land.

The position, as I understand it, is set out in the agreement and the Act. By the agreement, people accept the consent principle and thereby accept that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. The agreement commits all parties to accept the legitimacy of that choice.

The Act is clear. Section 23 (1) states

"The executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in Her Majesty".

Executive power is vested in the Queen. A limited element of the Queen’s Government is carried on here by us on her behalf and subject to her direction. The position regarding the display of the national flag, as I understand it —

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

No.

The position regarding display of the national flag, as I understand it, is that Her Majesty has commanded that it be displayed on all public buildings on certain days — official flag days. There is a dispute in Northern Ireland about the status of some additional flag days, and further enquiries need to be made on that. The position regarding certain additional flag days stems from decisions taken many years ago. I understand that there is no question of the Government’s, previously the Secretary of State’s, having to approve the dates on which flags will be flown in the coming year.

Because some of the dates are movable feasts — for example, Easter — a mechanical job had to be done each year to determine the official flag days. That was the sole status of the list that came out each December. The legal basis has been properly examined, and there is no discretion on the flying of flags on official flag days, though there may be a question about certain dates that were added to the list. Regrettably, in December confusion arose about the basis on which the flag is flown. I have given my understanding of the situation, and research is under way to establish the exact legal basis of the flag days over and above those which Her Majesty has commanded. That is the basis on which we should proceed on this.

I listened with interest to the comments from Mr Alban Maginness, and, in view of what I have said, I think that not one of the three options he suggested is obtainable. It is not possible to abandon the existing national flag. Parity is not possible, because there is only one sovereign here. Nor is it possible to operate in what is called a totally neutral environment if the display of the national flag is regarded as moving in any way from neutrality. I believe that it is possible to have a completely neutral environment that respects the sovereignty which exists here. I am well aware that the flag is, at times, used in a provocative way, but no real objection can be taken to things that fall within the normal course of events.

I heard Mr Ian Paisley Jnr’s sneering comments about discussions in the Executive. If he thinks that his party can do a better job, let it come and do it. Its members should stop hiding away. It is very easy to hide in one corner of this Room and sneer in that way, but those Members who do not bother to do the work are not worth listening to.

There is a further serious mistake in the DUP’s motion. It talks about granting permission. It will be clear from what I have said that there is no question of permission needing to be granted. I have indicated that it is not possible for my party to support the SDLP’s amendment. We have drawn attention to the defective drafting of the DUP’s motion, reflecting its lack of knowledge of what we are dealing with, but we will vindicate the legal position.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. We are dealing with the Minister’s decision to suspend the flying of the British national flag alone over Department of Health buildings. Ian Paisley and Ian Paisley Jnr described its absence as a flagrant breach of settled policy. However, settled policy does not reflect the views of a great number of people in the Six Counties, and it certainly does not reflect how the issue is dealt with in the Good Friday Agreement:

"All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division."

Given that this is contrary to settled policy, there needs to be an urgent review of that policy to reflect this.

The flying of the Union flag has been used as a tool to provoke and intimidate Ntionalists, and that includes its flying on this Building — which houses an Assembly made up of the elected representatives of all the people, and all the political views, in the Six Counties. Indeed, the Church of Ireland’s guidelines on this matter, published last year, recommended that churches should not fly the Union flag but, instead, should fly the cross of St Patrick. If we are to build an inclusive society that cherishes all of its people equally, we must stop forcing the symbols and emblems of one community down the throats of another. If the flags that we fly do not reflect all of the people, we should not fly any. Either we fly both the Union flag and the tricolour on the roof of this Building, to symbolise the diversity of our people and the equality of all, or we fly none.

We need to have a neutral environment, a place where we can all work together to promote mutual respect instead of division. Indeed, the only places where flags have been flown in numbers similar to the numbers here are in other places where there has been domination and suppression of one culture, or people, over another. In the Twenty-six Counties, for example, where Irish Nationalism is predominant, you do not see the tricolour everywhere, because none of the communities there feels oppressed.

