Northern Ireland Assembly, 8 October 2001

65 contributions from 24 members. The official report.

Exclusion of Sinn Féin

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I propose to conduct proceedings in accordance with the decisions of the Business Committee, which has allocated four hours to the debate. As the next two motions relate to the exclusion of members of a political party from holding ministerial office, I propose to conduct one debate. I will ask Mr Trimble to move the motion, and I will then call Mr Adams to respond. Both those Members may speak for up to 30 minutes. All the timings I am giving are maximum timings, not minimum or normative timings. The debate will then be open to Members, and each of those called may speak for up to 10 minutes.

At the end of the debate, I will call on a Sinn Féin Member to respond and on Mr Trimble or his nominee to make a winding-up speech, each being allocated 15 minutes to do so. I will then put the Question on the first motion, and if the first motion is agreed, the second motion falls. If the first motion is negatived, I will call Dr Paisley to move the second motion formally, and, without debate, I will put the Question. I remind Members that the votes on those motions will be on a cross- community basis.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That this Assembly resolves that the political party Sinn Féin does not enjoy the confidence of the Assembly because it is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means.

The following motion stood in the Order Paper:

That in consequence of the failure of the Provisional IRA to offer up its illegal weaponry for destruction; the Republican Movement’s continuing terrorist threat, and active pursuit, of terrorist outrages to secure its aims; the maintenance by the IRA of an active terrorist organisation; the growing number of cases of IRA involvement in terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and across the globe; the fact that the Provisional IRA is inextricably linked to Sinn Féin; and the involvement and dominance of members of Sinn Féin in the decision-making "Army Council" of the Provisional IRA, this Assembly resolves that Sinn Féin does not enjoy its confidence because it is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful means and further, in accordance with Section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, determines that members of Sinn Féin shall be excluded from holding office as Ministers for a period of 12 months from the date of this resolution. — [Rev Dr Ian Paisley]

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

First, I will explain what the consequences of the motion will be. I expect that later today the motion will be endorsed by a majority of Members. If it fails to receive the requisite cross-community support, it will have no effect. However, if it does receive that support, the motion will effect the removal of Sinn Féin Ministers from office. I wish to make that clear from the outset. The draft of the motion sticks to the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. A motion passed on those terms will exclude that party’s representatives from office. We decided that there was no point in having any surplus verbiage. If the motion does not receive the requisite cross-community support, my party and I shall act. First, we shall withdraw; secondly, the Ulster Unionist Ministers will resign. We will follow that procedure with the objective of bringing about the complete and indefinite suspension of the Assembly. I hope that that will be achieved in a week or two.

Our withdrawal will mean that we shall not participate in Executive business, which means that the Executive will not meet. The purpose of the interval is to enable Ministers to tidy their desk and arrange an orderly transfer of responsibility to those who succeed them. At the beginning of next week, I shall announce the precise arrangements for resignation. I say that to make our position clear.

I wish to express my appreciation to the Progressive Unionist Party for its support of the motion. Some people have expressed surprise that we have accepted that support, but we are glad of it. As I stated at the first sitting of the Assembly, we have always taken the position that the fact that people have a past does not mean that they cannot have a future. We knew that when we embarked on the process, which we hoped would be transitional. I have no doubt about the PUP’s commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.

As the Speaker said, the DUP motion will be moved should the Ulster Unionist Party motion fail to achieve the requisite cross-community support. We shall support that motion, as it will have the same effect as our motion.

We have tabled the motion because, in the past three and a half years — indeed in the 17 months that we have been in office — the Republican movement has failed to demonstrate that it is committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. We embarked upon the process in the belief that it would be a process of transition, giving an opportunity to those who have been involved in paramilitarism to leave violence behind, move into the democratic process and commit themselves to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. That opportunity existed. We have been patient, but it is now more than seven years since the Downing Street declaration first put that to the test. It has been more than three and a half years since the agreement was made, and we have had periods of office that amount to 20 months. There has been ample opportunity for transition. We have been extremely patient, but we have not seen any evidence.

The key element that has been used as a litmus test of commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means is the decommissioning of weapons and other materiel. Decommissioning has always been important, and other parties recognise that. It is not responsible to leave lying around many hundreds, if not thousands, of weapons and quantities of bomb-making material in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Modern weapons do not rust if they are stored carefully — which is probably the case in these instances — so the danger is always present. It is important that decommissioning take place, not only to deprive other people of the opportunity of using the weapons, but as an indication that people are not reserving for themselves the possibility of a future resort to violence. It is an indicator of future intent.

If there had been any clear expressions of future intent over the past three and a half years, things might have been different. We did not even receive what I asked for on the afternoon of 10 April 1998 when the Good Friday Agreement was signed, which was for people to say that the war was over. There have been no clear statements or any clear actions to indicate intent.

As others have done, we must emphasise that the retention of a private army shows that there is no commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Even if the private army were wholly inactive, its mere existence shows that those people are not committed to exclusively peaceful means. If one is committed to exclusively peaceful means, there will be no private army.

I shall restate the commitments that were made and will go back to the agreement and beyond, right back to the Mitchell principles, published in January 1996 and endorsed by Sinn Féin. Then, Sinn Féin members said that they would be committed to

"democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues; to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations; to agree that such disarmament must be verifiable to the satisfaction of an independent commission; to renounce for themselves, and to oppose any efforts by others, to use force, or threaten to use force, to influence the course or the outcome of all-party negotiations; to agree to abide by the terms of any agreement reached in all-party negotiations and to resort to democratic and exclusively peaceful methods in trying to alter any aspect of that outcome with which they may disagree; and to urge that ‘punishment’ killings and beatings stop; and to take effective steps to prevent such actions."

I have read out the Mitchell principles in full because they are, sadly, still relevant to the state of society in Northern Ireland. Those principles were agreed by the parties in January 1996, and here we are in October 2001. Have all parties in the Chamber taken effective steps to prevent punishment killings and beatings? They have not.

The Mitchell principles were subsequently incorporated in the Good Friday Agreement. The commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means is cited again and again in the agreement. I could refer to paragraph 4 of the declaration of support, or to paragraph (b) of the Pledge of Office in annex A of strand one, in which there is reference to the commitment to non- violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means. There are over half a dozen points at which that commitment occurs. That is the first Mitchell principle.

The second Mitchell principle, which refers to

"the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations"

is also in the agreement, in the section on decommissioning. Paragraph 3 states:

"All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations."

That in itself is a commitment and an obligation. That in itself imposes an obligation on all participants with regard to the disarmament of paramilitary organisations. I know that there is a qualification to that — the qualification that refers to working constructively and in good faith — which is frequently resorted to by those who pretend that they have no obligation. However, that qualifier is merely a statement that people will act in good faith, which is assumed to be the case for all the obligations that people undertake. In any event, the second sentence, in which it appears, refers only to the timescale, not to the obligation itself. There is no doubt, therefore, that there is an obligation in the agreement. I make that point in order to establish that people have been in breach of that obligation ever since the agreement was made.

