Northern Ireland Assembly, 8 May 2001

124 contributions from 35 members. The official report.

Statement by the First Minister

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received a request from the First Minister to make a personal statement.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to make this personal statement to the Assembly. Sunday, 6 May 2001 marked the anniversary of the IRA statement that led to the decision of the Ulster Unionist Party to resume participation in the Northern Ireland Executive. In that statement the IRA promised to

"initiate a process that will completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use. We will do it in such a way as to avoid risk to the public and misappropriation by others and ensure maximum public confidence."

As the Ulster Unionist Party made clear at the time, it was on the basis of that clear promise and in the expectation of its fulfilment that I and my party agreed to the restoration of devolution on an inclusive basis. Members will recall that that represented a second chance for the Republican movement following its failure to fulfil the expectations it created during the Mitchell review. In the statement of 6 May 2000 the IRA answered the first of the two questions on decommissioning famously put by the Deputy First Minister in the House of Commons on 3 February 2000 when he said:

"One: "Will you decommission?" Two: "If yes, when will you decommission?"

They did not, of course, answer the second question. However, we considered that the Government had set a term for that during the talks at Hillsborough. With the assent of all the parties, including Sinn Féin, they set June 2001 as the date for the full implementation of the agreement.

On 22 December 2000, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) stated its view that sufficient time still existed for the decommissioning of paramilitary arms by June 2001 but added:

"We believe that it is crucial that we have substantive engagement with the IRA representative as soon as possible, followed by early movement on actual decommissioning by each of the paramilitary groups, if we are to meet the agreement’s decommissioning requirements."

On 8 March 2001, the IRA promised that it would engage with the IICD, but, as yet, no substantive engagement has occurred. In any event, the commission has on a number of occasions said that the necessary preparations would need to begin some eight weeks before the target date if decommissioning is to occur. The end of June is less than eight weeks away. Because there is so little time left, because some in the Republican movement think they can avoid their obligations and because there have been comments purporting to come from the Government casting doubt on that date, I have decided to reinforce the agreement made at Hillsborough.

Mr Speaker, I have, on this date, signed and lodged with you a letter resigning as First Minister as from 1 July 2001. This letter will take effect unless before that date the Republican movement keeps the promise it made over a year ago. Members will know that neither my statement now, nor my resignation on 1 July, if that happens, will cause the institutions to collapse. However, a clear onus is now placed on Republicans and others to act to preserve them. — [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Members know that it is out of order to speak from a sedentary position and that personal statements should be made uninterrupted. I ask Members to observe that.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Mr Speaker, I take this step reluctantly. My Colleagues and I have worked very hard to make this agreement work. We have worked very hard to realise the full promise of the agreement. It promised the people of Northern Ireland a future free from violence and paramilitarism. That promise has not been delivered. IRA material, far from being dealt with so as to avoid risk and misappropriation, has been used in the last year to bomb and kill. I am convinced that if we were to acquiesce in the failure of the Republican movement to keep its promises, the people of Northern Ireland would always be at the mercy of armed gangs.

I said in the Odyssey a few months ago that there cannot be a moral vacuum at the heart of the peace process. Our inclusive arrangements in this Assembly depend on there being a transition from the violent past to a peaceful, democratic future. It is a point that I made at the very first sitting of this Assembly. I said then that because people have a certain past, it does not mean that they cannot have a future. It is possible for people to change, but that change must occur. That is why I said again in 1998 to those who are crossing the bridge from terror to democracy that while I welcomed every move towards peace, I would hold them to every pledge they made.

Today, I am making clear that the promise made a year ago must be kept and that failure to keep that promise will have consequences. In taking this step, I believe that I have the broad support of the people of Northern Ireland. I know that, like me, they are proud of these institutions, and they relish the prospect of a peaceful Northern Ireland that is at ease with itself. I know that it will not be achieved without effort and risk. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland have supported me in the past when I have taken risks, not with the agreement, but for the agreement. I believe that they will understand and support the step I have taken today.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. This statement was made under the precedent of a statement of 15 July 1999. It was a statement, not about the Member’s position as a Member, but of public office. Therefore, I will treat it in the same way as the statement that was made at that time.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Treat it with contempt.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Why is the First Minister resigning later? Why does he not resign now?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Having received no request to follow it further, I will proceed with the next item of business.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of the fact that the First Minister has not actually resigned, are we going to get another statement in July? What reason has he given for issuing this call today, when there is likely to be an announcement of an election, and not actually resigning? It is an election ploy.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I cannot say whether there will be a request for a statement in July.

Product Liabilty (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Product Liability (Amendment) Bill (NI 13/00) be agreed.

The Bill has been introduced with the purpose of fulfilling an obligation under European Community law to implement Directive 1999/34/EC. It has been necessary to implement the Directive by means of primary legislation instead of the usual method of secondary legislation. I will refer to this issue later.

The Bill is short, and its effect is to extend the current system of strict product liability to include primary agricultural products and game — food in its raw state. Food which has been processed in some way is already included in part two of the Consumer Protection (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. The amendment will mean that consumers injured by food sold in its unprocessed state will now be able to sue a producer for damages without having to prove negligence. However, the injured person must be able to prove the product was defective and that the defect caused the injury.

The original Product Liability Directive promulgated in 1985 and implemented in the 1987 Order allowed member states to include food sold in its raw state. There was some concern that food in its raw state may be prone to have hidden defects beyond the control of the producer. It has been acknowleged that these difficulties could affect other products already covered by the original Directive, although experience has shown that few problems arise in this area.

Finland, Sweden, Luxembourg and Greece, the four countries which chose to include such products at the time of implementing the original Directive, have reported no apparent problems with the measure. Concerns that this could lead to excessive insurance costs have also proved to be unfounded. A UK-wide regulatory impact consultation revealed that the majority of producers affected already carry adequate insurance cover, and any increases to those who do not will be minimal. The additional costs will be small when compared to the benefit for consumers.

I referred to the difficulty that was faced in implementing this measure. The power to modify the 1987 Order as regards the 1985 Directive was vested in the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, this was not addressed in the Modification of Enactments Order which followed devolution. To use this power would have been constitutionally anomalous in that the Secretary of State would have been legislating on a matter within the competence of the Assembly. I have taken the necessary steps to rectify this by including a measure in clause 2 to substitute the power of the Secretary of State, with his agreement, and transfer responsibility to the appropiate devolved Department.

The result is that in future any obligatory changes to the Directive can be given force by secondary legislation.

The Bill will represent a small but important step in improving the framework of consumer protection in food safety. The amendment will remove any confusion over which food products are covered by strict liability, since all food will now be covered. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I am always pleased to support proposals that will give the consumer additional protection in their day-to-day dealings with business and industry. The Bill will implement an EC Directive aimed at increasing the level of consumer protection against damage caused to health or property by a defective product. It will also further harmonise EC law with regard to liability for defective products. Meaningful debate will take place on the principles behind it at European level, nevertheless we must proceed with implementing these Directives.

Consumers have a legitimate expectation that in the single market, their health will be protected. Demands for the inclusion of unprocessed primary agriculture products in the scope of the Product Liability Directive have increased in recent years. Such inclusion would constitute an important step in the protection of consumers. It will also mean that business throughout the EC will be operating on a level playing field, and citizens will have the assurance that the Directive covers all foods purchased. I am happy to support the proposals contained in this Bill.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am pleased to acknowledge the support of the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Producers who will, theoretically, be covered by the Bill support it in principle, and consumer groups welcome the move. Over the coming years the Bill will help to restore public confidence in food, and this, in turn, will help all concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Product Liability (Amendment) Bill [NIA 13/00] be agreed.

Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

No amendments to the Bill have been tabled, and no indication has been given that Members wish to speak. Therefore, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the six clauses followed by the long title.

Clauses 1 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Long title agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Bill now stands referred to the Speaker.

Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Molaim go n-aontaítear Athchéim an Bhreithnithe den Bhille (Gnéithe Idirthíortha) Uchtaithe.

I beg to move that the Further Consideration Stage of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill be agreed.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am not sure of our position on the amendment that was put through at Consideration Stage last week in the name of the Minister and myself. Can the Minister tell us the position on the Secretary of State’s approval for that amendment? Is the Bill cleared for Further Consideration Stage as it currently stands?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Minister will not be in a position to say that before the Final Stage. There will, at that time, be an opportunity for the Minister to respond to that matter. It is a procedural point.

I have no indication that Members wish to speak on clauses that stand part, and no amendments have been tabled. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the 16 clauses, followed by the Schedule and the long title of the Bill.

Clauses 1 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Bill now stands referred to the Speaker.

Fireworks

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is not clear whether the proposer of the motion is present. I must take the advice of the House as to whether Members wish me to suspend proceedings until Question Time at 2.30 pm.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understood that this motion was due to be debated at 11.30am. Efforts are currently being made to contact the proposer of the motion. Is it in order to suspend the House for a couple of minutes so that this very important matter can proceed?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member says that it was due to start at 11.30 am. I have frequently heard this misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the indicative timings. There is no "due to start" time at all. Members should be here at the time so that the particular item of business can go ahead — otherwise it creates enormous problems for the House.

I will have to put the question to the House, because otherwise it will create a problem for business. However, what the Member has raised as a point of order is, frankly, no excuse.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to reinforce your comments. I am here on time, as are the officials. There is no set time for the debate; there is a presumed time, at which it may start. We must all be ready — ahead of time, if necessary. I therefore support your position.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. A precedent has surely been established already — the occasion when Sammy Wilson was very late. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Without attributing the words "goose" or "gander" to either of those Members, perhaps the Member can clarify what he believes the precedent to be.

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

The precedent is that the Assembly was suspended for a short time until Mr Wilson was found.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Indeed, the Member is right. Ministers have been held quite firmly to these matters. If it is the wish of the House that the business be suspended for 10 or 15 minutes, I am at the mercy of the House. I feel that it is not a proper way to handle things, but I understand that it creates major problems for the business of the House if matters are suspended.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the House did not give leave, would that mean that we would have the rest of the day to deal with the motion of censure?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

No, it would not — not that that will, in any way, affect the view of the Member.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It will not influence me at all.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

In fairness to the House, we will have to suspend at this point and resume with questions at 2.30 pm.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

My understanding is that it is Mr McCarthy who is the proposer. I would have thought that they are difficult to confuse. As it is the wish of the House, the House stands suspended for 10 minutes.

The sitting was suspended at 10.55 am and resumed at 11.05 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I beg to move

That this Assembly calls on the Executive to establish an interdepartmental working group in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Office to examine ways in which the nuisance caused by fireworks can be abated.

I humbly apologise to every Member for not being in the Chamber when I ought to have been. I was attending a meeting with the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, and I did not want to disappoint Mr McGimpsey.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

So you disappointed Mr Speaker instead?

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Mr Speaker, and everyone else.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the serious matter of the misuse of fireworks. Raising the matter at this time of year may not seem appropriate or even one of our most pressing or immediate priorities. However, I assure Members that the matter is serious to many people in Northern Ireland and further afield, and debating it gives us an opportunity to agree to do something positive before the next season comes around, when fireworks are used wittingly or otherwise to terrorise many people.

Mr Ingram, the Minister of State, still has authority over fireworks. However, the people affected by them, and others in the community, elected us to the Assembly to improve the quality of life for everyone in Northern Ireland. They have a right to expect us to deliver. Many of our constituents are neither aware nor care about who is responsible for fireworks; they want us — as elected representatives — to act on their behalf and put the matter right.

My motion calls on the Executive to set up a working group to come up with a method of dealing with the misuse of heavy fireworks. That group could be made up of representatives from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department of the Environment, the Department for Social Development and, perhaps, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. All could work with Northern Ireland Office personnel to consider the possibility of a ban on the sale of fireworks.

Fireworks, if used sensibly, can provide immense pleasure and enjoyment. They can be spectacular, creative and the cause of much excitement. They can be used to celebrate a sporting victory.

Fireworks are acceptable if used properly. However, the deliberate misuse of heavy fireworks can cause great annoyance and nuisance. It is usually the case that from early autumn, as the dark nights approach, through the Halloween period and almost up until Christmas, groups of young people start to set off fireworks. Senior citizens suffer most. They become afraid and feel terrorised in their own homes. It is worse when the fireworks are thrown into people’s pathways and fireworks have even been dropped through letterboxes. The noise they make is almost enough to give elderly people a heart attack — they certainly leave many people distressed and living on their nerves.

Parents have to spend a good deal of time trying to comfort and pacify babies who can be traumatised when fireworks go off. Family pets might also react in a worrying way — the noise made by bangers can cause some pets to become aggressive. Therefore, it is obvious that fireworks distress both humans and animals, and we must try to eradicate this.

The misuse of fireworks can be destructive. In one incident last year, fireworks were placed in a small post box used by senior citizens who do not live on the main street. The post box and its contents were destroyed, and people were inconvenienced for two to three months. Many similar incidents have taken place.

The misuse of fireworks should be curtailed for many reasons. Ards Borough Council recently gave me its full support in asking the Northern Ireland Security Minister, Mr Adam Ingram, to help to alleviate the problem. I was disappointed when Mr Ingram advised the council that although he shared our concerns and understood the distress that fireworks can cause, he was not convinced that the problem would be solved by prohibiting the sale of fireworks. He believes that the enforcement of the current law and ensuring public awareness of the dangers of the misuse of fireworks provides a balanced approach. Let Mr Ingram tell that to the terrorised senior citizens who live alone and who have to suffer such trauma every night for months.

I assure the Minister that Mr Ingram’s response is useless, and I hope that the Assembly responds more positively. Mr Ingram says that the law already prohibits the use of certain types of nuisance fireworks including bangers, small air bombs, and mini rockets in populated areas between 11.00 pm and 7.00 am. What about the long hours of darkness before 11.00 pm? Surely that is when the problem most frequently occurs? The Minister says that the police can take action when the law is broken. That might be true, but the police cannot be everywhere at once, therefore the activity continues unabated.