There is no abuse of the national flag there, and had Unionists been more generous when they were in government — instead of displaying paranoia and fear in everything they did — we would not have had the Union Jack flying from every telegraph pole, street light, hospital, school and fire station and we would not have had red, white and blue kerbstones in housing estates. Thus there would have been no need for Nationalist communities to reciprocate.

It is unhelpful when Members of a political party continue to demand the retention of symbols which for many people on this island represent sectarianism and the domination and supremacy of one culture over another. While full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement will help to address the equality agenda, thus ensuring fair and equitable treatment for all, we, as public representatives, need to promote mutual understanding, and I urge Members to vote against this motion. The amendment is too vague — we cannot support it either. We need to have a full debate on the use of symbols and emblems in this Building and beyond. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Norman Boyd (NIUP, South Antrim)

I rise to support the motion put forward by the DUP’s two North Antrim Assembly Members, Dr Paisley and Mr Paisley Jnr. It is scandalous that the Sinn Féin/IRA Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety refused to allow the Union flag to be flown over Castle Buildings on Christmas Day. I have a list here of days that the Union flag must be flown on Government buildings under well-established practice, and 25 December is one such date. There was no need for the matter to be discussed.

The Sinn Féin Health Minister’s actions were deliberately provocative and appalling. This was an attack on Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom.

The Minister acted outside her authority and must be utterly condemned in this House. She has insulted the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. At a time of deep crisis for the National Health Service the Sinn Féin Health Minister was more interested in cheap, political stunts than in the well-being of the people of Northern Ireland. Why, for example, did she not investigate and publicly condemn, during the same period, the intimidation by a Republican mob of two health workers for attending a police liaison committee in Carrickmore? We were told that the Minister had no comment to make.

For a Minister of this fundamentally flawed Executive to refuse to allow our country’s flag to be flown is disgraceful and an insult to the people of Northern Ireland. It just shows that the Belfast Agreement offers nothing for Unionists, despite David Trimble’s and the UUP’s utterances that it copperfastens the Union. If preventing the flying of the flag on Castle Buildings, a Government building, is copperfastening the Union, I wonder what the UUP would think was weakening the Union.

The SDLP’s amendment says that there should be mutual respect. We have had 30 years of bombs and bullets. Where was the mutual respect for the Unionist community? We hear about the Union flags and the red, white and blue kerbstones. What about Garvaghy Road, where we see tricolors, and green, white and gold kerbstones? Will the UUP clarify whether if, under the Belfast Agreement, Nationalists object to the Union flag, it can no longer be flown on Government buildings? That is what the SDLP is telling us today.

The Union flag is flown permanently at Westminster — except when the Queen is present and the Royal Standard is flown — and it is flown permanently on the building of the Welsh Assembly. It is also flown on occasion on the Scottish Parliament Buildings and Government offices. The Union flag, and only the Union flag, should be flown permanently on Parliament Buildings, Stormont and on all Government buildings to bring us in line with what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom.

It is scandalous that a Northern Ireland Office spokesman should say that this is a matter for the parties to sort out and agree among themselves. That attitude is totally unacceptable, and I am calling for a full investigation by the House into the comments made by that faceless civil servant, who must be brought to task for them. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom — this has been demonstrated in election after election — yet our British culture and identity continue to be attacked. The list is endless — parades, the oath of allegiance, the RUC and portraits of Her Majesty. Just today the Duchess of Abercorn was blocked from visiting St Mary’s Primary School in Pomeroy, County Tyrone, by Sinn Féin/IRA, and that visit was to promote a cross-community writing competition.

Sinn Féin/IRA wants to destroy our British culture and identity. However, in spite of ongoing attacks by the pan-Nationalist front on that British culture and identity — and that includes utterances by Sinn Féin/IRA’s Gerry Adams about a united Ireland by the year 2016 — there are still enough Unionists in Northern Ireland to ensure that we will always be living under the Union flag, and the Union flag only.