The interpretation of the agreement that I have given also gains support from a certain letter — a significant letter — which was sent to me by the Prime Minister on the afternoon of 10 April 1998. It is significant because it was issued and circulated before the agreement was made, and it was not objected to by any party to the agreement. Consequently, in so far as it gave us an interpretation of the agreement, it is to be regarded as an authoritative interpretation of that part of the agreement. The letter said:

"I confirm that in our view the effect of the decommissioning section of the agreement, with decommissioning schemes coming into effect in June, is that the process of decommissioning should start right away."

That was written before the agreement was made. It was circulated and not objected to, and, consequently, it is an authoritative interpretation of the agreement. Therefore, since June 1998 Republicans — Sinn Féin — have been in breach of the agreement.

We would all have liked the Government to have been more active in enforcing that obligation and in proceeding against those who were in breach of the agreement. The obvious way to do that would have been by linking decommissioning with prisoner releases. Unfortunately, they did not do that. However, because of the failure of Republicans to keep to the agreement — they were in breach of the agreement — the Government, on two occasions, proposed modifications to the procedures in the agreement in response. The first of those was included in the Hillsborough declaration of 1 April 1999. Proposed nominations for the posts of Ministers were to be made, but those would fail to take effect if there were no decommissioning. Secondly, the paper of 2 July 1999, entitled ‘The Way Forward’, formally proposed the suspension of devolution if no decommissioning occurred.

There are three important points about those papers. First, in the paper of 1 April 1999, Sinn Féin expressly accepted the obligation to decommission. The paper said:

"There is agreement among all parties that decommissioning is not a pre-condition but is an obligation deriving from their commitment in the Agreement."

It also stated:

"Sinn Féin have acknowledged these obligations."

The obligation was in the agreement, and Sinn Féin was in breach of it from June 1998. In June 1998, as Members will recall, Sinn Féin was in denial about the obligation, but in April 1999 it expressly accepted the obligation.

The 2 July paper reaffirmed the principles agreed by the parties on 25 June, which put inclusiveness and decommissioning side by side. The parties agreed to three principles on 25 June: the principle of an inclusive Executive; the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons by May 2000; and decommissioning to be carried out in a manner determined by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. Those three principles were agreed, and I noticed at the time that Mr Pat Doherty of Sinn Féin said that the three principles — firmly embedded in the terms of the Good Friday Agreement — could resolve the impasse if there was the political will. Over the past three years, where was the political will? Where was the absence of will? Some things have happened, and some things have not.

The third point is that the 2 July paper provided for suspension, and that was agreed by the Irish Government. A myth is growing, supported by some so-called academic writers, that suspension in some way creates constitutional difficulties for the Irish Government; that is bunkum. The Irish Government agreed and proposed suspension. The 2 July paper itself said that the Governments — plural —

"undertake that, in accordance with the review provisions of the agreement, if commitments under the agreement are not met, either in relation to decommissioning or to devolution, they will automatically, and with immediate effect, suspend the operation of the institutions set up by the agreement."

The words

"automatically and with immediate effect"

are useful in the present context. Indeed, the Irish Prime Minister made his support for suspension in that situation explicit when he said in the Dáil on 23 November 1999 that, if there were default, the two Governments would

"step in and assume their responsibilities, including … appropriate suspension arrangements."

Unfortunately, as we know, there was no progress during the summer of 1999. It was not until after the Mitchell review that devolution occurred. Indeed, in bringing devolution about at the end of November 1999, we demonstrated our political will. The best — though rather pithy — statement about the precise content of that review was that made by the deputy leader of the SDLP, Mr Mallon, who said that the SDLP had been told by Senator Mitchell that he understood that devolution would happen on 29 November and that decommissioning would start by the end of January 2000. That was, indeed, the understanding. From my own direct knowledge, I can say that the Sinn Féin negotiators were left in absolutely no doubt by us, and by George Mitchell, about the importance of 31 January. It was made absolutely clear:

"31 January is the final cut-off date".

We proceeded to put devolution in place on the understanding that there would be decommissioning, but unfortunately, by 31 January, it had not happened. That prompted the Government, in fulfilment of their promise, to suspend the Assembly and its associated institutions in February 2000. It is rather sad that, in October 2001, we are back at exactly the same point, without having made as much progress as we would have liked.

Suspension in 2000 produced results. One result came as the 22 May deadline loomed — there was movement from Republicans in the shape of the IRA statement of 6 May 2000. The crucial aspect of that statement was the promise made by the Republican movement that it would initiate a process that would put its weapons beyond use and, moreover, that it would do so in a way that would maximise public confidence. We look back at May 2000 and ask ourselves what exactly has been done to maximise public confidence.

The Governments, of course, had some foreknowledge of that statement. We know that because, on the previous day — 5 May — they made a statement that set June 2001 as the date for the full implementation of the agreement. In that context, full implementation includes decommissioning. The Governments made that statement because we were approaching 22 June 2000 — the deadline set in the agreement — without decommissioning. The deadline for full implementation was moved forward to June 2001.

On the basis of the promise made by Republicans, we agreed to re-form the administration, and we did that. Moreover, we re-formed it in a way that did not set an explicit time for reconsideration. In our operations in June 1999, we had announced a date on which the Ulster Unionist Council would meet to consider the situation. We did not make that an explicit deadline, although people interpreted it as such and we were criticised for that. On re-forming the administration, we did not therefore set any explicit time for reconsideration. The leader of Sinn Féin will recall that we spoke together on one occasion immediately after the summer of 2000. On that occasion, I lamented the fact that we were not seeing steady progress on the decommissioning track and said that, without progress, a crisis would be inevitable — even if we did nothing.

I explained our position to our party conference on 7 October. I am tempted to recall the precise words that I used on that occasion, but I will not, because time is pressing. I made it clear that we would take action if Republicans failed to make progress. I did not announce the action at that stage, because I suspected that some of my dearly beloved party colleagues would use Sinn Féin’s failure to move as an excuse to summon a meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council, with a view to changing party policy. Although we had a clear plan of action on 7 October, we held back until 27 October. On that day, I announced our decision to exclude Sinn Féin representatives from participation in the North/South Ministerial Council. We have sustained that exclusion since and will, if necessary, continue to sustain it until such times as the Sinn Féin Ministers demonstrate clearly that they are no longer in breach of the agreement. So far they have failed to do that, but we hope that they will.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party give way?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

No. I am sorry, but I will not give way. I am running short of time. I am often told that, at party meetings, I bore the party into submission, and it looks as though I am doing that on this occasion.

We took action in October with regard to Sinn Fein’s failure. We proceeded in a careful and graduated way. There was a reason for that. We are not using decommissioning as an excuse to destroy devolution. Our objective was, and is, to achieve devolution and decommissioning; even my opponents in the party understood that. The alternative proposals put to the council on that date — over the signature of, among others, Jeffrey Donaldson — expressly endorsed the concept of inclusive devolution. The significance of that has not been fully appreciated.

We could not wait for ever. We had consultations in the party in January, and there was a consensus that 2001, the date set by the Government, was the key date. To convey the importance of that to the public, I made it clear on the anniversary of the IRA promise that if there were no decommissioning by June, I would resign with effect from 1 July. I kept my promise.