The continued misuse of these noisy fireworks causes great concern and distress to many of our constituents. I plead with Members to support this motion. I hope that, in the few months before the next fireworks season, the Executive, through cross-departmental work, will be able to introduce measures to overcome the problem for good. We owe it to our community to do something now. We should show our constituents that the Assembly can make a difference and that on this occasion it will make a difference.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the debate, and I support the motion. The Explosives (Fireworks) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 repealed previous regulations and prohibit the possession, purchase or use of certain categories of fireworks, except under licence. The licence is issued by the Secretary of State, to whom a written application must be made. A licence fee must also be paid. The Regulations prohibit

"the possession, purchase, sale or use of fireworks of erratic flight, and mini rockets, bangers or air bombs".

The Regulations provide an exception for supplies

"to any person for use, in the course of his trade or business, for special effects purposes in the theatre, on film or on television."

These specified fireworks must be clearly marked, and the mark should say,

"This device must not be sold to, or used by a member of the general public."

Sparklers should be clearly marked

"Warning: not to be given to children under 5 years of age."

The Regulations prohibit retailers from selling fireworks if they have been removed from the primary pack. Under these Regulations the sale of all bangers is prohibited, however they seem to be available all year round. The fireworks industry, according to the Regulations, has agreed that fireworks should be widely available to the public for only the three weeks prior to Halloween, and for a few days afterwards. In addition, strict fire regulations apply to the storage of fireworks.

Fireworks cause hundreds of avoidable injuries every year. In the four years from 1996 to 1999 over 535 people were hurt during the Halloween period and required hospital treatment. In 1999 there were 139 injuries but, thankfully, no deaths. At Halloween 2000, 100 people were injured — a decrease of 28% from the 1999 figure. Those injuries were mostly to the face, head or neck.

Apart from the injuries caused, the nuisance to the elderly, people living alone and pets is inestimable. Every year in my council area — the Derry City Council area — there is a campaign to stop children and young people getting hold of fireworks, and to thus limit the distress caused to residents in the entire council area. Warnings are issued about the illegal sale and use of bangers, but the law continues to be broken.

The difficulty is in identifying those traders who carry on with this illegal trade. Young people refuse to divulge the name of the store or trader from whom they purchased the bangers. These items cause nuisance in the city centre and in the estates. Something must be done if we are to stop this annual nuisance afflicting our communities.

This year the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) has launched a fireworks safety campaign aimed at children and young people, because statistics show that they suffer over half the injuries. Despite the fact that the law prohibits bangers from being sold to anyone under 16 years of age, bangers are the most common cause of injury.

It is an offence to throw or discharge a firework in a street or public place, yet it happens on a regular basis. A penalty of up to £2,000 can result from a prosecution. However, there are few prosecutions for selling, purchasing or throwing illegal bangers. I support anything that makes life easier for all who dread the Halloween period because of the noise and disturbance that occurs at that time. I support the motion.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Mr Speaker, you will recall that I raised this issue in the Assembly on 26 October 1998. In fact, I think it was the subject of my maiden speech. At that time certain Members accused me of exaggerating the situation when I said that I believed that people’s lives were being tortured by the misuse of fireworks in places such as Ballynahinch, Kilkeel and Rathfriland. I am glad to say that I did receive support from Mr McCarthy, and other Members, on that day. I am glad too that, since then, many other Members have said that the situation is very bad.

I have children aged 10, 13 and 16. They have grown up without ever having used or handled fireworks. Their lives do not seem to be any poorer because of this. There are many hundreds of children and young adults walking around Northern Ireland today who, as a direct result of the fireworks ban that was instigated in the early 1970s, have all their fingers, two eyes and no scars. The ban was not instigated because of a need to protect pensioners or to prevent the cruelty to animals that occurs when fireworks are misused; it was imposed for other reasons. However, as an indirect result there were fewer injuries.

I am not calling for a ban on fireworks, but I am entirely supporting the motion put forward by Mr McCarthy. He is suggesting a very sensible and reasonable balance. There is no doubt that a problem exists. However, there are diverse viewpoints as to the solution. Mr McCarthy is proposing a very sensible halfway house.

I will illustrate some of the problems that have occurred since I first raised this issue in 1998. It is not uncommon for young thugs — frankly, that is the only phrase that I can use to describe them — to find it amusing to put powerful bangers through the letter boxes of old-age pensioners. They terrorise them for the two or three months around the Halloween period. In my own area there are instances of fireworks being tied to the tails of dogs and cats. The animals are absolutely terrified, and, in one case, an animal died.

These people think that it is funny to put fireworks into metal waste disposal bins. The fireworks go off, creating a loud bang and a lot of unease among elderly people. There is absolutely no need for any of this. If my children want to enjoy fireworks they can go to a licensed display run by the local district council or an organisation such as the National Trust. They can enjoy a fine night out without being in any danger or causing distress to anyone else.

I would like to see more emphasis put on licensed displays in Northern Ireland. During my holidays I sometimes go to Disney World in Florida, where you can see the ultimate in firework displays. The Americans think that the idea of children being allowed access to fireworks is unusual. They see fireworks as something you watch and enjoy under strictly controlled conditions.

Another problem which has arisen in recent years is that many of the fireworks being used in Northern Ireland are illegally imported. I read with interest the almost weekly piece in the ‘News Letter’ which says that the police have raided Nutt’s Corner and Jonesborough markets and found that 70% of the fireworks they have seized are illegal. That indicates that 30% of the fireworks are legal. From my experience of reading the papers and watching the court cases, I suspect that the vast bulk of the fireworks sold in these markets are illegally imported. This enables unscrupulous individuals in the Province, who are used to smuggling, to make a large amount of money selling fireworks that are extremely dangerous, particularly to children.

We must take a long hard look at the matter and come up with sensible proposals that enable people to enjoy fireworks — and I accept that a great deal of enjoyment can be gained from watching fireworks. We also need to reduce some of the misery being inflicted on society throughout the Province from the start of September until the end of October or early November. During that period a great deal of police time is taken up in trying to apprehend culprits and reassuring the elderly and those being intimidated by fireworks. Frankly, there is enough ordinary crime on the streets without police time being wasted chasing after these culprits.

I have been told at sub-divisional commander level in Ballynahinch and Kilkeel that during that period in the autumn, the largest number of complaints the police receive is as a result of fireworks.

We had the most obscene example of the abuse of fireworks in Castlewellan last Halloween. There is absolutely no doubt that terrorists used the cover of the illegal use of fireworks in that town to cover up a dastardly attack on a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Five police officers were summoned from Newcastle to Castlewellan to try to control a mob abusing fireworks in the town causing absolute havoc in that community — a strongly Nationalist community who called on the police to intervene and defuse the situation. Whilst all of that was going on, terrorists were using it as a cover to plant a bomb at the entrance to Castlewellan RUC station, seriously injuring a policeman who tried to move it. With the threat of terrorism still hanging over us, the last thing we need is for the attention of the police to be distracted for two months of the year trying to control this situation.

Given the amount of smuggling and the fact that there are cheap, imported fireworks, a lot of black economy is involved in this. If we are going to introduce controls on fireworks, we must not only control their use, but also their import and sale.

Mr McCarthy’s motion hits the problem on the head. We are bringing together a wide range of interests. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety need to be brought together to work out a sensible policy, which can then be implemented throughout the Province.

The policy should have the support of district councils, the police, this Assembly and parents’ representatives to ensure that this problem is stopped. The one difficulty I see is that this is a growing problem throughout the Province. It is not going to get any easier to control, so we must act now. I congratulate Mr McCarthy on bringing forward the motion and urge all Members to support it. I am glad to say that others have seen the light and are also supporting stricter controls.

From a pure self-interest point of view, this would mean that my time during the autumn would not be wasted in trying to reassure elderly people, the disabled and pet owners, and trying to bring the culprits to book by contacting the police. This is a sensible way to bring the problem under control.

My ultimate fear is that someday one of those "tricks", as they are called, will go tragically wrong. Perhaps a firework will be put through a pensioner’s door and lead to a fire; perhaps a pensioner will be so harassed that he or she will have a heart attack. Something tragic will happen if this problem is not nipped in the bud. I give this motion my complete support, and I hope that a working party is established as a matter of urgency.

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

I strongly agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr Wells, Mr McCarthy and Mrs Courtney today. However, to describe the problem of uncontrolled fireworks as a nuisance is probably to underestimate the damage and concern that it causes to many in the community, particularly to older people. I frequently receive complaints from retired and elderly people who cannot get a night’s sleep and whose evenings are disrupted by exploding fireworks in or around their homes.

Fireworks also pose a considerable problem as regards domestic animals, particularly dogs. We should have concern for pets in our society. They are defenceless in the face of fireworks, and we should afford them a degree of protection which hitherto they have not received.

Fireworks affect a third category – the young people themselves. Whether they realise it or not, they are exposing themselves to considerable danger by using fireworks in an uncontrolled, unsupervised fashion. Although the law is against the sale of fireworks to young people under 16 years of age, the law is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. One wonders what type of responsible retailers would sell fireworks to young people. It is the height of irresponsibility to allow that to happen.

Not only shopkeepers are at fault; perhaps street traders who are selling those items to young people are more at fault than shopkeepers. As Mr Wells pointed out, many of the fireworks that are sold in Northern Ireland are extremely powerful foreign imports. Their explosive contents are unregulated. As a result, young people are exposing themselves to even more danger.

The use of fireworks in streets and other public areas is prohibited by law. Again, the law is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. Society must demand zero tolerance of the unauthorised use of fireworks. We must change the current culture of tolerance to a culture of intolerance towards the unauthorised use of fireworks. We are too tolerant about it.

We are too tolerant. We say "Where is the harm if some youngsters let off a few squibs? Are they not entitled to a little fun?" It is not a little bit of fun for elderly people, domestic animals, and so forth. Young people are also exposed to serious danger.

I welcome the motion and the idea of setting up a joint working party with the Northern Ireland Office. It is important that we look at the whole area of the unauthorised use of fireworks and bring forward a series of measures to deal with the problem. We should do it now, and do it quickly, because the next season of unauthorised fireworks will soon be upon us. Any working party set up should report quickly and come up with practical measures to deal with this mischief.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat. I support the motion, Cheann Comhairle. Mr Wells said that he had been to Disneyland. As I listened to his trying to extrapolate out of this debate a stick with which to beat Sinn Féin, I wondered whether he was still there. That is no way to support this motion.

Fireworks have been a part of life in most communities — not just in this part of Ireland but in the rest of Ireland and in England, Scotland and Wales. When I was a young man, Halloween was not Halloween without fireworks. What I am going to say may be nostalgia, but there did not seem to be as many injuries or as much mischief relating to fireworks.

I am glad that Kieran McCarthy is not proposing the banning of fireworks. Under controlled conditions, fireworks can offer a very acceptable form of amusement and even an art form. A controlled fireworks display is as entertaining as a musical show that is watched on television or at a live display. There is nothing wrong with fireworks, providing experienced people use them in a controlled manner.

The tormenting of old people through the misuse of fireworks has become increasingly prevalent — that is brought up at council meetings year in, year out. In my day, you tied a piece of thread to someone’s door knocker, hid around the corner, knocked the door and ran away. Nowadays it seems that you light a bundle of fireworks and put them through a person’s letter box — or, worse still, you break a window and throw them in. That is not an appropriate form of amusement at a time when there should be enjoyment. There is a need for control, and we must ask where that control should come from. Should it come from the parents? They must know, because they give children the money to buy these things.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

One of my concerns is that people are talking in general terms, implying that every young person is a thug. We need to be careful, because many young people have a great deal to contribute to this society; they are the future. I am not opposed to what is being said in general, but we need to recognise that not all young people misuse fireworks.

Secondly, some parents buy fireworks for use in their own back gardens. That is a degree of control. I want to point out to some Members that we should not be tarring all young people with the same brush, or tying them all to the one rocket.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Mr Hutchinson intervened at the wrong time. I was going on to suggest that many young people and many parents behave in a responsible way with regard to fireworks. I was not making a general statement about how some young people abuse this as they abuse other substances such as drugs and alcohol. I was going on to say that in controlled circumstances, young people and parents can have a good, neighbourly display of fireworks in their front or back gardens or in the street.

My comments were about those cases that are increasingly becoming the rule rather than the exception, where old people are tortured and tormented by young people abusing fireworks. There is no question about that — it happens. It happens on every estate, certainly on the estates in my area. I know from experience and from conversations I have had that it happens on other estates.

How we deal with it and legislate for it is another question. I suggest that parents have a responsibility, as they have in other areas of parental control, to ensure that if their children are buying fireworks, they know what kind of fireworks they are buying, what they intend to use them for and how they intend to use them. Fireworks endanger the lives of those who use them and those whom they are being used against.

I welcome Mr McCarthy’s motion. On a good morning like this, it is perhaps not timely, in seasonal terms, but it puts down a marker for the Assembly to ensure that we take cognisance of the concerns that people are expressing, and have expressed, about this very emotive subject.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

As Mr McCarthy said this morning, this is perhaps not an opportune day to be discussing fireworks. It is the month of May, with nice temperatures and not a cloud in the sky, and here we are having a debate on fireworks.

Fireworks are not unknown to this Chamber in the word’s metaphorical sense, never mind its literal one. However, this is a very serious matter indeed. All those who spoke supported the motion, and they all recognised that there is enjoyment to be had with fireworks. I note that Mr Wells referred to Disneyworld. I am sure that many of us have witnessed the wonderful fireworks there. Mr John Kelly talked about the nostalgia of the old days. I too remember Halloween. Halloween would not have gone past without bangers or "squibs", as we called them in the vernacular. Yes, we did enjoy ourselves. There is enjoyment to be had with fireworks.