I support the motion.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Undoubtedly there is confusion, on both sides, about the purpose of the national flag. There has been much talk about culture and cultural differences. The flag of the United Kingdom is being used as a political weapon. Coming from Ms Gildernew, this view is amusing, since the Irish language and culture have been used as bludgeons by Sinn Féin, and to a lesser degree by the SDLP, to further the Nationalist aspiration for a united Ireland. This is understandable in a political party, but the purpose of a national flag is political rather than cultural. The flag of the United States, the Stars and Stripes, covers a multitude of different cultures and ethnic groups, but it signifies the overall and over-arching the national identity of the United States, as does the national flag in Northern Ireland.

The First Minister has correctly pointed out that if parties here accept the Belfast Agreement, and if, as is repeatedly stated, the Belfast Agreement is founded upon the principle of consent, that principle of consent says that Northern Ireland will remain an integral part of the United Kingdom until such times as the majority should decide otherwise. Therefore, since Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the United Kingdom, the flag which represents it is the Union flag, and therefore it is appropriate that that flag be flown on all state occasions.

The First Minister has outlined in some detail the circumstances in which the flag should be flown under those conditions. I, for one, object to flags, language and culture being used as weapons in political battles and against what Robert Graves once described as "the jelly belly flag flappers", who encouraged young people to enlist in armies, including the British Army. I object to a lot of the facets of nationalism, some of which have destroyed the true meaning of the Olympic Games and turned them into some sort of nationalist competition.

Flags should be reserved for their purpose: to represent the current political status of the territory governed and forming part of an integral, sovereign state. That is the purpose of a state flag, and that is what we should use it for. If, as Mr Adams suggests, there is a united Ireland in 16 years’ time, will the tricolour be quartered or even halved to include part of the Union flag as a gesture towards the tradition in Northern Ireland? This would not be tolerated because Northern Ireland, if such should come about, would be an integral part of a united Irish Republic, whose flag is the tricolour.

Until such times occur we should adhere to the fundamental political principle that a flag is the symbol of the state as constituted at the time it is flown. If both the SDLP and Sinn Féin accept the principle of consent, they must accept the natural and usual conditions that are attached to that. This issue is perhaps relatively peripheral given the social, health and other problems that we should be dealing with.

It is sad that the Minister of Health should have utilised her functions to denigrate the principle of consent and to give rise to the sort of divisions which this body is supposed to be in the process of healing.

I support the motion.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

I have listened with some interest to the debate. The fact that the flag was not flown at Christmas was most negative and, indeed, the greatest denial of our Christian traditions that could possibly have occurred. The Union flag is the ensign of the United Kingdom; it incorporates St Patrick’s flag — the central cross that represents the saint who brought Christianity to this part of the world — the flag of St Andrew, who is associated with Scotland, and the flag of St George, who is associated with England. After the birth of Christ the three saints followed, and the most negative thing that could happen — and I heard a Member use that word "negative" about my party — was that we would deny the birth of our Lord by not acknowledging His birthday.

The First Minister talked about a royal command. He said that this was our sovereign flag, our legitimate flag. That is obvious, and it is taken for granted by those who have any regard for constitutional law. But what did the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and a Minister in the Executive do? They denied the very agreement that they had agreed to by refusing to honour the command of the sovereign — they disobeyed that command. That was not just negative; it was an insult to the very thing that they had agreed to.

People who use the word "negative" to condemn others should be very careful. There has been a clamour of late, as part of the recent Mitchell agreement, for certain people to be allowed to get into the Palace of Westminster where the Union flag flies constantly. Will they disagree with the flying of the flag there? They used every lever and got the consent of the First Minister to get into the Palace of Westminster. That was part of the Mitchell agreement. Sinn Féin/IRA’s reward was to get into Westminster where the Union flag flies constantly. The negativity, the condemnations and the rejections are not from this part of the House; the rejections are from those in the House who say that they are for the agreement. They are the people who have disobeyed; they are the people who have disregarded the sovereign’s command.