A further three months have elapsed, and it is, consequently, inevitable that we come to this point. The motion and the consequent withdrawal of Ministers are the logical and inevitable results of that resignation, and that was the inevitable consequence of the failure of the Republican movement to keep its word.

When I announced the resignation on 8 May, there was an interesting comment in ‘The Irish News’ editorial the following day:

"the circumstances might have been different if the IRA ceasefire had been properly observed, but this has simply not been the case."

Nor has it. There have been 30 murders by the IRA since the ceasefires, and matters are not improving. We cannot see any progress on that.

We have seen the dreadful behaviour that has been occurring in north Belfast; the behaviour of the Loyalists in Ardoyne is dreadful. However, we must bear in mind that that comes after Sinn Féin spent the summer hotting up the interfaces of north Belfast and after an attack, in June, by Republicans on Loyalists in the Protestant part of Ardoyne. Therefore one must remember where the origins of that were.

After the summer I said that Republicans have no credibility left with any segment of Unionist opinion and very little credibility without it. I hope, even at this late stage, that Republicans will make some effort to rebuild credibility, but they must do it clearly, cleanly, openly and honestly. I hope that that happens.

There are two motions today. There was the possibility of a joint motion with the DUP. I was not enthusiastic about a joint motion. It would have made the debate a clash between two sectarian blocks — Unionists on this side and Nationalists on the other. I thought that undesirable. To avoid that situation I was prepared to risk what might have been the embarrassing consequence of not getting the necessary signatures. I did not want to turn the debate into a sectarian confrontation. There are some Members who would like that, but I do not want that. I must ask the SDLP to consider carefully what it will do. Will it allow the debate to become a purely sectarian confrontation? Will it vote with Sinn Féin purely out of sectarian solidarity? Will it endorse the position that I think it ought to — namely, that a clear obligation has not been kept and there are consequences that must flow from that? If it is not prepared to do that now, when will it do that? How much longer must we wait? We have waited three and a half years since the agreement. We have waited nearly a year and a half since forming the Administration. Promises that were made by Republicans during that time have not been kept; violence has continued. There comes a point where a line must be drawn or the community will come to the conclusion that the process is failing and will not achieve its results.

As was said in one of the Dublin newspapers yesterday, the action that I am taking is done in the hope that we will preserve the agreement. There is more to the agreement than the participation of Sinn Féin, desirable though that might be. We must consider how to preserve what is important and see whether that can still provide a basis for society here to move on. I hope that it will, but I believe that the action we are taking today is necessary, just as it was in February 2000. I believe that it will be fruitful, just as that action was fruitful. The only question is how long we will have to wait, and that is a question I must leave with others.

We are debating the issue against the background of another bigger conflict and the consequences of terrorism elsewhere. It would be appropriate for my Colleagues and I, and for many people in the Chamber, to say that, while we must focus on our own circumstances, we do so conscious of a sense of solidarity with those people in the United States who were recently the victims of terrorism; with the American and British Governments in the action that they are taking; and with our own armed forces that have been in action today. They have our full support and will continue to have it, regardless of what problems we have here. We are conscious that we operate in a wider world and have obligations to the rest of our nation and to the world as a whole.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom comhghairdeachas a dhéanamh le David Ford mar Cheannaire Pháirtí an Chomhaontais; agus ba mhaith liom fosta an t-ádh a ghuí leis an iarCheannaire, Seán Neeson, agus lena bhean chéile.

Before I respond to what Mr Trimble said, I want to congratulate David Ford on his elevation to the leadership of the Alliance Party and to wish Sean Neeson, his family and his wife best wishes for the time ahead.

In considering the motion and figuring out the best way to approach it, I will try to be reasoned and reasonable, because everyone here has a very serious responsibility. For too long we have tended to see processes, the future and even each other’s remarks from a very sectional viewpoint. The motion reads:

"That this Assembly resolves that the political party Sinn Féin does not enjoy the confidence of the Assembly because it is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means."

I could bridle against that, or I could outline the background of the Members on the opposite Benches who are either in the armed forces of the state or the unnofficial armed forces of the state. However, I will not do that because I agree with David Trimble — the fact that a person has a past does not mean that he cannot have a future.

I want to make one thing clear: there is no basis for the exclusion of this party or for motions to exclude this party. There is no basis in the agreement for this sort of motion. I listened to what Mr Trimble said, and I want to make it clear that Sinn Féin has honoured every commitment that it made. It may not be good enough, and the party has a lot more to do, but it has tried to play a positive, leadership role in the peace process. Sinn Féin has taken risks; it changed its party policy; it changed its party constitution and created real initiatives — all to advance the peace process and demonstrate a real, forward-thinking way of advancing the search for peace. The motion is about the battle within Unionism — it is about the battle for the leadership of Unionism at this difficult time for Unionism.

Sinn Féin has worked hard and consistently in the Assembly. The party’s two Ministers — the Minister of Education, Martin McGuinness, and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Bairbre de Brún — have carried out their duties without favour and in an exemplary manner. At every level of the structures that were established under the agreement — the all-Ireland structures, the implementation bodies and the Committees — Sinn Féin members have performed their duties with diligence. I reject the motion, and I reject the accusations that were directed at the party to excuse the behaviour of Unionism.

No one is surprised at the motion from the DUP. Some of the smaller parties that have become smaller since they came in here are resolutely opposed to the peace process and have said so from the very beginning. The DUP never had the gumption to deal with the issues properly with Sinn Féin or the Ulster Unionist Party. At every opportunity the DUP has sought to undermine and frustrate the potential for progress and the Good Friday Agreement. It does so because it is against change — that is the reason. It is against the principles of inclusiveness, equality and justice. The DUP draws its aspirations and inspirations from the old failed politics of the apartheid system that used to exist here. It is anti-Catholic, anti- Nationalist and anti-democratic — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The DUP’s political philosophy, which is shared by some legal types opposite me, is based on discrimination, prejudice and real fear. It has a lack of confidence in itself to make peace and to move forward with other people.

I reject that philosophy, as will all thinking people. However, the DUP has a mandate, which we must recognise. We must try to come to terms with that party’s opposite view of the world. It is also interesting that, of all the parties, the DUP takes the most delight from being here and from the influence that comes from attending this institution. Essentially, the DUP’s big problem is that there are Fenians about the place — and that we are Fenians who are unrepentant, who can represent our constituency, and who also have a vision for the future.

Regrettably, there are those in the UUP who share that odd, quaint and played-out old view of the world. While some in the UUP signed up for the Good Friday Agreement, they did not really support the fundamental changes that it required. From the beginning they refused to embrace the principles at the heart of the agreement. They engaged tactically and initiated an approach, the purpose of which was to dilute the potential of that historic breakthrough.

David Trimble was forthright earlier. In his letter of last October, and in his remarks to the UUP conference, he said that he was about achieving suspension of the institutions by creating a rolling crisis within the process and seeking to blame Republicans and Nationalists.