However, there was also a theme running through the debate this morning of the misuse of fireworks, whether about young people or the elderly, in a sense, or about the law’s not being adhered to, as Mr Maginness and Mrs Courtney mentioned.

We must also recognise — and Mr Billy Hutchinson made reference to this — that we are not in any way castigating all of the youth for what happens today. I, for one, and others recognise that the youth of today probably face more challenges than we ever faced in our youth. Today’s youth are to be commended for how they react in the environment in which they find themselves. We do not in any way condemn them. I have no doubt that Mr Billy Hutchinson’s interjection is resoundingly supported by all. None of the Members who spoke tried to give the impression that the youth of today are to be condemned.

Of course we have witnessed the misuse of fireworks, with the odd rocket suddenly going off in the quiet of the country and disturbing people. Mr McCarthy and Mr Wells referred to senior citizens, who probably suffer most. As Mr John Kelly said, there are those who do not just tie the cord to the letter box, pull it and run but put the firework through the letter box and much more besides. Senior citizens have a concern, and we must reflect that concern and endeavour to make sure that it is dealt with.

Mr McCarthy also mentioned pets. Pets are also innocent, and, in a sense, those who wish to do evil do it on pets as well. That must be a concern for us. Rev Robert Coulter asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety about the number of injuries last year, and it was reported that 100 people were treated in accident and emergency departments for injuries caused by fireworks. Thankfully, no one was killed during that autumn period, but, nonetheless, that is 100 injuries too many. Therefore, the Assembly — and the Administration in particular — must not be complacent.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Let me refer to what Government Departments and the NIO have been doing over the period. Since 1996, the NIO has funded, and has been closely involved in, the annual fireworks safety media campaign. That campaign results from collaboration with agencies throughout the United Kingdom, and also the Department of Trade and Industry, working closely with the Northern Ireland Fireworks Safety Group.

I will put on record how that group is made up. It comprises the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), Home Accident Prevention Northern Ireland, the Departments of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and Education, the NIO, the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland, the RUC, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the health promotion agencies, district councils and Crimestoppers. There is a co-ordination group working there. We must give recognition to the work that is being done thereand not lose sight of it. We must not, through this motion, give the impression that no one out there is doing anything. It is quite the reverse.

In general, the campaign has focused, through those various agencies, on children, because every year over half the injuries caused by fireworks are sustained by schoolchildren. Last year it was decided to introduce a schools resource pack, designed primarily to teach the safe usage of fireworks. That message was taken to the classroom. It was covered in Key Stages 1 to 4 and was distributed to both primary and post-primary schools.

The Northern Ireland Fireworks Safety Group is always seeking ways to increase children’s awareness of safety: I emphasise that again. It is considering having seminars and is working, as is the Department of Health, to develop a hard-hitting fireworks safety drama for this autumn. Work is being done, and I wish to put that on the record.

Mr McCarthy mentioned the darkening nights of early autumn. I understand that the NIO is entering discussions with representatives of the fireworks industry to consider ways of restricting the period during which fireworks are available. We note that.

That fits in with what Mrs Courtney and Alban Maginness said about the law’s being honoured more in the breach than in the observance. Alban Maginness said that it was the "height of irresponsibility" to sell fireworks to under-age children, and that has been noted by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Members have had a good discussion this morning. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has noted where problems are to be found and where they are not to be found. Lack of education is part of the problem, as are those who abuse the law in selling fireworks. Those two issues must be addressed, and the law must be more strictly adhered to.

However, links have been established throughout Northern Ireland’s administrative structure. From 1999 to 2000 firework-related injuries fell by 28%. However, one should never take statistics in isolation. One year does not establish a trend, but that is an optimistic figure nonetheless.

The Administration are not complacent. They will continue to develop and work on what needs to be done. All participating Members spoke in favour of the motion; no one dissented. Therefore the Executive will carefully consider the motion.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

Mr McCarthy and I are grateful for the participation of Members in the debate and their recognition of the issue’s seriousness. We are also grateful to the Junior Minister for attending; his words are heartening. It is only right that Members have had the debate and that it is pushed along so that the situation may improve.

My Colleague Mr McCarthy has outlined the reasons for tabling the motion. We want action to be taken before the outbreak of the fireworks season. From August to Christmas there are bangs at all hours of the day and night. Legislation should look at that. The fear and terror that elderly people, families and pets experience is dreadful. The Assembly must take that on board and ensure that it is stopped.

It may be difficult to set up an interdepartmental working group, but that should not deter the Assembly. The NIO will also have to be involved, and Members must acknowledge the role of the police, who have great difficulty in dealing with the many incidents that occur. Alban Maginness is right in saying that the message should be one of zero tolerance for the misuse of fireworks.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Does the Member agree that rather than being a source of pleasure and fun, fireworks have been turned into weapons and used against senior citizens, animal owners and families? Does she agree that the working group needs to achieve a balance between the legitimate use of fireworks and ensuring that people do not live in fear of them?

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

As a councillor on North Down Borough Council I must say that fireworks are a wonderful form of entertainment if properly supervised. However, they are being seriously misused in some instances — as some Members have mentioned — and that must be addressed.

We must look at all the possible causes and solutions and at the legislation concerning the sale of fireworks to individuals. Police must be afforded more manpower and resources to deal with the problems and to identify the people causing them.

As Billy Hutchinson rightly said, not every young person in every estate — private or council-owned — misuses fireworks. However, the numbers are increasing every year, and we must be concerned about that. Members have graphically outlined concerns about their constituents’ safety. We do not wish to ban fireworks, but we must ensure that the situation is improved.

Remember, this problem will involve the RUC and even the Fire and Ambulance Services at times. Public safety and the danger to the environment are other issues that we need to look at. We require collective action. Mr Wells is quite right in outlining all the other possible repercussions of allowing fireworks to be freely available. I witnessed an example of these repercussions: a banger was thrown into the hallway of pensioners’ flats. One resident was taken to hospital and was never able to return to his home afterwards, while the others required attention and reassurance from police and the community.

The buzz phrase is "community safety". Community associations should therefore be involved in this problem. Not all of our young people are involved in the misuse of fireworks, but if this problem is not dealt with, it will become an issue as serious as drugs or alcohol. Legislation does not solve the problem. I hope that immediate and effective action will now be taken and that today will be not just a marker, as Mr John Kelly suggested.

The National Campaign for Firework Reform and other relevant agencies state that their work would be easier with obvious support from the Assembly. The work that is already being done is not recognised by those directly affected. More public relations work needs to be done, and I appreciate the junior Minister’s statement on the need for seminars.

Let us be under no illusions about this. If this problem is not dealt with effectively, more serious accidents and fatalities will occur. When they hear bangs at all hours of the day, elderly people will remember terrorising noises in the past — as will Members. That cannot continue. What use are we as a locally elected Assembly if we cannot deal directly with these problems for the safety of our people?

We do not wish to ban small family fireworks displays. Some of these are very good. I do not want to put problems in the way of families, charities and councils such as the North Down Borough Council who want to organise such events. I ask the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to take all these comments on board. I am glad that the junior Minister has made that commitment today, and I ask him and the Assembly to please support this motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly calls on the Executive to establish an interdepartmental working group in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Office to examine ways in which the nuisance caused by fireworks can be abated.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

The House will now suspend until Question Time at 2.30 pm.

John Tierney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it not possible to move the 4.00 pm business up the Order Paper and proceed with it now? There are one-and- a-half hours left for debate, and we could extend that for a further half-hour. As Mr Speaker stressed this morning, the times on the Order Paper are indicative.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

As you say, the indicative times suggested a close at 1.30 pm, and it is now just coming up to 12 o’clock. Ministers are advised to be here at 2.30 pm for Question Time. I have no intention of switching that programme. The House will suspend until 2.30 pm.

John Tierney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Ministers are advised to be in the Chamber at 2.30 pm for Question Time. There is no reason why a two-hour debate could not last from 12 o’clock until 2.00 pm.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Mr Tierney you know my views.

The sitting was suspended at 12.01 pm

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

No Confidence in Minister of Education

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. A valid petition of concern in respect of the motion of no confidence in the Minister of Education was tabled on Thursday 3 May. Having checked the petition, I regard it as fulfilling the requirements of Standing Order 27 with regard to the vote that is to take place at the conclusion of the debate today. Any vote on the motion will be on a cross-community basis. Members wishing to inspect the petition of concern may obtain copies from the Business Office.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That this Assembly has no confidence in the Minister of Education, Mr Martin McGuinness MP.

I move the motion in the name of the Member for North Belfast, Nigel Dodds, and myself.

At about eight o’clock on the morning of Thursday 27 January 1972 a car with five police officers was travelling along Creggan Road towards Rosemount RUC station. One terrorist gunman standing in an alleyway opened fire on it. About 40 or 50 yards further down the road two other terrorists, one with a Thompson sub-machine gun, also opened fire on the vehicle. The car was hit about 17 times. As a result of that terrorist attack two police officers were murdered and another injured. One of the men who was brutally murdered came from your constituency and mine, Mr Speaker. He was David John Montgomery, a 20-year-old Protestant from Cregagh. Peter Gilgunn, a 26-year-old married Roman Catholic RUC sergeant with a six-month-old son from Belcoo in County Fermanagh was murdered with him.

The cowards who carried out the attack were following the orders of the then adjutant of the so-called Derry brigade of the Provisional IRA. That Londonderry terrorist group has long been regarded as one of the most murderous and evil, even by the blood-stained, loathsome standards of that organisation. It has been responsible for dozens of murders of innocent people.

Adjutant, of course, is not the entry level for terrorist recruits. Before a command is given, recruits have to earn their bloody spurs. This adjutant rose through the ranks, and, according to newspaper reports, he did so with speed and determination, plying his terror trade with ruthlessness and fury. Again, it was reported in newspapers that, as a trigger man, he was responsible for the death of over 12 soldiers. However, security sources would put the figure much higher than that.

He was an officer in the IRA in Londonderry when hundreds of killings were ordered, and it was only the vigilance of the security forces, the ineptness of his own terrorist gunmen and bombers and the hand of God that reduced the tally.

He did not remain in this local command for long. He catapulted himself up the organisation structure, and eventually he became the terror group’s chief of staff. He held that position from 1978 until 1982. During that period alone, the IRA, under his command, murdered 327 people, and he remains one of the seven members of the IRA’s Army Council.

A document was sent to my home recently, and I read it out in the House of Commons. The document outlines the present Army Council membership of the IRA. It indicates that the chief of staff is Thomas Murphy, and the assistant chief is Brian Keenan. The other members are Martin McGuinness, Gerard Adams, Martin Ferris, Patrick Doherty and Brian Gillen. The headquarters staff are as follows: the quartermaster is Kevin Agnew; the adjutant general is Martin Lynch; Bernard Fox is in charge of the engineering department; the director of education is James Monaghan; the director of finances is Patrick Thompson; the operations officer is Sean Hughes; the director of intelligence is Robert Storey; and Patrick Murphy and Kevin McBride are in charge of internal security — although I suspect that they will have to get new jobs after this. These are the people in charge of the Provisional IRA today. That information is on the record at the of Commons, and it is now on record in this House.

In the early days of the Assembly, I made a reference in the Chamber to IRA/Sinn Féin. The now Minister of Education rose on a series of points of order and objected to any relationship between the IRA and Sinn Féin’s being mentioned. He demanded that you force me to withdraw the reference, Mr Speaker. Happily you did not. In the light of the facts that are now available, the public will look at those weasel words, and I hope that we will never again have the pretence that Sinn Féin and the IRA are anything other than synonymous. We should never again listen to the Minister of Education or his Colleagues dodge questions about the IRA by insisting that they do not speak for them.

According to that document, Mr McGuinness is a member of the Army Council of the IRA, which has sanctioned the murder of thousands of men, women and children in and outside Northern Ireland. Now, while still a member of the IRA’s Army Council, Mr McGuinness is the Minister of Education with the responsibility for moulding the minds of thousands of young people.

Last Friday another murder occurred in Belfast. Patrick Daly, a 38-year-old father of four, was shot in front of his partner and 12-year-old daughter. Apparently, up to 10 bullets were pumped into him, and he was left lying dead on the street. Again, the security forces understand that the IRA is responsible. This assassination will have been sanctioned by the IRA’s Army Council. The Minister of Education combines his duties in this House with membership of an Army Council that makes decisions to murder human beings.

Last week Mr McGuinness admitted that he was a leader of the IRA in 1972. However, he did not tell us what his present position in that organisation is. He cannot build a convenient wall around one day in January 1972 and answer questions on his activities that day, while blocking out awkward questions about his role in the IRA before and afterwards. His action exemplifies the sheer double standards that he shares with his associates. They demand that the facts be unearthed about incidents that concern them, but he will refuse to give any details about his activity, and that of the IRA, in the periods before and after Bloody Sunday.

He says that he is giving evidence "to get to the truth of what happened on that day". However, he does not want to help anyone get to the truth of what happened at the hands of the IRA on all the other days. He demands to know the identity of soldiers involved in the city that day, but he will refuse to reveal the identities of his IRA colleagues who were in the city on that and other days.

He complained in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ last Monday that the army is "trying to get away with murder". Surely that is a charge that could equally be made against him. He claims that he wants to give evidence so that he can help the families to come to terms with what has happened. However, he refuses to give evidence about his actions and the activities of his fellow travellers that would allow the families of thousands of IRA victims to come to terms with their loss and hardship.

Are Nationalists the only people entitled to inquiries? Are Unionist deaths and the deaths of members of the security forces less worthy of investigation? Are the families of Unionist victims and members of the security forces not entitled to the opportunity to ask questions and get answers about the circumstances of their loved ones’ murder?