If these people are so loyal they should obey the commands of the Queen. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister had a command, a responsibility to respect the sovereignty of the country in which they operate. But what did they do? They abandoned their responsibility, and they work in the same building as the Minister who made the original decision. They abandoned their responsibility and left a secretary to carry the can. That was not just negativity or condemnation; it was abandonment of responsibility.

Is this how the Executive is going to run, with intolerance, bigotry and, above all, a great lack of responsibility.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

A book entitled ‘Lost Lives’ was referred to earlier. I have it with me because I wish to use it. The first three names in it are John Scullion, Peter Ward and Matilda Gould. Those were the first three people to die in what are known as the present troubles. Older Members will know the circumstances. There was a row about a flag in Divis Street, and a certain Mr Paisley felt offended. It caused embarrassment to the Unionist Government of the day, who sent in the police, and now, 30 years later, we have a book this thick.

The same old arguments are continuing today — it is a case of déjà vu. We have been here before —obsessed with flags, forgetting and learning nothing. No one can deny that flags have played a major role in this senseless war waged against ordinary people for no good. I hope that the final chapter in this book has been written and that the number of 3,630 is indeed the final number. I hope that the Assembly will start to behave sensibly and work for the people who depend on it, rather than waste time in this senseless argument about flags.

Is it too much to expect that the same mistakes are not repeated? I do not need to tell the House that a divided community that is recovering slowly from the divisions of the past is the perfect place in which to exploit flags and create fear and suspicion. It does not matter whether those flags are on Government buildings, nailed to telegraph poles or painted on kerbstones. They serve only one purpose — to further sectarianism and polarisation. They cannot unite people. Indeed, it was certainly not the intention of the Paisley faction to unite people. Its intention was to cause embarrassment to Ulster Unionists.

The motion is not about respecting the Union flag. If it were, that would have happened a long time ago, and then, perhaps, history might have been different. Perhaps this book would never have been written. As we know from the contributions, this is not about furthering working relationships between the different political traditions in the Assembly. Some things never change, but I am sure that there is a difference. Today people have the experience of knowing what is in this book. They know what happens when politicians exploit people. They can read the book and know what happened to ordinary, decent families who were exploited, used for political ends by politicians who were not prepared to face reality and sit down and work with people from other traditions rather than exploit the differences.

I accept that flags are important to some people, but once they are used for the express purpose of imposing their significance on others with quite different views, they cease to serve any healthy purpose, and they certainly cease to command respect. That is true irrespective of what flag we are talking about; I do not confine it to just one.

Government buildings should be neutral venues for all people to turn to for whatever services are on offer to the public. That is their purpose; they should not become places for rows about flags. Perhaps at some time in the future we can discuss the issue of flags and emblems and agree on symbols that reflect a community that is not divided but united and determined to put the horrors of the past behind it.

For God’s sake, give us a chance to map out a new future that is not based on notional territorial claims but on unity between all the people. Then, and only then, can we seriously discuss the flying of flags. I am sure it is everyone’s hope that the last chapter of ‘Lost Lives’ has been written, that lessons have been learned and that everyone will give a commitment that neither by word nor deed will anything be done to jeopardise the peace process that we are currently enjoying.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

This is a big issue about which I feel very strongly. As an Ulster Unionist, I feel as strongly as Mr Paisley about the Union flag. I served in Her Majesty’s forces. Did he?

I raised the flag issue at Christmas, when it was established that the Union flag was not flown on some Government buildings. Such action by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is most offensive and an attempt to deny the jurisdiction of Her Majesty in this part of her realm.