I have no doubt that the issue of weapons is a huge one for Unionists, as it is for Republicans and Nationalists. Many people listening to the debate will question whether the focus is on only one section of the arms debate. They will ask why Unionism is silent, or at the very most mumbling, about the almost 250 bomb attacks and the other killings and attempted killings that have taken place. The Unionists must also bear in mind that many people do not understand why a Unionist leader has not walked up to Holy Cross Primary School with the little Catholic schoolchildren.

Secondly, Members on this side of the Chamber may appreciate that there are real concerns in the Unionist fixation on IRA guns. Apart from the tactical use of the issue as a blockage and a precondition for progress, there are other real concerns. We must ask ourselves how we can seek to sort that out. Can it be sorted out with people who will not even talk to us — people who are perhaps decent enough within their own families, but who reduce the debate to cat-calling across the Floor? Can it be sorted out with people who are in denial, who will not even ask why there had to be a peace process and a Good Friday Agreement in the first place? [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Mr Trimble brought us to the core of the flaw in the process. That flaw was the letter that MrBlair gave him at the time of the Good Friday Agreement negotiations. We all know that the letter is worthless, but Unionists have clung to it since then, and that is the fault-line. Every crisis since that Good Friday can be traced to that point. The letter showed a willingness on the part of the British Government to pander to Unionism, to acquiesce to a Unionist veto and to create a space for those who wanted to hollow out, and seek a renegotiation of, the agreement.

It is also clear that the British Government have not honoured their obligations or commitments under the Good Friday Agreement — on policing and demilitarisation, on equality and on justice issues. We have done our best and will continue to do so.

Just for the record, it is worth noting that great progress has been made on a range of issues, not least that of IRA weapons.

There are two indisputable facts. First, the peace process exists because of initiatives taken by Republicans. While others have conspired to weaken, fracture, collapse or bore us all to submission, we have wedded ourselves to continue a succession of initiatives with the objective of enhancing the process. Secondly, no matter about the heckling or hectoring, the lies and false accusations, Sinn Féin is determined to do all it can to make this process work and to make it work in the interests of all the people of this island.

The issue of weapons can be resolved — that is my clear view. I also believe that if Unionists, the British Government, the Irish Government and all the other parties are prepared to work together in a true partnership, we can collectively, as the Good Friday Agreement says, achieve this goal as quickly as possible. I have said many times, and I am sure you will agree, that it is not possible to resolve this issue on terms laid down by the DUP, or indeed the UUP and the British Government, or on the basis of threat, veto or ultimatum. It can be worked out only on the basis of the Good Friday Agreement. And what is the mechanism for that — the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD). The IICD together with all armed groups should be allowed to get on with making that mechanism work.

Last month a historic breakthrough was rejected by Unionists — a mistake in my view. The historic breakthrough was when the IICD announced that it had agreed a scheme with the IRA to put arms completely and verifiably beyond use. It is also in the public arena that the IRA continues to be engaged with the commission. Now, if I have to listen and try to understand what Unionism is saying, Unionism has to understand, or at least try to understand it, when I say that these are not small, unimportant events.

No one who lived in, and survived, the 1970s, the 1980s, most of the 1990s, or who has any understanding at all of conflict resolution, Republican history or theology, would have considered any of these things possible back then. In a Republican context, these are huge developments. They actually point, if you have the vision to see it, to a future free from IRA weapons. But what has Unionism done? It has walked away from these openings. It refused to engage when these openings were created, and it is now threatening to walk away from the political institutions. Unionism, which said that Republicans would walk away, is now threatening to bring down the institutions. Mr Trimble has been found to have acted unlawfully. As a man of the law, legally trained in that profession, I am sure he finds this very irksome. He is the only one — the only one — who has been found to have acted unlawfully. It is he who is ignoring the mandates of all the other parties, the referendums on the Good Friday Agreement itself, his responsibilities and obligations and the obligations of his party under the agreement.

Ten days ago, at the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis in Dublin, I said that there was no easy way to sort these issues out. I reiterated my commitment, and that of our leadership, to playing a positive leadership role in bringing a permanent end to political conflict on our island, including the end of physical-force Republicanism. Maybe Unionists do not believe me when I say that, but I am committed to it — I have said it publicly. I wonder if Unionism really wants the end of physical- force Republicanism. I am put in mind very much of James Molyneaux’s remarks that the IRA cessation of 1994 was the most disturbing development in the history of this statelet.

Coming out of 30 years of conflict, all of us perhaps have to learn that when Republicans take initiatives, they are seen as threatening by Unionists, and when Unionists behave as they do and say the things they do, that is seen as threatening by Republicans and Nationalists.

In respect of all of that, I am on a learning curve. I believe that Mr Trimble — though he may deny it — believes that we who have met him are committed to peaceful and democratic means. In my heart and mind, I believe that very clearly.

We have to continue to work in that broad Republican constituency, which has suffered grievously. There is no monopoly on suffering, but it has suffered grievously since partition. We are trying to bring an end to all of the armed groups, including the Irish Republican Army.

However, perhaps to the great joy of those on the opposite Benches, Sinn Féin will not be any part of any effort to criminalise or to deem as terrorists those men and women who fought when they thought that they had no option, but who seized — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Members in all other areas in the Chamber seem to have sufficient emotional continence to sit and listen to what is happening and sufficient confidence in their spokesmen that, when necessary, they will express their views. It is in the interest of the whole House that Members who are on their feet be listened to.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. We will not be part of any effort to criminalise, or to deem as terrorists, those men and women who fought when they considered that they had no choice, but who had the integrity, the courage and the wisdom to support a peace process when they had that choice.

Let me go further: as I said at the burial place of Tom Williams, there are brave people on all sides of each conflict. There are brave people in the British forces, in the Loyalist forces and among those who fought on the Irish Republican side. We have that shared past, and I urge Unionists to think again.

I urge Unionists to not turn their backs on the potential for permanent peace and a new future and to take up the leadership challenge presented to us all by the process. I ask those more enlightened Unionists who might believe that there is such a thing as pluralist Unionism to stop looking over their shoulders at less progressive elements, including the quaintly named Democratic Unionist Party, or even those in their own party who represent a minority opinion. They should give leadership to the section of Unionism that voted for the Good Friday Agreement.

Not for one second do I underestimate the difficulties that the process poses and represents to Unionists. I do not think that people on the opposite Benches really appreciate the difficulties that it also presents for Republicans or Nationalists. However, notwithstanding that, we all have to make peace with each other, and we all have to get into the shadow of each other to get some sense of how to move the process forward.

We want to try to address Unionists’ concerns in a spirit of goodwill and respect, but the process cannot continue to be regarded as a zero-sum gain in which equality, justice and democratic rights and entitlements are seen as concessions to Nationalists and Republicans.

The process is unique — in the Irish and the British experience. It presents us all with an opportunity to reach across divisions and try to shape out a new dispensation. The Good Friday Agreement is three and a half years old. It was a defining moment in the history of Ireland and the Irish peace process. It was the result of lengthy discussions and of protracted and difficult dialogue.

Unionists were not involved in that process — not with our party — and that is a great pity. At a time of international conflict, when other peace processes continue to disintegrate, and when we have an opportunity to demonstrate that there is another way, I appeal to Unionists not to squander that opportunity. Unionists have a different view of the situation, but they should take note that if the political institutions collapse as a result of Unionism’s refusal to work them, Unionism will have raised the threshold when we return to put the institutions together again.