Mr Speaker, I demand an inquiry into the activities of the Provisional IRA in the north-west of our Province during the period when the Minister of Education was in command of that terrorist organisation. People have the right to know the full details, not the selective propaganda droplets offered by Mr McGuinness and the IRA. The Attorney-General may have provided some limited immunity from prosecution to witnesses appearing before the Saville Inquiry, but an admission made outside the inquiry, at a press conference, is not covered by that shield. Therefore, there is no bar to a prosecution of Mr McGuinness. His admission at the press conference is evidence that can be used in a court of law.

In the light of the lengths that nations go to in order to ensure that those responsible for war crimes are tracked down and brought to justice, the victims of IRA atrocities demand action. The heinous crimes carried out by the IRA over the last 30 years rank alongside the worst of those brought before war crimes tribunals. In neither case should position or expediency protect those responsible for such grotesque murders. However, the Minister of Education has enjoyed protection from prosecution in Northern Ireland for many years. While the evidence piled up against him, the Establishment wanted him to stay out of prison, as they were negotiating a deal to buy off the IRA through him.

That is in spite of evidence from people such as Rose Hegarty, the mother of Frank Hegarty. Mr McGuinness lured her son back from England, gave her repeated assurances of her son’s safety and informed her that while her son would have to attend a meeting across the border, "nothing would happen to Frank". Mr McGuinness even told her that he would bring him home himself. Frank Hegarty never returned home alive. He was shot and his body dumped by the roadside. The families of all those who are the victims of the IRA, under the leadership that Mr McGuinness now admits, should now take action against him in the courts.

His statement and our motion drew different responses, and I want briefly to deal with some of them. Sinn Féin/ IRA’s response to this motion was to describe it as a DUP pre-election stunt. Yet the timing was Sinn Féin/ IRA’s, not ours. They determined when and how Mr McGuinness made his public statement. We simply reacted to that statement. If it is an election stunt, it is Sinn Féin/IRA’s election stunt.

There were several strands of reaction to the Minister of Education’s statement. First, there were those who welcomed what they described as "the Minister’s open and frank confession". The truth is that it was not a confession, it was a boast. He wears his IRA leadership as a badge of honour. He gloats over his association with that terrorist organisation. He has not come clean. He is only providing a snippet to suit his propaganda purposes and aid the IRA’s attempt at revisionism.

IRA demands for inquiries are not an attempt to find the facts; they are an attempt to rewrite history and justify its campaign of murder and destruction. There was no glimpse of repentance in Mr McGuinness’s statement. It was not accompanied by an apology — indeed, it did not even refer to the crimes that he might have committed in that organisation, nor did it list them. Critically, there was no commitment to leave behind his association with that terrorist organisation. His statement was entirely self-serving and cynical.

Secondly, there were those who considered that there was nothing new in the Education Minister’s admitting holding a leadership role in the IRA. I will leave the difference between an allegation and an admission to the side, as I do not want to rest my case on that distinction. I have long known of Mr McGuinness’s position in the IRA and the activities in which he was engaged. I know of his continuing role in that organisation, and of the IRA’s unbroken terrorist activity.

With that knowledge, I opposed, at the time of the referendum and ever since, any role for Mr McGuinness or his unrepentant associates in the Government of Northern Ireland. No one by their vote would put in to Government someone in whom they had no confidence. No one would set up a Government in which it was an obligation to provide places for people they considered completely unfit to hold office. On that basis I must conclude that the Ulster Unionist Party either knew about Mr McGuinness’s IRA association but considered that in spite of his record and previous relationship with the IRA, he and his Sinn Féin/IRA colleagues were suitable candidates for ministerial office and had confidence in them — except, it seems, at election times — or that the Members on the UUP Benches did not know, or were uncertain, of the nature and extent of the relationship that Sinn Féin has with terrorism.

It may be hard to understand, but if there is a change of heart, here is an opportunity to vote accordingly. We all face the question —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I must ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Is our society going to turn a blind eye to the activities of the "Bogside butcher"? Are we going to continue with this unseemly and immoral sham? This House can decide whether it has confidence in Mr McGuinness — I do not.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

This is a very important debate. How much time has been allocated to each Member?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It has been agreed through the usual channels that the proposer will have 15 minutes, the person winding-up will have 10 minutes, the response from the Minister, either by himself or on his behalf, will be 20 minutes, and all others will have five minutes.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Then I must hasten on.

It is clear that events have, in their own way, overrun this motion. The actions outlined by my party Colleague and leader, the First Minister, in the House this morning clearly create new circumstances for this motion. It is very clear to the people of Northern Ireland and the Members of this House that a timetable is in place whereby the Republican movement must live up to its obligation or face the consequences.

Through the many changes and political shenanigans of recent years, the Ulster Unionist Party has attempted to bring political stability to Northern Ireland and its people. The people of Northern Ireland, by and large, recognise those efforts. They understand the risks and appreciate what the Ulster Unionist Party has sought to achieve in all of this. We have given opportunities for those from paramilitary groups to mend their ways, to change and to effect change. It is a matter of grave regret that they have not responded to those challenges.

It is a matter of huge regret that SDLP members have not lived up to their obligations over many months and years. They have not wanted to carry any burden for the agreement or for the political process. They have simply attempted to get a free ride on the back of the Ulster Unionist Party. This morning’s events will clearly put the SDLP in the position of having to make its mind up. The indication by the SDLP that it will not be supporting the motion means, in real terms, that the motion is doomed to failure. Much could be said about that, but I must say to the SDLP that time is fast running out. The party must, therefore, take its stand, and we look forward to that.

I have, as Members will know, opposed the Republican movement inside and outside the House. I have attempted to do that in practical, political ways, as have my party Colleagues. We will continue to do so.

I want now to deal with the status of the current Minister of Education. We remember the reaction, in particular in the Unionist community, when that appointment was made. The political parties made that appointment. It was their choice, and people did not know who that individual would be. Nevertheless, it did cause major shock waves in the Unionist community.

Martin McGuinness’s membership of the IRA is probably the worst-kept secret in the history of Northern Ireland. Everybody knew; the dogs in the street — to use that phrase — knew. It has been well documented and known. The question that has to be put to the Minister of Education — and I pose it now — is whether he is still a member of the IRA. He will have the opportunity to answer that in specific terms in the debate today.

Anybody can be a Minister in the Assembly, given the amount of officials in place and the help that exists. It is also important to say that the doctrines of the main Christian faiths, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, depend on forgiveness — but forgiveness comes after repentance. It is clear that the Minister of Education has not repented. Therefore the Ulster Unionist Party can have no confidence in the Minister of Education. The motion cannot and will not change his status, and the Ulster Unionist Party will pursue its own strategic aims to ensure that proper democracy is restored to the people of Northern Ireland.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member’s time is up.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

A Cheann Comhairle, go raibh maith agat. The DUP in its motion is calling for the exclusion of the Education Minister. On many previous occasions, the DUP has called for the banning of Sinn Féin on the grounds that it believes that our party supports violence. Let us have a look at the DUP’s own record and its own history. Let us go back to the same period — [Interruption]

Are members of the DUP afraid of their own history, of their violent past and sectarian background?

As long ago as 1969, before the founding of the DUP, the Cameron report was highly critical of Ian Paisley. The report stated

"In the face of the mass of evidence from both police and civilian sources as to the extent to which the supporters of Dr Paisley and Major Bunting were armed at Armagh and on the occasion of the People’s Democracy march to Londonderry, it is idle to pretend that these were peacefully directed protest meetings."

Cameron concluded

"Both these gentlemen and the organisations with which they are so closely and authoritatively concerned must, in our opinion, bear a heavy share of direct responsibility for the disorders in Armagh and at Burntollet Bridge."

That is the view shared by almost all Northern Nationalists. Other Unionists often blame Paisley and his associates for stopping the demand to concede civil rights and stopping the progress of Unionism within the Six Counties.

Since the DUP was founded two decades ago, it has marched with the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) and the Ulster Defence Association (UDA); it has organised a series of strikes in conjunction with Loyalist paramilitaries; it has helped establish Ulster Resistance; it has taken over towns in conjunction with armed and masked Loyalists and it has supported the procurement of weapons by Loyalists. We understand that the DUP stands for bigotry and sectarianism. Which part of the word "hypocrisy" does it not understand? It has always supported the use of violence, as long as it is directed at Republicans and Nationalists, and it has always been prepared to threaten violence to advance its own narrow political agenda. It has openly colluded with Loyalism and incited violence against Nationalists for nearly 30 years, and it has consistently indulged in anti-Nationalist and anti-Catholic diatribes.

I will list the organisations with which the DUP has been associated: the National Union of Protestants and the Ulster Protestant Action Group, part of whose manifesto says:

"To keep Protestant and loyal workers in employment, in times of recession, in preference to their Catholic fellow workers"

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, is there an alternative agenda of which we have not been made aware? The motion on the Order Paper is a motion of no confidence in the Minister of Education. We are almost four minutes into Mr Doherty’s speech, and no reference has been made to any of the issues contained in the motion. It might be useful if he touched on it once or twice.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member will have heard that heartfelt plea.

This is a motion of no confidence; it is not an exclusion motion, which is a different kind of motion. The Member started his speech by talking about this as being an exclusion motion.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Peter Robinson does not like to hear his past record made public.

It has been involved with other associations: Protestant Unionists, the Ulster Constitution Defence Committee, the Ulster Protestant Volunteers, the Ulster Workers’ Council, the United Unionist Action Council, Vanguard, the Independent Unionist Group, the Orange Order, the Apprentice Boys of Derry, the UDA, the UVF and the Red Hand Commandos.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

You probably attempted to corrupt the Boy Scouts as well.

Ian Paisley was elected MP for North Antrim in the seventies. That August he was calling for the rearming of the RUC, the reintroduction of the B-Specials and internment against Nationalists. He was pictured marching with masked Loyalist paramilitaries during the Ulster Workers’ Council strike in May 1974. In 1975, William McCrea officiated at the funeral of a UVF man who was killed blowing up the Miami showband. In 1976 Clifford Smyth stated that when he was secretary of the United Ulster Unionist Council, Peter Robinson approached him in June of that year with a suggestion that that party should set up a paramilitary wing. A senior UDA figure also stated that they were approached—[Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member’s time is up.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Sinn Féin’s attitude to the fact that this debate is taking place today seems to be a little surprising. As Mr Peter Robinson said, the entire issue was started off by Sinn Féin spin-doctors drip – feeding Mr McGuinness’s role in Bloody Sunday to the press. He subsequently made a statement to the Saville inquiry, and then made a statement publicly. However, Sinn Féin Members are saying that we should not be allowed to discuss such an issue in the Chamber. It seems to be acceptable to have it in the papers at their whim, but not to have it discussed in the Assembly.

Last week, I was surprised to find that within an hour of the Business Committee meeting’s ending, three journalists rang me up asking not how I voted, but why I voted the way I did. I understood that Business Committee meetings were confidential.

Let me make it quite clear that I believe that my role in the Business Committee is to help form an Order Paper which contains business that is relevant for the Assembly. I find it difficult to suggest that an issue of this level of concern is not one that the Assembly ought to debate. If the activities of Mr McGuinness can be discussed on buses, in bars and over teacups, they should surely be suitable for discussion here. It appears that we have, in Sinn Féin, a desire for a type of Stalinist state in which all criticism of Ministers is banned. That is not my idea of an inclusive system of government. I voted to list the motion, because it is important enough that it should be discussed.

Let us look at the motion. On the face of it, the motion is one of no confidence in a Minister. That is what anybody might have believed until they heard the proposer start to speak. Actually, there was nothing in the debate that referred to the activities of a Minister. It was entirely an attack on an individual and on an individual’s past record. It is nothing to do with his role as a Minister, which is surely the only way in which a motion of no confidence in a Minister could have been competently proposed. Indeed, I suggest that as regards his performance as a Minister so far, Mr McGuinness is by no means the worst we have seen in this place, either in its current incarnation or in its previous ones in this Building. Of course, that was not the point of the debate.

Nobody should be in any doubt about where my party stands on the issue of political violence. Nobody should be in any doubt that we have been opposed to paramilitary violence from the day of our party’s formation. It is absolutely clear that there are plenty of people in the Chamber who will point the finger at Republican violence and conveniently forget their own records and those of their Colleagues over the years.

I do not wish to go through the same list that Mr Pat Doherty produced, but it seems to me that the threats that accompanied the Ulster Worker’s Council (UWC) strike, the Third Force and the dog licences up Slemish mountain are not unconnected with the prospect of political violence. Indeed, it seems to me that the word "hypocrisy" might just possibly be suggested in respect of the behaviour of some people in pointing fingers and ignoring records amongst their friends.

Assembly Members are well aware of what the agreement provided as regards how the institutions would be set up. Some people did not like it, but the great majority of us accepted that the new institutions were being set up to be inclusive; people accepted that and backed us in a referendum; they wanted a new start.

Today we have seen behaviour that is typical of the DUP. They want to attack, to complain and to criticise. Some of it is directed at Sinn Féin, but their real target remains the Ulster Unionist Party. Whether the timing was theirs, this has certainly come very conveniently as an election stunt for them. Indeed, the UUP leader’s response earlier today shows that, perhaps, he now feels the need to outdo the DUP. Mr Kennedy almost admitted that.

I ought to warn the DUP about the dangers of their approach. They want to wound the UUP and the agreement, but they clearly do not want to bring it down. They love this place too much; they want a working Assembly, and they believe in devolution. If they provoke the kind of reactions that they got from the UUP leader’s statement earlier, they might find that he and his party Colleagues will bring down the agreement and destroy the Assembly that they actually love.

Let us remember that the UUP have the capacity to destroy the agreement, which the DUP clearly do not. Sadly, it appears that the DUP’s antics in bringing the motion have been matched by the UUP. The DUP muck- slinging about Sinn Féin has already been replicated by Sinn Féin’s muck-slinging about the DUP. The people who returned us to this place on a wave of optimism three years ago deserve rather better than the debate has proved. The motion should be rejected.