I contend that Ministers in the Assembly are acting on behalf of Her Majesty, yet here we have a Minister — maybe Ministers — failing to accept their responsibility. There are obvious double standards. Whom are they attempting to deceive — their own supporters, or the pro-British people? This action by the Minister was blatant hypocrisy and crass political deceit — a denial of what she agreed to in the Good Friday Agreement.

Let me refer to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to emphasise these points. Section 1(1) states

"It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1."

I emphasise that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom, not just a piece of it here and a piece of it there.

Section 23(1) says

"The executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in Her Majesty."

Subsection (2) states

"As respects transferred matters, the prerogative and other executive powers of Her Majesty in relation to Northern Ireland shall ... be exercisable on Her Majesty’s behalf by any Minister or Northern Ireland department."

Section 5(2) says

"A Bill shall become an Act when it has been passed by the Assembly and has received Royal Assent."

Her Majesty’s sovereignty prevails under the agreement; we cannot deny that. Mr Alban Maginness referred to a "neutral symbol", but this is about the sovereignty of this state. It is not offensive, nor is it meant to be. There can be only one sovereignty in a state.

I repeat that this action by the Minister is most offensive, and it is not in keeping with the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. It is an attack on the sovereignty of Her Majesty in this part of her jurisdiction. I want the Union flag to be flown only on designated days or when the Assembly is sitting, and that is something that we will have to think about. I want the Union flag to be flown with dignity and with responsibility — not as a taunt to anyone but with great respect for what it stands for. The flag is the embodiment not of sentiment alone but of history. It should be given the respectful place to which it is entitled in this jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction issue was determined in the Good Friday Agreement and accepted by the majority in the Province and the vast majority of the people of the Republic of Ireland.

Sinn Féin must realise that it is not joint sovereignty which is expected or required, it is real citizenship. Its members must learn what they signed up to and what they must accept under the terms of the agreement. Their recent actions and words suggest that they are out to wreck the co-operation required to benefit all the people of Northern Ireland. Such offensive action by Ms de Brún is very devious, subtle and totally reprehensible. The Union flag should have been flown, as has been the practice and the correct procedure over the years.

I reject the Minister’s action and express concern. Under the terms of the agreement the flying of the Union flag and the sovereignty of the Queen have to be acknowledged. Ms de Brún has failed to acknowledge that in this instance, and I contend that she exceeded her authority. We cannot move the agreement’s goalposts, one which is the principle of consent. I support the motion.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

In many ways this has been a useful debate, in spite of the negativity of Mr Paisley and his party.

The debate has been useful in that it addressed the issue of flags and emblems, but this is an issue which will not be concluded today. It will continue to trouble us unless it is addressed imaginatively and creatively under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. Flags and emblems should promote harmony and mutual respect in our society, not division. That is the fundamental approach that we should all take when addressing this issue. The debate has been constructive, but the argument will continue. We must work patiently, diligently and harmoniously to try to resolve the issue.

Far from being vague, as Ms Gildernew has said, the amendment is quite precise. It places the issue where it should be — at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement. If we address this issue in the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement we can ultimately resolve it. I accept that these are difficult and deeply emotive issues, and I understand the fears and worries, particularly of Unionists. But one must also realise that those fears and worries are shared by people in the Nationalist community. It is up to us, as democratic politicians attempting to create an inclusive democracy, to try to reach an amicable compromise.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I call Mr Ian Paisley Jnr and advise the House that I shall put the Question on the hour.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I have listened with interest to all the contributions. Mr Alban Maginness failed to explain how Sinn Féin is not in breach of the Belfast Agreement. I am surprised that the bare-chested defenders of the Belfast Agreement have not been kicking up a stink about the way in which Sinn Féin has polluted it. The SDLP has run away from Sinn Féin on this issue. The issue remains contentious because the SDLP will not deal with it in Nationalist areas.