The old days are finished. We are committed to making the current model, even in its flawed and fractured form, work. Unionism must get real; the world has moved on. One-party rule is no longer acceptable. Nationalists and Republicans are no longer a powerless, abandoned, leaderless minority in an Orange state. Those days are gone forever. Unionism is no longer a monolithic power block. "Not an inch" or schoolboy hectoring from the Back Benches are no longer any substitute for real courage and the ability to carve out a real future for people.

Agus seo iad mo fhocail dheireannacha. The Good Friday Agreement cannot be renegotiated. Conflict is not the way forward; dialogue is the only way forward. I call on the Assembly to reject the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I welcome today’s debate. I regret that we do not have a joint Unionist motion. However, my party will vote for the Ulster Unionist Party motion, and I welcome the fact that its leader has indicated that his party will vote for our motion. I regret that immediate resignations will not be forthcoming, merely a withdrawal of all Unionists from the Executive. I am glad at that belated withdrawal; they should never have been there in the first place. My party brought down the first appointments to office in the Assembly, which we would do today if we could. We have lodged our letters of resignation, but those resignations should take place immediately and should not be postponed.

Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has told the people that they must make a choice. Do they side with justice or with terror? The Assembly must face that choice. No amount of special pleading by the leader of IRA/Sinn Féin can cover over the fact that his party is associated in the lodge — if I may call it that — of international terrorism. Who attended his party’s conference in Dublin? He had ETA, the Basque terrorist group in Spain, a representation from the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Puerto Rican separatists in attendance. What are his men doing in Colombia with terrorists — the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)? That group kidnapped three missionaries from the New Tribes Mission organisation in 1993, whom it has now murdered. Is that freedom fighting? That is an act of murder and terrorism.

IRA/Sinn Féin says that Unionists are not with it. There has been a change across the whole world, and people are opening their eyes to what terrorism is and what it really intends to do. The regime established in Northern Ireland by the Belfast Agreement shares the same characteristics of that of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Men of violence who have actively supported terrorism in any so-called democratic Government can no longer be tolerated in Northern Ireland. That is injustice at its height. It demeans, not enhances, the democratic process.

Mr Rumsfeld, the US Defense Secretary, said yesterday that harbouring a terrorist carries a price. If Northern Ireland continues to harbour terrorism in its Government, that also carries a price. That price has been too high, and the consequences are clear for all to see.

We have a corrupt arrangement that postpones violence until the men of violence require the next concession, then that is followed by another threat of violence, and so strategically escalated concession after concession goes on. Today must mark the end of these concessions. Weapons that have the mark of the murderers’ fingerprints on them must be taken in and destroyed, and those who have used them must not be pleaded with to hand them over. The British Government should be honest, cease from their hypocrisy and treat all terrorists alike. They did not send a letter to the Afghan Government saying "Please do this": they demanded it. The Afghan Government did not do it, hence the bombings and the war declared on international terrorism. The so-called peace process has not been moving towards peace but towards concession after concession.

The House has an opportunity to declare that it is with world opinion and with those who believe in democracy, justice, fair play and the right to live. The House can vote to declare on whose side it is. Terrorists have no place in a democracy, no matter from what section of the community they come, and they must realise that there is no place for them until they repent and

"bring forth fruits meet for repentance".

Why does IRA/Sinn Féin want to keep its weapons? Why does it not hand them over? If it is dedicated to peace and living in peace with its Unionist neighbours and the rest of the community, as we have heard today, why does it hold on to its murder weapons? Murder weapons have to be surrendered.

We also have the hiding of those murder weapons and the immunity given to that hiding by the Government of the Irish Republic. Let the Governments of the world come clean on this issue and declare to all terrorists, including IRA/Sinn Féin that is represented in this House, that this day is over. All terrorism must be dealt with, and all terrorists must suffer as a result, by ridding them of the weapons that they keep in reserve so that they can continue to blackmail democratic people and squeeze concessions from them.

The time has come for action. We will not get cross- community support today. Members will not vote for the motion because, along with IRA/Sinn Féin, they are tied in to a process that they think will eventually bring about a united Ireland. I have more votes from the people of Ulster than any other politician in this House or outside, and I say that Ulster’s Unionist people will not be beaten. They will stand for what is their right — to decide their future as part of this United Kingdom. No amount of blackmail, murder, terrorism or tormenting the people of this land will bring the Ulster Unionist people to their knees.

We are going to defend that which is our right. With no malice against anyone, we believe that all men should be equal under the law and all men equally subject to the law. Until the leader of IRA/Sinn Féin learns that lesson, there will be no peace in this Province.

Think of the orphans. Think of the widows. Think of those who mourn today, and as we think of them, let us think of the insult that has been hurled in their faces by Mr Adams that the men who shot down their loved ones were freedom fighters — freedom fighters who killed innocent children and innocent babes-in-arms, who murdered fathers before their families and carried out atrocity after atrocity. When votes of sympathy were passed in public places, they refused even to stand to their feet, but identified themselves with all the terror and bloodletting that had been brought about.

Today, the House must declare what side it is on. Unionists will be declaring that they are not on the side of terror.

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

It is with a sense of loss that I rise to speak to the motion, a sense of loss with the realisation that the opportunity to create a template for conflict resolution that could be used around the world is being put in abeyance. I do not say lost, but put in abeyance for some considerable time. I remember President Clinton’s visit to Armagh, when he made the point that he could now go to any other country in the world and tell his hosts that they could solve their problems by looking at how they were solved in Northern Ireland.

I also have a sense of sadness. In two weeks’ time, there will be nobody sitting on these Benches. In two weeks’ time, there will probably be no Assembly sitting. In two weeks’ time, all decisions will be moved from here to the Northern Ireland Office, to those who come here, do their jobs diligently, but without the commitment that is in the Assembly and the Executive.

I have a sense of futility that, given what is happening throughout the world, and the enormity and complexity of those problems, we have squabbled our way once again into suspension and put at risk that which is absolutely essential to making the new future that we all seek.

It is a matter of regret that the Ulster Unionist Party has tabled this motion. Its members were highly committed, able negotiators in the talks leading up to the Good Friday Agreement. They have been very able Colleagues in the Executive. However, this motion is a mistake. It is no different from earlier motions and attempts by the DUP and others to destroy the agreement. It has been initiated by the Burnside-Donaldson axis in imitation of DUP tactics.

Previous motions of this nature were rightly described by the Ulster Unionist leadership as stunts. They knew that they would not be successful. You cannot solve the type of problems we have with stunts, whether they come from the DUP, the UUP or any other party under any type of pressure. This is really about the internal power play of Unionism within the Ulster Unionist Party and between the UUP and the DUP.

It is an unseemly struggle for who leads Unionism. In a fight such as this logic and principle are very often forgotten, and that is happening now.

Look at the irony in that one of the parties to the motion speaks and interprets for Loyalist paramilitarism; so that attendant to this Ulster Unionist Party motion are the opinions which are seen manifest in bomb explosions, vitriol, sectarianism and the type of attacks that we have seen. The Ulster Unionist Party is a proud party; it does not need that type of association.