Norman Boyd (NIUP, South Antrim)

I support this motion of no confidence in Martin McGuinness. This is a very solemn matter. The pro-Union community is completely opposed to an Executive that includes in it the architects of the Republican terrorism that has been directed against us for 30 years while the IRA retains its arsenal and its structures for use at its discretion. Such a situation is totally unacceptable.

Martin McGuinness and his colleagues in Sinn Féin/IRA do not share the common desire of ordinary people in Northern Ireland for stability. They are committed to a revolutionary principle. For Martin McGuinness, the Assembly is merely a transitional stage in that revolution, and whether that struggle is defined as armed or unarmed depends on the degree of violence that the Government are prepared to tolerate in the name of a so-called peace process. In the ‘The Irish News’ on 23 June 1986, Martin McGuinness, the Minister of Education, was quoted as saying:

"Freedom can only be gained at the point of an IRA rifle and I apologise to no one for saying that we support and admire the freedom fighters of the IRA".

After the Londonderry City Council elections on 16 May 1985, the so-called Minister of Education, Mr Martin McGuinness, also stated

"We don’t believe that winning elections and winning any amount of votes will bring freedom to Ireland — at the end of the day it will be the cutting edge of the IRA that will bring freedom".

Let us examine the attitude of the SDLP. The SDLP is a party that throughout 30 years of terror has constantly condemned violence but has not hesitated to profit politically from it. This motion presents SDLP Members with a clear choice between supporting the democratic process and the integrity of the rule of law or endorsing Sinn Féin/IRA’s participation in the Executive while retaining its terrorists’ arsenal and structures. If SDLP Members support Martin McGuinness in Government, as they clearly do, they render themselves indistinguishable from Sinn Féin/IRA.

Martin McGuinness and his Sinn Féin cohorts tell us that they are interested in human rights, yet the instruments of torture in the IRA’s armoury are many and varied. They include guns, explosives, baseball bats, golf clubs, nail-studded clubs, pickaxe handles, hammers, sledgehammers, hurley sticks, axes, hatchets, drills and many others things.

The pro-Union community rejects an Executive that includes the architects of terrorism such as Martin McGuinness, who has revelled in his IRA role. Such a situation is totally unacceptable.

I quote from ‘The Informer’ by Sean O’Callaghan, one of Sinn Féin/IRA’s and Martin McGuinness’s previous cohorts.

"The so-called Minister, Martin McGuinness, has been an active Republican since 1970. He was Chief of Staff of the IRA from 1977 to 1982. He has been a member of the IRA Army Council since 1976. He has held the position of OC Northern command".

In August 1993, Central Television’s ‘The Cook Report’ named him as Britain’s number one terrorist. That is the man who now holds the position of Minister of Education in our Executive.

The IRA Army Council chooses the chief of staff. It has two primary responsibilities: to ensure that the IRA has the equipment to wage war and that the organisation operates at maximum efficiency. According to the informer Sean O’Callaghan, no chief of staff in recent years has carried anything like the internal influence of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. The IRA Army Council sanctioned the Canary Wharf bomb. Right up to the present day, Adams and Martin McGuinness have been firmly in charge of the Republican movement.

The IRA has murdered over 2,000 people in the last 30 years. Its lethal murder machine has got Martin McGuinness and Barbara Brown into the Executive, and not the ballot box, as they try to dupe many people into believing. The clear message today is that the innocent victims of terrorism still suffer. Their agony and suffering is compounded by the presence of unrepentant terrorists such as Martin McGuinness in the Government of Northern Ireland. Martin McGuinness, who by his own admission was a commander in the Provisional IRA, has been part of an organisation that has presided over the murders of over 2,000 citizens in Northern Ireland for which no apology has ever been forthcoming.

The crisis in education funding is a direct result of the 30-year terrorist campaign by the provisional IRA. That organisation will continue to murder, maim and carry out its criminal activities while it remains fully armed and intact. I call on all Unionists here to reject Sinn Féin/IRA representatives in the Government. We have endured 30 years of violence and terror. If the Assembly sends out the message that violence pays, we shall be heading for the abyss. If this motion fails, the message from the Assembly will be that democracy has died in Northern Ireland and that violence is rewarded with ministerial positions. I support the motion.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I do not believe that the motion is directed against one individual Minister. At the heart of the motion lie issues directly related to the overall aims and objectives of the Good Friday Agreement and the intent to undermine that agreement. Over and above the detailed arrangements and commitments that it contained, the Good Friday Agreement, signed just three years ago, was a signal of a new start to be characterised by a determination that the only means by which disputes would be resolved would be through the democratic process of political dialogue based on the principle of consent.

The new start was also to be characterised by a spirit of reconciliation and of reaching out and trying to understand and respect each other as individuals and as members of their respective communities. To make that possible a new political partnership was to be forged between the communities, a partnership represented in the new political institutions by Unionists and Nationalists in the Executive and working together at Committee level.

As a member of the Executive I am proud and pleased, if somewhat disappointed, at the progress that we have made. I am pleased that the Executive have brought representatives of three parties, the SDLP, the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin, into a close and effective working relationship. I am proud of the Executive’s record in the short time since it took office and proud that it has begun to demonstrate a capacity to leave historic differences aside and address the many social and economic challenges facing us.

The Executive’s record on dealing with the current agriculture crisis is widely acknowledged to be positive and reassuring. Their record on primary, secondary and tertiary level education has also been seen as positive, and their record in economic development, health and in promoting the equality agenda and respect for cultural differences has begun to show what can be achieved when we work together.

I am also proud of the positive manner in which the Executive have been perceived and received by the wider community. Working with David Trimble and his Unionist colleagues is an exciting and challenging experience. It has not made me any less committed to the objectives of the SDLP, objectives that include working through agreement for the ultimate unity of the people of this island. All members of the Executive continue to hold to their ultimate objectives. I am sure that that is as true for Martin McGuinness and Bairbre de Brún as it is for my SDLP Colleagues and Members from the Ulster Unionist Party.

Some of my disappointment arises from the fact that the DUP Ministers have chosen not to join the Executive fully, although it should be appreciated that they are only half out. Both DUP Ministers correspond with the rest of the Executive members individually and collectively. They seek our advice, comment and agreement on matters pertaining to their portfolios, as we do with them. They work with my SDLP colleagues and myself, with the Sinn Féin Ministers and with the Ulster Unionist Party Ministers and have, therefore, after a fashion, begun working the new arrangements. It is a pity that they do not more openly acknowledge that and do not fully embrace the responsibilities that they undertook when they took the Pledge of Office.

In the Executive I have found the Education Minister, Martin McGuinness, to be a very good Colleague who discharges his responsibilities in a satisfactory manner. With his area of responsibility very closely related to mine, it is essential that we work together. Consequently I have come to appreciate his commitment to making a positive difference to education services.

It is not only in the Executive that a new start is being made. This is also reflected in much of the work at Committee level, but above all the signals going out from the Chamber are being positively received in the communities, beyond our borders and beyond our shores.

The events of Bloody Sunday and Martin McGuinness’s decision to appear before the Saville inquiry are the immediate cause for today’s debate. I would like to think that Minister McGuinness, no less than anyone else, acknowledges that to the pain of Bloody Sunday can be added the pain caused by many other killings for which the organisation of which he is now acknowledged to have been a leader was responsible.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member’s time is up.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I quote from a recent publication from South Africa on truth and reconciliation

"It lies in people acknowledging, however haltingly, in whatever limited a way, at least something of what they did. Reconciliation means the nation, and the world, acknowledging that these terrible things happened."

Terrible things happened in Northern Ireland. As Maya Angelou, the wonderful black writer, said

"History cannot be unlived, but if faced up to with at least some courage it need not be lived again."

Today we are discussing our desperate attempts not to repeat the events of the past. Mr Speaker, you coined a phrase during our peace negotiations:

"How often does the violence of the tongue lead to the violence of the gun?"

There is no monopoly of blame or shame in the Chamber. Different parties face each other, throwing boulders of blame and shame at a time when the people of Northern Ireland desperately need to hear a voice of confidence coming from the Assembly, instead of a voice of no confidence. Is that all we can serve them up?

Just jumping on people and attempting to put them out of office, or even to have people threatening to leave office will get us nowhere. We need to send a different message about the new contract, as Dr Farren stated. My party is one of the signatories to the Good Friday Agreement, and we developed a new contract — a new commitment that the past would not be repeated and that the future would bring us some stability. The Minister of Education has brought us stability through the reforms that he has put forward. It is on that basis that he should be judged today, because the no confidence motion relates to Mr McGuinness as a Minister. For many years, as a parent and as a citizen of Northern Ireland I have looked forward, and I will continue to look forward, to the reform of our education system. If there is anything that we should have no confidence in it is that dreadful, painful, shameful examination — the 11-plus — which we impose on our young children.

I also hear certain MPs and Members from across the Chamber throwing allegations about who is related to whom. I say to them that I stand on my own two feet and not on the basis of being related to anyone. Judge me by the politics of a cross-community coalition that is built on diversity and difference. Those are the politics I would like to see in Northern Ireland.

Yes, it is time to move on. It would be good to hear that the guns could be left as was written one day on the notice board of Stormont Presbyterian Church:

"Let them rust in peace".

If we are to move on, then we could all start to build a little peace and begin with a little bit of confidence in the competence of Ministers carrying out their duties in the Assembly.

If I had any difference with the Minister of Education it was about the realpolitik of Northern Ireland — the differences I have had with him on private finance initiatives, where I have seen the sale of hockey pitches and public property. It is not about the confidence I have in him in trying to bring about a different way forward for education. I have confidence in the Minister of Education, and I will continue to do so.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

At present, Johnny Adair, after being convicted in due process, is where he ought to be — in prison. Martin McGuinness is the self-confessed adjutant of the Derry brigade at a time when, in its murderous activity, it was responsible for the deaths of dozens of people and bombing the guts and heart out of Londonderry. He is the Minister for Education, responsible for shaping and moulding the future of our young people.

Over the last 30 years the IRA and its fellow-travellers have committed acts of indescribable brutality. They have caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Many of their most callous deeds have been perpetrated against civilians. Kingsmill, Bloody Friday, Teebane, Enniskillen, Darkley, La Mon and the Shankill bombings bear witness to the violence of their conduct. Innumerable innocent individuals, from Pakistani caterers to teachers and bread servers, were all designated legitimate targets, and that was sufficient to justify their murder.

As the recent murders in Derry and Belfast illustrate, the IRA continues to reserve the right to be judge, jury and executioner while its masked thugs continue to beat, brutalise and intimidate. The same alleged freedom fighters have, since 1969, destroyed and damaged property worth billions of pounds. Their political legacy is the thousands of victims who live physically crippled or mentally impaired, and mothers, widows and orphans who are left with nothing but grief and ruined lives.

In a civilised society, which is governed, I hope, by the principles of democracy and subject to the rule of law, one might reasonably expect the perpetrators and their supporters to be treated as moral and political lepers. However, the reverse is proving to be the case. They are admitted to Government; they are placed in authority; they dictate the future of our children’s education and the health of our young and old people. They are elevated to positions of authority.

Martin McGuinness has come a long way since, as a butcher boy and IRA second-in-command in Londonderry in 1972, he gave press interviews behind the lines in the Bogside. Now he gives interviews as the Minister responsible for shaping the education of Northern Ireland’s children. As other Members have pointed out, he has scaled equally dizzy heights in those inextricably linked organisations, Sinn Féin and the IRA. However, for him and his party the goal of political legitimacy cannot emerge solely from the gun barrel. It remains to be fully achieved. In this regard the democrats of pan-Nationalism in the SDLP and the Alliance Party are those to whom the words of the book of Revelation might apply:

"Because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth."

They are assisting in giving these people a political legitimacy that no real democrat would entertain.

I see my friend, Dr Joe Hendron. He has some specific, personal experience of the activity of these democrats. Are they not ashamed? I believe that they are decent people and that they are essentially democrats. What are they doing? They are supporting and legitimising the activities of people who are not in the business of reconciliation. If they were, they would not retain the weaponry with which to threaten democrats in society at large. I have no hesitation in supporting this motion, because I am a democrat. I carry no baggage of a violent or sectarian nature. If it were Johnny Adair who was sitting in place of Martin McGuinness, my views would be exactly the same.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

People in this country are asking what has happened to democracy. On a programme this morning, a lady said that there are terrible arguments over the man who committed the Great Train Robbery. That lady asked what had happened in Northern Ireland. It has been suggested that Ronnie Biggs should serve the rest of his sentence, but in Northern Ireland those guilty of terrorist acts are in the Government of the country. What has happened to democracy?

I am happy to be at the receiving end of Sinn Féin’s comments. Typically, it produced a document that was rejected by the majority of Unionist people — the Cameron report was mentioned by Mr Pat Doherty. That inquiry was not sworn, and its findings were riddled with untruths and lies and attacked by all sections of the community.

There was another inquiry — the Scarman inquiry. That was a different kettle of fish. Every man had to take an oath and be cross-examined. It is a pity that Mr Doherty did not read what the learned judge Mr Scarman said about me and the findings in that inquiry. He would have discovered that it was entirely different from the picture that he draws.

I am well known in this Province. I submit myself to the people, and they vote for me in larger numbers than for any other politician. I can stand to my mandate. I welcome attacks from those who have attacked better people than I. They did not attack them with their lips but with bullets and bombs.

A convicted terrorist and a self-confessed commander of the most bloodthirsty and murderous gang of the IRA, the Londonderry brigade, sits as the Minister of Education in this House. He tells us that the Saville inquiry needs him, for he alone can tell the truth. However, his credentials for truthfulness curry no favour with any right-thinking people, neither Protestant nor Nationalist. We know all about this man. We know his deeds and what he has said. He stands indicted by himself.