The First Minister, in his usual red-faced and bombastic way, attacked the messenger and not the message. He said that this is not the proper place in which to debate this issue. If he has striven so hard to create the Assembly, where is the proper place to have this debate, and when will be the proper time? The First Minister does not want to have this debate, for it embarrasses him. He ought to face that reality. The Ulster Unionists have failed to accept the legitimacy of this issue and to attack Sinn Féin on it both inside and outside the Cabinet.

I remind Mr Sam Foster that the national flag is not the exclusive property of members, serving and past, of Her Majesty’s Forces — it is the flag of all of the people in the United Kingdom. Mr Dallat’s trite and irresponsible comments were nothing short of codswallop. He was trying to justify that two wrongs as making a right. But two wrongs do not make a right.

I was handed a written response to a question that I put to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I asked her to condemn the IRA violence that has resulted in the hospitalisation of people in Northern Ireland, but she refused. Should she not be concentrating on condemning violence and dealing with its effects, instead of running around tearing down the country’s national flag? I regret her approach.

Question put

The Assembly divided: Ayes 24; Noes 63.

AYES

Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Seamus Close, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Joe Hendron, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Kieran McCarthy, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Eddie McGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Monica McWilliams, Sean Neeson, Danny O’Connor, Eamonn ONeill, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

NOES

Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Bairbre de Brún, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Michelle Gildernew, John Gorman, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, John Kelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Alex Maskey, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, William McCrea, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Maurice Morrow, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Sue Ramsey, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put.

The Assembly proceeded to a Division.

[Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. A Member has obviously left his phone unattended. Phones are not to be left switched on in the Chamber.

The Assembly having divided:

AYES

Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, John Gorman, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

NOES

Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

This House condemns the refusal of the Health Minister to grant permission for the flying of the national flag on appropriate Government property on the designated period over the Christmas holidays, in flagrant breach of settled policy.

Assembly Business

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Many Members have asked to speak on the third motion, but the Business Committee’s decision means that we cannot continue beyond 5.59 pm, when we shall move to the vote — and there will be only one vote, as there is no amendment. That is the limit to which things can go, except by leave of the House, and I have no indication of whether that would be forthcoming.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

May I ask that the House give that leave. Whether we like this or not, whether some are opposed to the motion or in favour of it, this is a matter of grave public interest, and I ask the House, in these circumstances, to grant its leave.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The request has been made that leave of the House be given. As Members are aware, leave of the House requires unanimity, and I require an indication of whether leave will be given. It would be helpful to have that indication now. I certainly need it before 6.00 pm.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

A Chathaoirligh. May I remind Members that the Business Committee — made up of representatives from all of the parties here — agreed to have the three motions on the Order Paper. Everyone was concerned that there should be ample opportunity for all parties to raise whatever they want for discussion during Assembly hours. With the three motions on the Order Paper and an Adjournment debate scheduled for tomorrow afternoon, the Business Committee therefore agreed that we would allow as much time as possible — three hours — for the motions to be dealt with. The spirit of the discussion was to the effect that if the DUP accepted that its motions were on the Order Paper — and this was put to the DUP — the motions would be dealt with in the free time available.

The three hours available run to 6.00 pm. Half an hour gives ample opportunity for discussing this motion. It has been discussed before, and, no doubt, it will be discussed again. I ask the party concerned to respect the Business Committee’s decision — a decision to which it agreed — to wind up at 6.00 pm. After all, the other parties could have taken a different approach to the three motions.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that the Business Committee would recognise and have respect for the general view of the Assembly. If you were right when you indicated that a substantial number of Members want to take part in the debate, perhaps the Business Committee did not properly reflect the amount of time that would be appropriate. Some of us are quite prepared, if the House is agreeable, to come back tomorrow and deal with this issue. Tomorrow is a sitting day, so there is absolutely no reason why the Assembly could not deal with a substantial matter in a substantial way.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As it is important that I should not misrepresent myself, I must say that a substantial number of Members wish to speak. I am not saying that there are necessarily many on all sides, but there is a substantial number on one side. It is the responsibility of the Speaker to ensure that the various opinions are put, and not that everybody gets an opportunity to speak. But in any case, in respect of Standing Orders, it is absolutely clear that it is a question of by leave of the House, and I am assuming at this point that I do not have such leave. If we do not continue fairly quickly on the motion now there will be no time for it, and we will simply have to move to the vote, if it is quite clear that there is no leave of the House.