Our party has consistently worked throughout to establish the institutions. Our record of working in partnership with the Ulster Unionist and Sinn Féin Ministers in the Executive speaks for itself. At the same time, we have argued consistently for the putting of arms beyond use. We have supported, and not interfered with, the efforts of the two Governments and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. In doing that, I have no sympathy whatsoever with the Republican movement — indeed, I recognise the overwhelming onus on it to honour its commitments and to follow the primary responsibility, which is there for all of us in the Good Friday Agreement.

Decommissioning was settled by the agreement, which recalled that its resolution

"is an indispensable part of the process of negotiation".

The agreement sets out the commitment of all participants to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. How often have I heard people dismissing this as an irrelevancy, as an unreasonable Unionist demand? How often have I heard it said that they will not jump to meet the desires and needs of a British Government; that this is not what Republican areas and supporters want; that this is, indeed, an impossibility? What they have been doing, in effect, is signalling their unwillingness to implement the agreement fully, thus undermining Unionist confidence with it and defying the will of the Irish people who voted in such overwhelming numbers for the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations.

A heavy onus now falls on the Republican leadership to undo the damage that has been done and to turn the recently emphasised commitment to decommissioning into effective action. Words are not enough; deeds speak. The SDLP in conformity with the agreement seeks the completion of decommissioning to the satisfaction of Gen de Chastelain — no more, no less. I do not know whether, or when, that will happen, but I know, and I believe that everyone in the Chamber believes, that without decommissioning, the agreement will not survive.

Without decommissioning and the standing-down of paramilitary organisations, there will not be reconciliation and political stability on the island of Ireland. Without decommissioning, the time will come — and maybe has come — when there will not be any room in public or democratic life throughout the world for parties associated with paramilitary organisations.

Shortly after I became Deputy First Minister Designate, I said that the agreement gave us the opportunity to build something new for ourselves and to change utterly that which had gone before. I still believe that.

The Assembly, the Executive and the North/South bodies have proved their value and potential. Northern Ireland, and the whole island, is a better place because of their operation. They have provided the setting for a bright economic period and have enhanced the potential for investment.

It is thanks to those bodies that the community, which Members lead, won the battle against foot-and-mouth disease. Even in the difficult circumstances of the past fortnight the Executive were able to produce a draft Programme for Government and a draft Budget and make strategic decisions on gas pipelines and roads that will improve people’s lives. There have also been decisions that will begin to help in the difficult process of bringing peace to north Belfast. I pay tribute to Sir Reg Empey who has been a good colleague in recent times in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

I conclude with a plea to those who have tabled motions today and to those who have caused the motions to be tabled: it is seldom in the history of any area that has suffered conflict resolution that all of the ingredients for a solution are in place. We have the agreement; we have the institutions; we have the machinery; and we have the panoply of support that is essential. What would some of the countries involved in conflict give to have those advantages? What would they give to have the agreement, the institutions and the machinery for solving problems? Do not throw the opportunity away. Do not squabble this political generation into political extinction. Use it; use it now; and use it well.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thanks to the fan club on the Unionist Back Benches. I also thank Mr Adams for his kind words to me and for the words of tribute that he paid to my predecessor and friend, Sean Neeson.

There is no doubt that since the referendum was held we have encountered multiple problems in implementing the agreement — decommissioning is the biggest problem. Those problems have arisen because Republicans and Loyalists have failed to live up to their obligations, at least under the terms as everyone else views them. However, in the case of Loyalist paramilitaries there are no Ministers, so no exclusion motion is appropriate.

The issue before the House should be simple: it should be one of democrats versus those who are still prepared to resort to violence. Those who have a past are entitled to have a future, but some do not seem to want a present. This morning Mr Adams treated the House to a rehash of the Ard-Fheis speech. I do not expect him to condemn his comrades for their past activities; I am realistic enough in that regard. However, in the Chamber today Members expect to hear a clear, strong lead from every party as to the way of the future, and I regret that they have not heard that in the detail that they should have done.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr D McClelland] in the Chair)

Many groups have engaged in violence and, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know as well as I do that there have been three murders in south Antrim recently — all committed by Loyalists. Ironically, two of the victims were Protestants who were assumed to be Catholics. In all of this Sinn Féin will argue that its guns have been silent since 1994, but, unfortunately and palpably, that is not the case. There have been numerous beatings and shootings, and up to 30 murders have been committed against dissidents and drug dealers. There is a warped notion that one can kill without impugning the ceasefire so long as it is only a case of Unionists killing Protestants or Nationalists killing Catholics. The Alliance Party considers that the integrity of the ceasefire does not depend upon the interplay between the religion and politics of the victim and the perpetrator respectively.

Mr Trimble said that he did not wish to have a single Unionist motion because he did not wish the motion to be regarded as being sectarian. I found that bizarre. Once David Trimble and his Colleagues sought to co-opt the PUP to signing their motion it became a simple issue of Unionist versus Nationalist; not an issue of democrats against those who resort to violence.

On Saturday, I heard Mr Ervine say that decommissioning was just around the corner. I therefore presume that he feels that the motion, in the context of unilateral sanctions, is going to help, not hinder. I would like him to explain how those sanctions could possibly be beneficial.

Mr Trimble has compounded his error — the error of being sectarian and making it a purely Unionist matter — by trying, yet again, to impose a deadline. That is particularly surprising, given that he highlighted in his speech the occasions when he had not imposed a deadline and when he had tried not to have one. By his actions over recent weeks and by his threat of what he and his Colleagues will do when the motion falls, he has again imposed a deadline. Experience has proved that deadlines have never worked and will never work in the process. The unilateral Unionist deadline that almost destabilised the Mitchell review in late 1999 was a classic example of that. There are other examples. Unilateral deadlines have never worked, because the talks process never worked on that basis. It worked when it was inclusive, when people were brought together and when they sought to reach an accommodation.

The sanctions on North/South meetings, which have been in place over the past year, not only did not work but have been held by two courts to be illegal. Today Mr Trimble seemed to rejoice in that judgement because he was playing politics and misusing the courts. It was not the legal system; it was a matter of his use of the courts to make a political point.

If the UUP is serious about decommissioning, and if it wants the Assembly to consider matters in a genuine, balanced way, why did it put forward this pan-Unionist motion? Why did it not talk to the SDLP, the NIWC or Alliance about how there might be joint action to confirm the integrity of the process and to ensure that decommissioning happened? It knows that exclusion could only be a realistic prospect if there were widespread agreement, yet it has not sought that agreement. It is simply playing Unionist politics.

Following the summer holiday excursions to Colombia and the dreadful events of 11 September in New York and Washington, there is worldwide pressure on any organisation that is carrying out acts of terrorism. However, today, the day after British forces, as Mr Trimble has highlighted, went into action against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, the Ulster Unionist party is giving the IRA "wriggle room". This is the only way that it can be presented. The rest of the world is turning against terrorist groups while Unionists are taking that pressure off by being unilateral and one-sided.