Today, the blood of innocents stains him. He has destroyed families by his direction of the Londonderry brigade of the IRA on its wicked, murderous ploys. He has destroyed families. He has destroyed the peace of men and women, boys and girls, fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers. That brigade butchered their loved ones in a most atrocious and bloody way.

There is a voice speaking today here — the voice of the bereaved, those whose loved ones were done to death by this bloody monster in Londonderry. They have a challenge to put to the House — "Let us now hear the real truth."

The Minister told us that the Saville inquiry wants to cover up murders. However, evidently today he does not want to have his murders, or those who did them at his command, uncovered. The people of Ulster will speak in a few days, and they will give their answer to him and all of his ilk.

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

I have no confidence in the Education Minister, and I will follow the logical consequence of that position by voting in favour of this motion. Yet again we have a motion which, unfortunately, will be deemed to have failed, irrespective of the votes cast. That is because the SDLP is riding like the seventh cavalry to the rescue of its Colleagues across the Chamber; it does not matter what way the vote goes, as it will be deemed to have failed. As a Unionist, I would say how glad I am that we have power back in our own hands.

I agree with some Members opposite on one point only — that this debate should not be taking place today, because there should be no need for it. Sinn Féin/IRA, the PUP and the UDP are linked with paramilitary organisations that have not decommissioned or disbanded, and they should have no place in the Government of Northern Ireland. There should be no need for a vote of no confidence in Martin McGuinness, because he and his Colleagues should not be in Government in the first place.

We are also told that there is no need for this debate, because we should draw a line under the past. We are told that we are now in a new inclusive society in which we should forget about all past atrocities. It seems very strange to have that attitude when you marry it with the Republican commemorations of the twentieth anniversary of the hunger strike; when you see the vast fortune going into the Saville inquiry on one incident in the troubles; and when you see compensation for terrorists who were killed on active service. It seems that you should forget the past unless it is in the interests of Republicans, in which case the past is very much to be brought to the forefront.

We are told by Mr Ford that, so far, this has not dealt with the role of Martin McGuinness. However, the character, behaviour and background of any Minister are vital to his capacity to do the job. In the last 20 years some Ministers have been forced to resign their positions at Westminster. For people such as Cecil Parkinson or David Mellor it was because of personal indiscretions. In the case of Nicholas Ridley it was because of remarks made about a foreign country. In the case of our previous Secretary of State it was because of question marks over whether he had told the truth about the Hinduja brothers’ passport application. Many of those resignations were justified on the basis of those Ministers’ transgressions, but how much greater, therefore, is the need to remove a Minister whose organisation has been responsible for hundreds upon hundreds of murders?

The previous Member who spoke mentioned the return of Ronnie Biggs, who is rightly going back to prison. However, what would be the response if the Prime Minister were asked to include Ronnie Biggs in his Government? Perhaps Ronnie Biggs does not have as much blood on his hands as the Minister opposite whom we are debating today. It would be akin to a previous Prime Minister putting the Kray twins in Government, if they were still alive. That would be the moral equivalent of putting Mr McGuinness and Ms Brown into the Government of Northern Ireland. No democratic system in the world would tolerate having people whose organisation has committed murder after murder involved in its Government. On television programmes about the Kray twins the excuse is occasionally used that at least they looked after their own. Whatever the dubious nature of that claim, it is one allegation which cannot be levelled at Sinn Féin/IRA or the Minister present.

If Sinn Féin/IRA look after their own, try telling that to Rose Hegarty, and try telling that to the hundreds of Catholics who were brutally murdered by the IRA, and you will see the type of background that the current Minister has. But it is not just a matter of the past; we need to look at the current situation. We have a terrorist organisation that is fully armed. A private army and a private police force are operating. People are subject to punishment beatings on a daily basis, and, on some occasions, they are killed.

There is a private army that still has not decommissioned even a single bullet. It is because of his current links, as has been said, that we have no confidence in this Minister. I urge everyone in this Chamber to strike a blow for democracy today and show that they have no confidence in Martin McGuinness as Minister of Education. I urge Members to support the motion.

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

Let us be clear. This is not a motion of no confidence in the Minister of Education, it is a motion of no confidence in the Good Friday Agreement. It is a proxy motion, put down by the DUP to undermine that agreement and this Assembly. It is a device of the DUP to distract attention from the achievements of the Good Friday Agreement in the face of the general election that was called today. This debate is, in short, part of the DUP’s electoral strategy for the next four weeks.

This is not a motion of no confidence in the Minister of Education. It is a clear attack on the agreement. This debate cannot be about the Minister of Education’s performance in office. He has performed without any serious criticisms such as might have led to the bringing of a motion of no confidence. I can think of no issue that could reasonably account for this motion’s having been tabled today. I have listened very carefully to the contributions from the DUP Benches and from the DUP leader. I have heard no charge relating to the performance in office of the Minister of Education. No charge has been brought, and neither has any point of substance been raised in relation to the discharge of his duties as Minister of Education.

If the only substantive reason for this motion of no confidence is that he admitted in a preliminary submission to the Bloody Sunday tribunal that he was in the IRA and that he intends to give oral evidence to that effect, that reason is insufficient. While such an open and direct public admission is rare for someone involved in paramilitarism, in this instance I have to say that it was hardly shocking or surprising. Apart from Mitchel McLaughlin, the whole of Derry and possibly the whole of Northern Ireland suspected or believed that Mr McGuinness was a member of the Provisional IRA. What is so incorrect about his admitting his membership to that tribunal?

It would have been worse had he failed to make a public statement to the tribunal so that it might get on with its task of determining the truth about Bloody Sunday. For the Minister of Education not to give evidence and not to make a candid admission would have been a serious omission. It would have been a breach of faith with the relatives and families of those who died that day, because it is they who have carried on a persistent search for the truth. Mr McGuinness’s submission was a necessary duty, which he performed.

The search for truth about Bloody Sunday — and about the troubles generally — is a necessary part of the healing process which can contribute to the strengthening of peace in our society and bring about ultimate reconciliation between our two traditions. The process of finding truth about our tragic past will help to purge and ease the pain of the last 30 years. The Minister’s contribution to the Bloody Sunday inquiry is a small part of that.

I oppose the motion.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The most bizarre dimension of this motion is that it has been proposed by former DUP Ministers. They themselves have singularly failed to earn the confidence of anyone outside their own backward- looking party.

Indeed, perhaps they failed to find confidence in their own party. It is an added irony that these two replaced Ministers apparently gave up their posts as part of a rotation policy, and yet the Ministers who replaced them have now been in position for almost twice as long. That can only lead to three possible conclusions. First, the Ministers were incompetent and had to be permanently replaced. Secondly, the party leader looked down the ranks and, seeing no more ministerial prospects there, decided that he must stick with the two people that he nominated. Thirdly, the policy is a hypocritical sham to mask full participation in the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement.

There is nothing original or surprising in DUP hypocrisy. The DUP is opposed to Sinn Féin and the SDLP in Government; it is opposed to the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process. The motion is supposedly about confidence in Martin McGuinness as the Minister of Education. However it comes from a party that has failed and refused to reach out to its political opponents; it comes from a party that rejects the entire concept of reconciliation and peace making; it comes from a party whose only agenda is the destruction of the peace process.

In his role as Minister of Education, Martin McGuinness has attempted to reach out to everyone in our community. He has conducted himself with scrupulous impartiality at all times. Most importantly he has concentrated on doing his job, unlike his DUP colleagues whose primary focus remains the destruction of the peace process.

In his short time as Minister, Martin McGuinness has delivered real improvements to the education system. In two successive years under his leadership, we have seen the largest ever investment in the school building programme, amounting to a massive £200 million to build new schools for all of our children. He has instigated a fundamental review of the post-primary education system that will, I am confident, see an end to the iniquitous 11-plus. The ending of school performance tables was welcomed by everyone, except a tame and toothless Rottweiler on the DUP benches. Mr McGuinness launched a fundamental review of school funding with the objective of creating fairness in the distribution of resources for the first time. He allocated additional funding for schools including a £20·4 million windfall in March this year; made massive investment in computer technology for schools including £13·3 million in March 2001; and increased investment in pre-school provision that will deliver places for all of our children by 2003. He is also responsible for the creation of an Irish-medium promotional body and trust fund to deliver on the commitment in the Good Friday Agreement to

"encourage and facilitate Irish-medium education".

He has honoured his Pledge of Office — unlike those who propose the motion and their Colleagues.

Martin McGuinness is an excellent Minister of Education. That is accepted by all — apart from the DUP. He puts equality at the top of the agenda for the education system. He is delivering on the promises and potential of the Good Friday Agreement. The DUP is opposed to everything that he does; the motion is entirely consistent with that party’s wrecker’s agenda; and, like its entire political strategy, the motion has no chance of success. It sums up the DUP for the majority of our people. We can have total confidence in the failure of the DUP.

Mr Ford said that this important motion needed to be debated. However, later in his speech he lamented the fact that it was a DUP pre-election stunt. Did he not realise that when the motion was put forward? His deputy leader refused to turn up for the last DUP pre-election stunt motion, and, yet, Mr Ford sees the election stunt as a worthy motion to put on the agenda. Therefore the inconsistencies in the Alliance Party’s approach are something that it must explain to the people. Go raibh maith agat.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

We received confusing signals from those parties that are supposed to be pro-agreement; of course that is not unusual. The Alliance Party said that the reason for the motion was to go against the Ulster Unionist Party. The SDLP said that the motion was not against the Ulster Unionist Party but was rather against the Belfast Agreement. Another SDLP Member then said that the motion was not against the Agreement, but against the Assembly itself. They must make up their minds, because the Bible says that

"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."

Of course, that sums up the pro-agreement groups as well.

This is a serious matter. I understand that Mr Murphy had to speak in the debate — some time ago, a leaflet left in a photocopier stated that Sinn Féin must elevate Conor Murphy’s position in debates to raise his profile coming up to the election.

I understand why he had to make that contribution and try to come out of the debate with muscles. If that is muscle, it is like a pimple on a bee’s ankle.

Ms McWilliams said that we must draw a line in the sand — she usually tells us that. This phrase is very interesting, because the reason Mr McGuinness made his statement in the first place was the "line in the sand" of the Saville inquiry. Everything involving the Republicans is investigated, but nothing concerning the Unionists is examined. Those who were out in anarchy are investigated, but those who were simply getting on with their lives are ignored.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

No, I certainly will not. We have a costly inquiry, while hospitals are being closed under Sinn Féin. We cannot afford heart operations, but we have an inquiry, aided and abetted by the SDLP, that is so important that £100 million will be spent on it. It seems that the most important consideration is to have this inquiry before we draw the line in the sand.

After the Saville inquiry there will, of course, be another inquiry about Pat Finucane, or any others who belong to the Nationalist or Republican community. However, do not ask any questions about the slaughter of innocent people from this country, Protestant or Roman Catholic, who happened to be members of the security forces.

It has been suggested in the debate that nothing has been said in regard to Mr McGuinness’s position as the Minister of Education. Mr McGuinness happens to be the Minister of Education, but his crimes, which, as an IRA man, he acknowledges, are crimes against humanity, ones which have affected people across Londonderry and the Province as a whole.

I do not know where some Members have been recently, because they seem to have missed the fact that allegations have been made against the Minister of Education in regard to the allocation of funds. Funds have been allocated to the maintained education sector, and there is deliberate discrimination against the controlled education sector.

Another Member told us that we should not be surprised, since Mr McGuinness has not said anything new. As Mr Kennedy suggested, the "dogs in the street" — or the "cows in the byres" — know Mr McGuinness’s credentials. The only difference is that, for the first time, he has admitted his IRA involvement. For 30 years, he denied that he was a member of the IRA. He and his Colleagues tirelessly stood up and pleaded to the Chamber and requested that you, Mr Speaker, rule as out of order the use by Members of the term "IRA/ Sinn Féin". They said that there was no link between the two.

Mr McGuinness has acknowledged for the first time that he was a member of the IRA and the Army Council — and as we all know, he still is. In the book of the Unionist population, Mr McGuinness is an unrepentant terrorist, therefore he should not hold office in this democratic institution. It demeans democracy to have a Minister with those credentials.

We listened to Mr Kennedy say that he and his Colleagues had worked with Mr McGuinness. I trust that he and his Colleagues will now remove Mr McGuinness from — [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I oppose this specious motion of no confidence, as I would oppose a motion of no confidence in any Minister from any party. Contrary to what Mr Conor Murphy said about the performance of DUP Ministers, whom he said had won the confidence of none, I believe that DUP Ministers have earned the confidence of many in carrying out their departmental functions, and rightly so. I have no problem with acknowledging that, and we need to move towards a situation where we can give credit where credit is due. We must also be able to give and take criticism.

Rev Dr William McCrea acknowledges that it is a mere coincidence that Martin McGuinness is Minister of Education. He more or less admitted that it is not in relation to his performance as Minister of Education that this motion of no confidence has been tabled. We must ask ourselves what the situation would have been if Martin McGuinness had made a statement last week announcing that he would not co-operate with the Saville inquiry and that he would not make a statement because he had nothing to do with the IRA and he never had. That would lead to a very different situation, and there might then have been cause for a motion of no confidence in the Assembly.

Nobody in the House, with the possible exception of Mitchel McLaughlin, could be surprised by what was admitted last week by the Minister of Education. We should welcome the fact that the Minister of Education is co-operating with the Saville inquiry and helping it to establish the full facts of what happened on that day and to clear up many other issues that have been generated and pursued by the inquiry. The important issue is that the Saville inquiry should be helped to fulfil its due purposes and achieve its proper ends. I hope that the evidence given by Martin McGuinness will help to do that, just as I hope that significant evidence from others will also achieve that.