I propose that we move to it. I ask Mr Dodds, in opening, to restrict himself to about five minutes, and I will try to ensure that as many other Members as possible are able to speak, although I will have to ask them to restrict themselves to about two minutes in order to do so.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a substantial issue of extreme public importance, in spite of what certain newspapers might think of it, even though they cover it in some detail virtually daily. A substantial number of Members have indicated that they wish to speak to the motion, and, provided that we can be assured that it will be on next Monday’s Order Paper, my party will agree to withdraw it today. That might be a practicable way out of this difficulty, and we would have more time for debate than the half hour that is available to us this evening. It is important that Members have an opportunity to say something on this if they so wish.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

There is no way that I can give such an undertaking. Mr Dodds must be aware of how the Business Committee would view such a proposition. I doubt very much if an undertaking could be given for a debate next week and for a particular amount of time to be allocated to it. Of course, it is entirely open to the Member who is proposing the motion to withdraw it and resubmit it to the Business Committee; which would then give its view on when the motion might come forward and how much time should be allocated. It would be quite out of order for me to give any undertakings in that regard. I do not think that in practical terms we could consult on the matter either. I am in the Member’s hands. Is he indicating that he wishes to withdraw the motion and resubmit it?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Is it possible, Mr Speaker, to find out what other parties, such as the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP, think about this? I think that would be helpful for the House.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That could be formally ascertained only if we were to take a five-minute recess. I think it would be unfair and inappropriate for me to require Members to respond to that, but if Members wish to give such an indication, then I am happy for that to be so.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

The Business Committee, in considering these three motions from the same party, received an undertaking from that party’s representatives that we would devote three hours to the three motions, and you allocated approximately one hour to each. DUP Members have taken up a preponderance of the time today on their own motions. I have no problem with that. However, it is they who have cut short the time. In spite of that, I have to say, on behalf of my party, that we are prepared to accept a 30-minute extension today in order to debate this third motion.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I find it alarming that Mr McGrady has such knowledge of this subject despite the fact that he was not at the meeting. It was clearly agreed and understood that there would be a minimum of one hour set aside for each debate. We are not in that position: we have only 25 minutes left.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I told Mr McGrady exactly what had happened at the meeting.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is quite inappropriate for the conduct of meetings to be brought out and argued back and forth. I mentioned earlier the understanding about the time available. Time continues to tick away, and it will not be increased except by leave of the Assembly.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

May I reiterate the point, Mr Speaker. Some people may want to remain until 6.30 pm, but my party would prefer the motion to be withdrawn today and put on the agenda for next week. The DUP Whip Mr Morrow accepted the proposal that three hours should be taken up today on the three motions, on the basis that the Business Committee could have decided to adopt one motion from that party, or two, or three, as the case turned out. There was a clear commitment from the DUP to use those three hours to the best of everybody’s ability, and we would try to allow one hour per motion.

However, a lot of time was taken up this afternoon by the voting procedure. That wasted time. However, it is nobody’s fault. The DUP gave a clear commitment at last week’s Business Committee meeting that if they were given the maximum time today for their motions they would respect that and wind up the business at 6.00 pm.