As Mr Mallon reminded us in July, the Government have responsibilities in this area, yet they have taken no action. Mr Mallon implied that if the Government were prepared to take action, he would follow it through. I trust that if they do take action, the SDLP will live up to that promise.

Unionists and Republicans have groups that are allegedly on ceasefire and which have taken no action on decommissioning. Decommissioning is long overdue on the part of all paramilitary groups, including those linked to Sinn Féin, the PUP and the UDP.

There is the serious issue of the removal of weapons, but the motion is not dealing with that. It appears to have been precipitated by Ulster Unionist members such as David Burnside and Jeffrey Donaldson, and it is not in any way seeking a way forward for the institutions. It has played into the internal games of the Ulster Unionist Party, and it is most regrettable that Ulster Unionist Members of the House have taken the opportunity to follow it through. Perhaps the unhappy looks on their faces, the corridor chats last week, the talk of further postponement and the endeavours to avoid crisis are an indication of what most Unionist Members — at least those from the Ulster Unionist Party — really think about this.

In proposing the motion, Mr Trimble said that his objective was to have both decommissioning and devolution. However, the motion is merely attempting to buy off his internal dissidents. The motion, followed by further threats of resignation, has, as Mr Mallon has just said, every potential to destroy devolution without bringing decommissioning any further forward. It should be resisted.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

In the light of the horrific terrorist activity in the United States of America on 11 September one could be forgiven for believing that the people of Northern Ireland would expect something different in the approach to terrorism from Northern Ireland parties. We have listened to Mr Mallon’s words and to the approach of the SDLP. We need to bear in mind that that party is washing its hands like Pontius Pilate and refusing to join with other democrats in excluding from Government those who are inextricably linked to a terrorist organisation. No amount of smoke, mirrors or imagery will change that fact.

Mr Trimble has laid out a catalogue of blame for the plight that those of us who are committed to peaceful and democratic means find ourselves in. He mentioned the British Government and Mr Blair’s betrayal of the pledges that he made that those involved in and inextricably linked to terrorist organisations would not remain in Government. In the referendum Mr Trimble encouraged the people of Northern Ireland to support that position and endorsed the Prime Minister’s guarantee. The Irish Government also had a duty. Mr Trimble reminded us that we are three and a half years into the process and still not one ounce of Semtex or one bullet has been handed in by the IRA.

We would have expected different things from those in authority in the United States of America. Not one person whom I have spoken to or met with has not been amazed by the events in Dublin at the weekend when the United States of America’s Ambassador to Ireland attended the terrorist conference and brought the American Administration into disrepute. Circumstances such as that have contributed to the fact that Sinn Féin is in the Government here today.

A crucial question has to be asked about the Ulster Unionist Party’s involvement in bringing about the present situation. It is clear that Mr Trimble has discredited a worthwhile and needed debate on the exclusion of those inextricably linked to terror by aligning himself with, and seeking the support of, those who are fronting Protestant, Loyalist paramilitary activity. That he did so to enable himself to table a motion to exclude those who are involved in armed Republicanism has everyone aghast.

Mr Trimble did not need to do that to achieve today’s debate. He could, personally, have walked into the Business Office any time during the past 12, 18 or 24 months and signed any one of the various motions in the name of the DUP, the Northern Ireland Unionist Party, Mr McCartney’s party and others tabled to exclude Sinn Féin, which required only one further signature. Mr Trimble can attempt to excuse his position, but that leads us to the real game plan and to the real reason for his taking the convoluted route of seeking the support of the PUP. He told my Colleagues and myself that he wanted to delay the motion to exclude Sinn Féin at the behest of MrBlair — the man who, Mr Trimble said, betrayed the Unionist cause and gave false promises and undertakings. This is the man who is still pulling the strings of Ulster Unionist Party policy at Glengall Street.

Mr Trimble does not seek to exclude Sinn Féin; he has made that clear. He said that he wished to see it remain in Government, and he noted the valuable contribution that it had made to the process. Mr Trimble has embarked on a scheme to allow time for some act of decommissioning that will catapult him back into his position as First Minister, with Mr Mallon as Deputy First Minister. I remind Mr Trimble, and lest Members think that this point is hypothetical, those in the Government agencies in Northern Ireland —

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, is the debate not about the exclusion of Sinn Féin rather than about Mr Trimble?

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

Mr Wilson may continue.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

I say this as a warning to those in the Ulster Unionist camp who may weaken in the next few weeks. I remind Mr Trimble that he said that, even if there were to be some act of decommissioning by the IRA, that would not convince him, nor would it convince the people of Northern Ireland, that Sinn Féin/IRA, represented by Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, is fit to be in Government. A paramilitary organisation may decommission a few weapons; the LVF decommissioned weapons some years ago. However, I do not imagine that the family of Martin O’Hagan would regard that as a guarantee that that organisation would not return to violence.

Mr Trimble and his Colleagues work hand in hand with the Government to have him and his Colleague, Mr Mallon, reinstated in the Northern Ireland Executive. There is only one way for Unionists to exclude Sinn Féin from the process, and it is in our hands. We cannot depend on other Governments or on the other people at whom Mr Trimble points the finger of blame. Mr Trimble and Dr Paisley could remove their Ministers from the Government today, and Mr McGuinness and his Colleague, Ms de Brún, would no longer be in the Executive. If we cannot have decommissioning, and if the price for Government in Northern Ireland is having terrorists in that Government, we should seek a better form of Government.

Mr Trimble said that Mr Ervine and Mr Hutchinson had convinced him that they were in favour of peace and that he could do business with them. Mr Adams said that if that is the case, it does not matter what the IRA’s position is; Sinn Féin Members need only convince Mr Trimble that they are seeking peaceful and democratic structures in Northern Ireland. If Mr Trimble is to be consistent, he cannot take a different approach.

We need to remove from the process those who pollute and corrupt it. Mr Trimble chided the Democratic Unionist Party in this Chamber for months and said that to withdraw Ministers would make no sense. He told the DUP that it was still up to its neck in the process, as he and his Colleagues will be for the next two weeks. Had he any integrity or decency, he would do what the DUP leader has done. Dr Paisley has proposed the immediate resignation of his Ministers. I trust that Mr Trimble will follow his example, and that he will not play around with the process any longer. The honourable and decent thing for Mr Trimble to do is to resign. He should withdraw his Ministers, and the Executive will fall today.

Fraser Agnew (UUAP, Belfast North)

I support both motions. Leaving aside Mr Cedric Wilson’s comments, I welcome the united Unionist front in this debate. Speeches made today have reflected the Unionist community’s frustration at an agreement that has failed to deliver and, particularly, at the inability of the forces of infidel Republicanism to state that the war is over and prove it by giving up weapons.

I have said before that my difficulty with the Belfast Agreement was not so much decommissioning, or even prisoner releases, but the North/South bodies. As a Unionist, I had a genuine fear that they could lead to some form of joint authority. However, decommissioning and prisoner releases were also important moral issues. We are dealing with an important moral issue today — decommissioning.

There is a real need for decommissioning. Looking at the situation in north Belfast, with which some of us are familiar, and the orchestration of much of what has happened recently, we can see the need for some form of decommissioning. Over the years, 132 members of the security forces have lost their lives in north Belfast. More significantly, 281 Protestant civilians in the upper Ardoyne area have lost their lives during the troubles. That is why we must view the situation seriously.