I will not take part in an exercise that demonises Martin McGuinness because of what we know, or think we know, about his past or the assumptions we make about his associations with, or involvement in, events and actions perpetrated by the IRA in Derry and beyond. I do not demonise, and I do not deny that we all make assumptions, and there are facts that we think we know. I do not deny that Martin McGuinness has now made an admission. We knew that when we negotiated the agreement. The SDLP knew that when we advocated that the d’Hondt system would be the means by which Government would be formed. People knew that we knew that, and they also knew that we were making proposal lists in strand one as to how an Executive would be formed, and that it was our intention that if Sinn Féin wished to take up ministerial positions, they could.

Even people who subsequently turned out to be anti- agreement, such as Jeffrey Donaldson, with whom we were negotiating, knew that that was part of what we envisaged when we proposed the formation of the Executive by means of d’Hondt. That raises no new considerations for the SDLP as far as backing a motion of no confidence in Martin McGuinness is concerned. I would be surprised if it raises any new issues for the Ulster Unionist Party. I cannot, therefore, understand some of the remarks directed at the SDLP by Danny Kennedy during the debate.

We are here neither to demonise Martin McGuinness nor to lionise him. My Colleagues have rightly reflected that he serves well and responsibly and does a good job as Minister of Education. I also acknowledge that. I hope that Conor Murphy’s remarks on Martin McGuinness’s significant record in terms of school funding allocations is also an endorsement of some Budget allocations that underlie those particular announcements by the Department of Education. It is important that we do not lionise Martin McGuinness simply because he made a statement last week. Some over-the-top praise for his statement, for instance from the Secretary of State, has not helped and has added to the sense of hurt and frustration felt by many people.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member’s time is up.

Mary Nelis (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. My immediate reaction when I heard about this motion was that the boys from Ballygobackwards were at it again. The DUP’s roundabout of motions of exclusion and no confidence are as numerous as the roundabouts in Ballymena and Coleraine, which says something about the politics of those places. The motion sums up the failure of the DUP to accept that Her Majesty’s Government, the Government that they allegedly give their loyalty to, has remortgaged its political relationship with this island.

The document — the endowment plan for the new arrangement — is the Good Friday Agreement. There are those who are still not mature enough to engage in the real challenge of that arrangement, which is making politics work. They have wasted their time and the taxpayer’s money with such motions, which are a play to the gallery of sectarianism and hatred and a symptom of the politics of failure. Instead of facing up to the challenge of creating a future of equality and justice for all the people of this island, the DUP has consigned itself and its supporters to waiting forlornly like Samuel Beckett’s tramps on a country road for the great Godot to come. It is the theatre of the absurd.

All this whingeing and moaning about terrorists in Government — by British definition the world is coming down with terrorists in Government. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, George Washington was a terrorist, and Jomo Kenyatta was a terrorist. This is not about terrorists in Government, it is really about the DUP’s running away from its past and refusing to face up to the reality. It is a vote-rallying call.

Gregory Campbell wants to know what Martin McGuinness was doing on Bloody Sunday. The relatives of those murdered and the people of Derry know what Martin McGuinness was doing — he was walking along with them, demanding civil rights for his people. Gregory Campbell knows that because British intelligence and the RUC — his friends in Special Branch — have told him. He knows that at the time of the Bloody Sunday march there was a team present from the British Ministry of Defence headquarters responsible for taking telefilms. Their task was to provide maximum photographic coverage of the march and everything that happened on that day and, indeed, the days before.

The "Widgery whitewash" tribunal had possession of that film in 1972. If it had delivered a just verdict we would not be spending money now. We would not still be searching for the truth. The British Government have refused to produce that film, and no statements are available from the persons who filmed the event — why? Are they afraid of what it will show? The important question is not about Martin McGuinness and what he was doing. The relatives of those murdered on Bloody Sunday want to know what the British military and political establishment was doing on Bloody Sunday. Who was directing the Paras when they were gunning down people fleeing from CS gas and people with their hands in the air?

Peter Robinson and Gregory Campbell want to know what Martin McGuinness was doing on the Monday, the Tuesday and the Wednesday. The Nationalist people of the Six Counties want to know what Gregory, Peter, and Paisley were doing on the Mondays, the Tuesdays and the Wednesdays during their time in Ulster Resistance and the Third Force. When is the DUP going to have the guts — for they are a gutless party — to admit its part in Ulster Resistance? Was Peter Robinson second in command to the Rev Paisley for instance? How many Nationalist and Republican people were murdered as a result of Ulster Resistance’s terrorism? When are we going to hear from the DUP of its role in murder before its members walked away from it — leaving young Protestants to face the consequences? Paisley talks about prisoner releases — they never even went to prison; they had not got the guts to go to prison. They put on their red berets, walked young Protestants to the top of the hill and left them stranded there.

At least Martin McGuinness is facing up to the truth, and we are proud of him for it. Our children are privileged to have in place a man in the mould of Nelson Mandela.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am afraid that the Member’s time is up.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Much has been said today about the timing of the announcement of Martin McGuinness’s decision, at long last, to speak to the Saville inquiry.

Last week the Saville inquiry wrote to me asking, and I quote:

"that you have evidence that Mr McGuinness was personally responsible through his active involvement in the IRA for the deaths on Bloody Sunday and many more at other times. The Inquiry would like to speak to you about what you know about the involvement of Mr McGuinness in the events of Bloody Sunday."

That letter was dated 25 April; it arrived with me on 26 April; and, hey presto, on 29 April, Mr McGuinness decided to make it known to the public that he was at long last going to give evidence to the Saville inquiry. I may have had little influence over the sequence of events, but I will leave others to judge the merits of Martin McGuinness deciding to give evidence to the Saville inquiry.

The issue is not whether Martin McGuinness is a suitable person to be Education Minister inasmuch as how he conducts himself in the office of Minister of Education between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm. The issue is whether Martin McGuinness is a suitable person to be Minister of Education because of his background, his activities, and his adherence to the philosophy of violence and murder. That is the issue.

Very often, in the Chamber and elsewhere, people have raised the nonsensical issue that DUP members do not wish to co-operate with Nationalists and Republicans because of their political allegiance. Dr Farren was partially, but not completely, correct. We have co-operated with Nationalists on many occasions, and we will continue to do so. Despite what I have seen and have experienced of the triumphalism and sectarianism of Nationalist representatives, which very often comes to the fore, they do not support murder. Therefore we can speak and co-operate with them.

Members of the now defunct Irish Independence Party were unapologetic Republicans. I co-operated, spoke and negotiated with them, not because I have any love whatsoever for the Republican philosophy — I abhor it — but they did not support violence or murder. However, there are those who do, and Martin McGuinness is one of them. That is why we will not have any dialogue or debate with him.

There is a very sad individual in a back room of the UUP who has to count up the number of Committee meetings that take place so that every week, or month, the UUP can issue a statement indicating the number, whether it be 600, 800 or 1200. The UUP does not say that in all of those Committee meetings, we do not have dialogue or debate; we do not confront, negotiate or give any legitimacy to the spokespersons for terror — because that is what they are. We will never ever do it.

They must make the decision. Are they democrats, or are they terrorists? That question was not satisfactorily answered last week. It is not about what Martin McGuinness was doing on Bloody Sunday. The question is that if he authorised the Provisional IRA not to use their guns on Bloody Sunday, did he also authorise them to use their guns on the Thursday before Bloody Sunday, when two innocent policemen were murdered? We can have no confidence whatsoever in a person who advocates murder and terror. The DUP will never ever give legitimacy to people or a party like that. I am confident that the Unionist community will recognise that failure to give any legitimacy to them.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I understand that heretofore when a Minister rose to reply he got 20 minutes. If it is not a Minister who is replying, is he limited to five minutes?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

When a Minister is replying, he or she is generally given 10 minutes per hour of debate. On this occasion Mr McGuinness has asked his nominating officer, who is the person who put him in as Minister and the only person outside who could refuse him, to answer on his behalf. Therefore, he will have that time at his disposal.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Who asked Mr McGuinness who was going to reply for him, and who decided that if it was not a Minister, he would be allowed the same time as a Minister?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The question came through the usual channels. That is the way in which most of these matters are negotiated. I made the decision as to who was acceptable.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you confirm that when we discussed the speaking allocation for this debate in the Business Committee meeting at lunchtime today, all Members agreed that the respondent — whoever it might be — would be allowed 20 minutes to speak? That included Members from the DUP, who now profess to be shocked.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The timings were agreed. However, it may not have been clear whether the respondent would be Mr McGuinness. I did not discuss who the respondent would be. It might have been a reasonable assumption that it would be Mr McGuinness. However, there was complete agreement about the timings.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful that you have provided clarification and rebutted the usual misinformation from Mr Murphy. I note that a precedent has now been set of discussing Business Committee business on the floor of the Chamber.

There was no reference to substitute Members, or to the Minister’s running away and scurrying into a corner and allowing his leader to speak for him, rather than answering himself. The understanding was that the Minister would speak. The normal rules would apply on that basis.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I was taking that as a point of order, but it seems that the Member was giving a ruling on the point of order, rather than asking for one. That is something that the Chair guards rather jealously.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. If this takes place now, is it a precedent that on any other occasion when a Minister does not want to reply, whomever he nominates will be allowed 20 minutes, or 10 minutes for each hour of debate?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

A Minister may ask one of his or her ministerial Colleagues to reply in a debate. That is reasonable in other circumstances. This is not an Executive matter in the same way. This is a question of the appointment of a Minister and of confidence in that individual. It is not unreasonable that the nominating officer, whom I recall nominating Mr McGuinness for the education portfolio, should reply on his behalf. Should one of Dr Paisley’s Colleagues be in the same position, they could not pick anyone more eloquent than himself to speak on their behalf, as nominating officer and party leader.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

It is proper that I should speak today as the person who proposed and nominated Martin McGuinness as the Minister of Education. I am here to defend his position. — [Interruption]

There was not a whisper in the Chamber when the DUP were speaking, but if anyone else tries to speak — especially any female Member — you have a bay of discontent, bad manners, heckling and so on. Tá a fhios ag na daoine sin gur breá an tAire é an tUasal Mac Aonghusa. Chruthaigh Conor Murphy sin nuair a bhí sé ag caint faoin obair atá déanta ag Máirtín Mac Aonghusa go dtí seo. Níor dhúirt Teachta ar bith de chuid an DUP oiread agus focal i gcoinne Máirtín Mac Aonghusa mar Aire.

Cén fáth? Cad chuige nár dhúirt siad focal amháin ina choinne mar Aire? Mar tá a fhios acu go bhfuil sé ag déanamh a dhíchill mar Aire agus go bhfuil sé ag déanamh a dhíchill ag an am chéanna le próiseas na síochána a chur chun tosaigh.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am not only having difficulty hearing with this ear, I am also having difficulty hearing with the other ear. This corner was keen that I should have a translation so that I would understand whether matters were in order. [Interruption]

I will give a ruling on that to the Member when I hear the translation. Mr Adams, please continue. — [Interruption]

Order. I am not taking a point of order at the moment. I will take it at the end, because this is becoming silly. — [Interruption]

I am not taking any further points of order on that until the end of the speech.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Pat Doherty gave some quotes and some of the history of the DUP. William McCrea called for Thatcher to sanction the bombing of IRA headquarters in Dundalk, Drogheda, Crossmaglen and Carrickmore, and some eejit — may I use that term? — some fear amaideach, is shouting "Hear, hear" when I requote that. Dr Paisley said that power comes from either the ballot box or the barrel of a gun. Gregory Campbell said that the Free State should be brought to account. He said that there should be a disciplined Protestant army, determined to take whatever action is necessary to tackle Republicans, North and South. Jim Wells said that we would have no problems with the IRA, that if left to ourselves, we would soon weed them out.

Then we get to the friends who have been killed. This is in the middle of the "Smash Sinn Féin" election campaign, and where did that go? Was Sinn Féin smashed? Even on the back of the killing of Sinn Féin members Bernard O’Hagan and Eddie Fullerton, we had the then Lord Mayor of Belfast, Sammy Wilson, asking if the council would be prepared to congratulate all those who had done a good job on both sides of the border. He also referred to Sinn Féin voters in North Belfast as sub-human animals. He said that what we needed was a policy of extermination, shoot-to-kill, or whatever.

Of course, at an Ulster Resistance rally, Ian Paisley and Peter Robinson were pictured with Alan Wright and Noel Lyttle, who was later arrested in Paris for selling missile parts to the South Africans in return for weapons supplied by a South African diplomat. In Bangor, Ian Paisley said that there were many like himself who would like to see the agreement brought down, and would we not be fools if we were not prepared. Then there was Brian Nelson, the common factor in the killing of Brian Finucane and many others, and there was Ulster Resistance.

When I read that, I said to myself that this is sad, depressing reading. Then I said to myself that William McCrea has a mandate. I do not agree with the man, but he has a mandate. Ian Paisley, Peter Robinson and the rest of them have a mandate, and I have to accept that. I have to accept that I have a responsibility to try to work with these people.

Now what is this about? It is not about a vote of no confidence in the Minister. There has not been one word about Martin McGuinness’s role as Minister of Education, and he said very clearly this morning on the record, through the Cheann Comhairle, that he had ceased to be a member of the IRA. If he had not admitted that he was a member of the IRA, and if he had not come forward and offered evidence to the Saville inquiry, would he be more acceptable as a Minister? Is Bairbre de Brún more acceptable as a Minister? No. Is this not about having a Catholic, an uppity Fenian about the place? Let us get real about this.

This is obviously aimed at the UUP and is part of the ongoing battle within Unionism.

At the beginning of this period in our history, the Poet Laureate, Seamus Heaney, described it as a space in which hope could grow. At another time, David Trimble said that just because someone has a past, it does not mean that he or she cannot have a future. That goes for Unionism as well.