We will be happy to support Mr Dodds’s withdrawal of the motion and its postponement to next week. People may not be just so willing in future to allow three motions to be dealt with in a day. We are trying to be fair.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Maskey made a point about the time taken up for voting. One has to take into account that a considerable amount of time was taken up voting on amendments which were not, as I understand it, the subject of the Business Committee’s decisions about the amount of time that would be allotted to the motions.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

With regard to that matter, amendments are not a question for the Business Committee. It is for the Business Committee to indicate how business arrangements will be made. Members may have voted for Standing Orders that set down certain requirements, but perhaps they have not factored in voting times and, indeed, how quickly they move through the Lobbies.

Before lunchtime today — when Members were demanding that there should be more time for speaking because we were going to be here to a certain time — I was aware there was no way we would be finished at that time. There were votes to be cast, and I knew that Members would take some time over that. The Member is absolutely right when he says that voting takes time. This fact needs to be factored into people’s thinking.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

Mr Speaker, can you explain the thinking of the Business Committee when it provided for a sitting on Monday 17 January and, if necessary, Tuesday 18 January? Surely —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. One must be somewhat wary about my explaining the rationale for the Business Committee’s doing something. I can give the Member a piece of information about procedure which may help to explain matters to him.

Ministers have the right to make a statement on an issue of importance. If they give the requisite notice, then business will be interrupted in order for that to be the case. One possibility would be for Ministers to produce statements and then subsequently face a series of questions on the statements which would throw askew agreements about motions and the time available for them. That is the reason for that particular note on the Order Paper, but the understanding about how long would be available for these motions was, in fact, pretty clear, as I explained earlier.

I do not think I can take any more points of order until we get clarity about this question of whether this motion can be withdrawn. I do not know whether anyone wishes to respond to that.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I have no difficulty lending support to the Democratic Unionist Party’s withdrawing the motion now, but I cannot be associated with the condition that might be attached that I would support a proposal to bring it forward at a subsequent Business Committee meeting.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

At the moment we have a series of responses that people may or may not make, but none of them guarantees anything in respect of the Member.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

It seems to me that this is an issue that needs to be dealt with. There would be wisdom in the Assembly’s giving leave to accept this business for tomorrow. It is perfectly legitimate for me to request that leave of the Assembly. Since Mondays and Tuesdays are designated as sitting days, Members should not find it difficult for the Assembly to sit tomorrow.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

There are many reasons for the Assembly’s not sitting tomorrow. It is clear that they doubt that a further decision will be made in respect of this business. The decision is made not by the Assembly on the Floor but by the Business Committee, and there is a series of other issues arising. Standing Orders state that if we move to Tuesday we are required to have an Adjournment debate of three hours. I have no doubt that the DUP would be content with that — it was the only party with motions for debate that would last for three hours, on top of the three motions that were already down.

Members will understand the nature of the agreement reached among the parties in respect of the Business Committee. There was more to it than appears on the surface. It is not possible for the Assembly, by leave, to agree as the Member suggests. It is possible for the Assembly, by leave, to continue on into the evening or for the DUP to withdraw the motion. It could then be brought before the Business Committee, which might agree it for next week or for a subsequent week. I cannot give that undertaking, and we have no further undertakings. I must ask the Member whether he wishes to move the motion now, with the possibility of a limited debate.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

It is amazing that, by leave, we can continue beyond 6.00 pm, but we cannot carry the business over until tomorrow. Tuesday is a designated sitting day, and there is no other business. This issue is important to the communities we represent, and it deserves proper time and consideration. We want to make points about the sacrifice of RUC members over the years and the way in which they have been treated by the Patten Report, and it would be remiss and wrong of the House to debate this matter in the 15 minutes that are left. Therefore, out of respect for the RUC, I ask leave to withdraw the motion.

I give notice that we will be resubmitting the matter and seeking an opportunity to come back to it early next week. This issue will not go away. It deserves to be addressed by the Assembly at an early date, before it is addressed in the House of Commons. It is essential that Members’ views be expressed, whether they are for or against the motion. It should be debated, and such is the purpose of the Assembly.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Adjourned at 5.44 pm.