We could rail against the record of the Ulster Unionist Party. Where was John Taylor, the Minister of Home Affairs, at the time of the Bloody Sunday killings? Why did Ian Paisley cancel his counter-demonstration? We could rail against all of that. However, if any of us is to have a future, we should not forget the past. I do not profess to be a Christian clergyman, and I do not lead a church, but there has to be some sense of forgiveness, some sense of people’s reaching out, looking back — [Interruption]

If that is what Members want to talk about, let me say that there have been 30 years of war in this part of this island, and before that there were 50 or 60 years of institutionalised violence by the state against citizens here. I regret that. I have said, on record, at Republican funerals that I regret the fact that Republicans have hurt other citizens, because I accept that which some Members do not: that all of us have a responsibility to put together a solution.

The problem with the DUP, some members of the UUP and others, is that that they do not think that they have any responsibility for what has happened here since partition. They think that it is nothing to do with them. They crow like juvenile delinquent schoolboys when there is an attempt to try to engage with them. The learned lawyer echoes all of that and then tells us that he is not a bigot.

Where do we go from here? I was sceptical about these institutions, but I believe that they are working, notwithstanding the First Minister’s removal of the rights of the Ministers of Education and Health. Sinn Féin came into this space, which we thought that DUP Members would be comfortable in, in an attempt to try to put the past where it belongs — behind us. Now where do they want to go? They want to go back into the past.

I have been in prison. Dr Paisley and Peter "the punt" Robinson have been there as well. Young loyalists have talked to me and said that they are sorry that they ever listened to the rantings of some of those who, at that time, were representing the Democratic Unionist Party.

Let us try to look at this debate in terms of what it is. It is part of the DUP’s trying to prevent change. It is my view — and people may crow or yo-ho about this — that the time will come when DUP Ministers, as is their right, will work with Sinn Féin Ministers. It is my view that the people who are now protesting so much about the new dispensation will actually be part of that, because we know that they are semi-detached.

In fairness to the UUP, we know that it had the courage to go into the negotiation chamber and try to work something else out. Where was the DUP? It was not there. It is here now because its members are well paid. They work with Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the other parties in all these institutions, and they like it.

As a leader of Sinn Féin, what do I say here as I come forward and try to make sense of this? I am trying not to rise to the baiting from the Opposition Benches. I am trying not to rise to the awful racist, sectarian and anti- Catholic bile that is in some of these quotations. All I can say is that the old days are finished — they are over. The people of this island want to build a future where Ian Paisley’s children, grandchildren and great- grandchildren live with David Trimble’s children and all of the rest of the people on this island and try to carve out something decent. Whose fault is it for the last 30 years?

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Some people say that it is the IRA’s fault. What is the solution? Some people are saying that the solution is to exterminate those who have, as they see it, the responsibility for the problem. However, how are the vast majority of people on this island trying to put it all together? They are trying to put it together by accepting the hurt and the difficulties that were faced and by upholding Martin McGuinness’s right to be a Minister. He has a mandate that must be upheld in the same way as the rights of the other Ministers are being upheld.

I call upon Members to reject the motion. I do not wish to patronise Unionists, but do they want to go back to what we are trying to come out of? Do they want to be part of the politics of spitefulness and nasty remarks and killing and all of that? Do they want to go back to plastic bullets and internment?

I asked a friend of mine who is a cainteoir dúchais, a native speaker, what he thought about the motion. In his own way he made some sense. He said:

Anois sílim go bhfuil an t-am ag an DUP agus ag an Uasal Paisley maithiúnas a thabhairt san am a chuaigh thart agus sna rudaí a tharla. Ba chóir dó comhoibriú anois le tír úr a dhéanamh dó féin agus dá chuid páistí. Imtheochaidh an salachar leis an tsruth faoin droichead agus glanfaidh an t-uisce arís.

He was speaking to Dr Paisley. He said:

"I think now that it is time for the Democratic Unionist Party and for the gentleman Paisley to make some good out of the time we now have and some forgiveness for the time that has past, and to make sure that these things never happen again."

He also said that it would be better if we all co-operated to make a new society, a new country — [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Members have pleaded for a translation when Irish is spoken. It would be helpful if Members would listen to it.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

He said that it would be better, speaking to yourself, to co-operate now to build a new society, a new country for yourself and for your children. He also said that like a stream running under — [Interruption]

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members are told over and over again to address the Assembly through the Speaker, but here we have some idiot addressing me in Irish. Is that in order? Is that the sort of debate that Members are looking for?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Dr Paisley, I have repeatedly called on a number of Members from your party to observe the same proprieties — [Interruption]

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

So do the same to them.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I have also called on Mr Adams’s party and all of the other parties to do the same. If I were to call on every occasion when the DUP broke the rules, we would never get anywhere in any of the speeches. It is the case that Members from the DUP as frequently observe the rule in the breach as in any other form.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

My friend went on to say that it would be better that all of the hurt would go like a stream under a bridge and be cleaned in the process.

He said that after he had read what Dr Paisley had said on the Shankill Road — a part of my constituency. Dr Paisley asked the people of the Shankill Road what was wrong with them, because there were papists living at 425 Shankill Road, 56 Aden Street and 38 Crimea Street. I forgive the Rev Dr Ian Paisley for those remarks. — [Interruption]

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Liar.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Let him face up to his responsibilities and let us all build a decent island, an Ireland of equality where we can all be comfortable in our own place. Let us put all of this behind us and reject this motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to make an accusation in the House, as a result of a letter, that has no foundation in fact? I represent a large constituency made up of Protestants and Roman Catholics. I defy them to find one Roman Catholic whom I do not serve.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. It was often the case when Our Lord was asked a question that he responded with another. Is it in order for one Member, from a sedentary position, to call another Member a "liar" in a parliamentary Chamber?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sitting down here, and I heard no one call the Member a liar. I heard them refer to the person who made the remark which was being quoted by a Member as being a "liar". There is a difference.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

There may well be a difference, and I will make that decision from the Chair. Members from that corner are good at putting points and answering points of order themselves, which is convenient, but out of order.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am glad to hear that you will look into the remark. From this side we clearly heard the word "liar" shouted at Mr Adams. You have ruled on this matter before, and I trust that you will follow that precedent.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Listening to Mr Adams speak about moving forward and forgiveness, one would not think that members of the IRA have been the butchers of innocent people in Northern Ireland for 30 years. Not only is Mr Adams a proxy speaker, but he is a deviser and implementer of proxy bombs. Last weekend the Daly family — and the previous weekend in Londonderry the O’Kane family — had family members murdered in broad daylight by the organisation of which the Member is part and parcel. This is the hypocrisy, the nauseating sanctimoniousness and righteousness of the person who still fronts an organisation which holds on to all its terrorist weaponry in Northern Ireland. If he really wants to move forward, why not make a gesture today? Why not throw his weapons away and come into the democratic fold? Why does he remain wedded to a terrorist paramilitary organisation? It is because he is so wedded, and he stays wedded, that we have tabled this motion today.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I draw the attention of the Member to the point of order raised by his party leader when referring to me.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

When you did not follow that through, Mr Speaker, I was under the impression that you had allowed me sufficient licence to proceed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member knew very well that I had not.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I listened carefully to your ruling, and that is exactly why I proceeded in the way in which I did.

When the Member talks about baiting, racism and sectarianism, he may have been referring to his Colleague Mrs Nelis, because every time she rises in the Chamber, bile, sectarianism, racism and bigotry flow out of her. Perhaps he could have a quiet word with her instead of lecturing others.

We hear a lot of talk about moving forward and not going back, about our having forgiveness, and so on. Yet we have calls for inquiries into the Finucane case and the Hamill case. There is £100 million to be spent on the Bloody Sunday inquiry.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to draw your attention to the gestures being made by the Member. I do not want to be involved in pantomime, but I want to bring his actions to your attention.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will try to observe and to listen as best I can. It is not always easy.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The proud leader of the Republican movement is worried about a gesture across the Chamber. He wants you to look into it. How are the mighty fallen. The "soldiers of Ireland" must be saying "Well done, Gerry, for raising that point in the Assembly." This is what we have come to, and he is the one talking about not turning this into a farce.

We were being accused of silly behaviour and politicking. The reality is that people in Northern Ireland, and in Ulster, would have been astounded had this Assembly not decided that this issue was one that should be debated as soon as possible after the confession of the Minister of Education — albeit a self-serving and limited confession.

The leader of the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition said that people do not want this motion of no confidence to be debated. I do not know where she lives or whom she represents, but people on the ground are demanding that this corruption of democracy — having a self-confessed terrorist in our Government — should be brought to an end as swiftly as possible. That is why we saw it as our duty to bring this motion forward as soon as possible.

Mr Weir has already mentioned the reaction to other Government Ministers who were guilty of far less. They were hounded from office. An Austrian Minister, the leader of the Freedom Party, has been hounded because of remarks that he is alleged to have made in support of Nazi activities. People are implementing sanctions against him, and yet we are expected to listen to sanctimonious rubbish about the need to move forward in relation to having a self-confessed terrorist in our Government.

The reality is, as Mr Peter Robinson said, that we know of Martin McGuinness’s role in the leadership of the IRA. That is why we opposed the setting up of an Executive with IRA/Sinn Féin in it. That is why we put down an exclusion motion to put Sinn Féin/IRA out of the Government of Northern Ireland. This is not a last- minute motion that was put down because of an election. This is something that is ongoing, because our role in the Assembly is to harry Sinn Féin and expose its members for what they are.

I urge and challenge any true democrats in the House, regardless of their party, to ask themselves whether it is acceptable for the Minister to remain in office. Would it be acceptable in any European democracy, or anywhere else, for someone who has confessed to being the adjutant of a terrorist organisation to remain in office? He has never indicated when he left the IRA, if ever. There is a list of crimes ascribed to that organisation which were carried out when he was in a leading position. Did he think that that would not be challenged and that it would not raise serious concerns that would lead people to demand that he should be voted out of the Government of Northern Ireland? I do not think that that would be the case at all. However, in Northern Ireland, despite the fact — [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I do not know who has the mobile phone or musical instrument — nor whether it is in the Gallery or in the body of the House — but I ask the person responsible to please attend to it.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

It may be one of the "foot soldiers" ringing to congratulate the leader of the Republican movement on his tremendous speech.

I take Mr Durkan’s point about some of the comments on Mr McGuinness’s so-called "coming clean". He is not coming clean at all. He has made a self-serving statement limiting his involvement and painting the IRA as having been engaged in no shootings and in nothing illegal at all. We are expected to believe that its members were out bombing and murdering people on any other day, but that on that one day — even though the people were under attack — they decided not to do anything.

It is quite simply incredible. McGuinness, of course, needs to be investigated. There should be an inquiry into his involvement and those of other IRA Army Council members named today in illegal terrorist activity.

IRA victims do not believe that this confession is somehow going to help the healing process in Northern Ireland. They do not believe that it is part of that process for someone to escape justice or to gloat over the murders of innocent people.

The SDLP’s Mr Maginness said that the DUP did not table the motion in order to get Martin McGuinness out of Government, but that rather it was an attack on the Belfast Agreement. That simply disguises the fact that the SDLP have decided to align themselves with Sinn Féin/IRA, to scurry behind them, to ride to their rescue and to vote to keep Sinn Féin, terrorist, IRA Minister McGuinness in the Government of Northern Ireland. However, their true motivation will not be lost on the people of Northern Ireland.

The Alliance Party and the Women’s Coalition tell us that the Minister has done nothing wrong as Minister of Education. The analogy is, of course, that if he were dishonest, or a paedophile, that would not really enter into the equation — as long as he was doing his job. That is the equivalent of what they are saying. The fact that he is a murderer and is someone who guided the instigation of terrorist acts should simply not come into it, even though he has a job that involves formulating policy that moulds the minds of children in Northern Ireland. It is utter rubbish.

The Alliance Party and the Women’s Coalition tell us that they have to be judged on their merits. The people will judge them on their merits on every single occasion that they ride to the rescue of the Republican movement and back Republican, Sinn Féin/IRA in the Chamber. They will, no doubt, get their answer at the local elections. They are not putting forward any candidates for the Westminster elections — I wonder why.

The lie was stated that the DUP is somehow working with IRA/Sinn Féin. My Colleague, Mr Campbell, answered that. We will not be working with, fraternising, associating with, wining, dining or otherwise discussing anything with IRA/Sinn Féin. That is the position, and no amount of spin or talk will change that.

Members should note that I have spent most of my time dealing with the positions of Sinn Fein/IRA, the SDLP and others. However, the Ulster Unionist Party managed to get the grand total of one Member to speak — and I am still not sure, after he finished speaking, what the exact position of his party is. I hope that when the vote is taken that his position, and the position of his Colleagues, will be clear. He talked about a timetable now being in place to deal with the issue of Sinn Féin/IRA in Government. However, this is the third or fourth timetable we have had.

The time for action is now — not after the election. I ask the Ulster Unionist Party to go into the Lobbies, vote no confidence in Martin McGuinness and join with the DUP in voting to exclude Sinn Féin/IRA from the Government of Northern Ireland.

That is the true test — not to wait until after the election to see how that goes in order to fudge the situation, as has happened so many times before. People see the IRA being compensated. They see terrorists coming out of jail. They see terrorists in Government, and they see nothing in return. Now is the time for action.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member’s time is up.

Question put.

The Assembly divided on a cross-community basis: Ayes 31; Noes 45

Ayes

Unionist:

Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Noes

Nationalist:

Gerry Adams, Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Other:

Eileen Bell, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Monica McWilliams, Sean Neeson.

Total Votes 76 Total Ayes 31 ( 40.8%) Nationalist Votes 40 Nationalist Ayes 0 ( 0.0%) Unionist Votes 31 Unionist Ayes 31 ( 100.0%)

Question accordingly negatived.

Adjourned at 6.21 pm.