The issue of decommissioning concerns us all and must be addressed. Sinn Féin has cynically used the process to change its strategy. If Sinn Féin were genuinely of the opinion that the war was over, there would have been an element of repentance — an apology, or an assurance that it would not happen again and some evidence to show that. There has been no repentance. Instead, Sinn Féin cynically changed the system.

It is unfortunate that when Sinn Féin changed its strategy to one of orchestrating violence, it knew exactly how people in the Protestant community would react. There are difficulties in the Protestant community because of that. Protestants have reacted predictably and, at times, have followed self-defeating strategies that have taken away from what is happening in those areas. They have distracted attention from the failure of the Provisional IRA to decommission and from the needs of a Protestant community that has suffered greatly — more so than the Catholic community, particularly in north Belfast. Attention has been deflected away from the genuine needs of people in those areas. It is slightly nauseating to hear Members of Sinn Féin deriding the large amount of money to be invested in north Belfast and saying that the Protestant community, which is greatly in need of that money, should not receive it because it is a payment for violence. That is untrue and inaccurate. Of course, Sinn Féin can, and does, get away with making such statements.

I understand why the Protestant community follows self-defeating strategies. Housing conditions in Protestant areas have been poor, and that problem has not been addressed. The Provisional IRA has failed to give up the weapons of war that have created such unease and uncertainty in the Protestant community. Attitudes in that community have hardened, with the result that if a referendum on the agreement were held today among the Protestant community, there would be a wholesale rejection of everything that many Members have tried to establish. Thankfully, I was not one of those Members.

What is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? I am not sure. I had a strong Presbyterian upbringing, and, to me, right was right, and wrong was wrong; I still see it that way. I do not see how it can be said that a war is going on between the Provisional IRA and the British occupying forces. Where were the British occupying forces at La Mon, Tullyvallen, Darkley, Kingsmills and Teebane? Where were they on Bloody Friday — an exercise orchestrated by a Member of this House? Eleven people were blown to bloody smithereens because of the activities of that individual.

There is an absolute need to give up the weapons of war, to decommission, if only on moral grounds. No one who is involved in democratic politics should be allowed to hold on to illegal weaponry. People are pretending to be involved in the democratic process but are holding on to the weapons of war. We all know why. They hold on because some of them hope to go back to war for a final push towards their ultimate aim. They do not realise that people down South do not want them either, but that is a debate for another day.

Today, we are debating a serious moral issue. People who are involved in the democratic process do not need illegal arms. For those in democratic politics, there is a legal imperative not to hold illegal weaponry and not to be involved in illegal activities such as gun smuggling, protection rackets or bludgeoning a community into support, even if the community’s wish is to reject such actions. All those issues are involved.

I support the motion for all the right reasons. I welcome the fact that there is a united Unionist front. I urge the House to reject Provisional IRA/Sinn Féin and to exclude it from Government.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

Unlike my Colleague, I hardly celebrate such Unionist unity. If there are as many knives in my back when I have finished as there were in David Trimble’s before he started, we will know how much Unionist unity there is.

We in the Progressive Unionist Party are accused of hypocrisy, and I am sure that we will be accused of more later. I need to clarify that my party’s policy is one of inclusion and pluralism; we recognise that exclusion is at the core of our historical difficulty. If exclusion is that core, inclusion is a way to correct it. I wish that it were a perfect world and that we could do what we wanted on any given day. We made a decision to sign a motion. We had never signed one before. Nobody was that keen on asking us, because we were expected to refuse.

We are in an interesting phase. With or without this motion, we face a suspension, an election, or whatever the Secretary of State decides on, following consultation. Perhaps, however, we have an opportunity to tell each other the truth, to hear that there are serious problems and that others have not fully understood or been prepared to understand? I can give examples. Once, there was 72% support for the Good Friday Agreement. There were those who thought that 26% of the vote was the majority. They found out differently; there was a readiness in both sections of our society to try, to explore and to see.

When we walked out of Castle Buildings on 10 April 1998, we all said "Bye-bye" to each other. We all sold the agreement in ways that could not be described as collective. We were fearful — if we cannot convince the people whom we need to take with us, where will we go from there? In a divided society, no one can convince the people whom he or she represents that they are going in the right direction alone; former enemies are also needed. If the theories and arguments that are being put forward are aimed at pointing people towards the future — along what are, undoubtedly, uncharted waters — those people’s representatives and their former enemies must tell them that they are going in the right direction. People need to be shown that circumstances have changed. That has not happened.

Mr Trimble referred to the mention of decommissioning in the Downing Street declaration of 1993. I have never been a loud advocate of decommissioning. I have been a loud advocate of each person’s taking responsibility for identifying changes and shifts. In the first instance, in a divided society, that can only be a change in language. However, if someone is asked to say that the war is over and that person cannot do so, that means that the war may not be over. If there are so many caveats, it may not be possible to believe that it is over. That has been the case.

The Progressive Unionist Party’s withdrawal from the process, after the Weston Park talks, was an acceptance, on our part that unless the Unionist community could see greater political effectiveness from the Good Friday Agreement we could not proceed. To achieve progress the opposite side must recognise the efforts of Unionists who have taken risks and are prepared to take greater risks. The opposite side must acknowledge those risk-takers, rather than believe, as it has consistently wanted to, that Unionism was attempting to exploit weakness and that there was some kind of game plan involving Mr Trimble and Mr Donaldson. It was thought that the difficulties that the Unionist leadership was experiencing were part of a game to box the Provos in. That could not be further from the truth.

The opposite side is bound to see the hatred, the bitterness and the venom in the Unionist community. We can change the old adage "If you put three Republicans in a room, the first issue on the agenda will be a split."; now it is "put any three Unionists in a room, and the first issue on the agenda will be a split." Republicans saw a society being salami-sliced. Some incidents were not individually earth-shattering but, taken as a collective, were nightmares for Unionists. We believed that there was a chance that when we explored the future, we would see the curtain come down on a brutal and awful past. That belief was blown out of the water by something as simple as the case of a lady who wanted to present prizes in a Catholic school. The Duchess of Abercorn wanted to present prizes for literature to pupils in a Catholic school. Sinn Féin vociferously opposed that on the basis that the lady is a member of the royal family. Sinn Féin was wrong — she is not a member of the royal family. Unionists reeled at that. Then, when Fr Denis Faul met the RUC to discuss crime levels, a crowd of Sinn Féin activists hounded Fr Faul and the RUC officers, and Unionists reeled at that too. We thought that it was OK to have that dialogue; we were told that dialogue worked and that we must make politics work. In his own inimitable way, Fr Denis Faul was trying to make something work for a community that was suffering from increased crime.

There was the nonsense over the Angelo Fusco extradition to Northern Ireland. The extradition was perfectly legitimate within the parameters of the Good Friday Agreement, but pressure exerted by Sinn Féin leaders tragically encouraged the Irish Government to change their mind. Unionists heard a certain language from the leadership of Sinn Féin but saw different behaviour from Sinn Féin — or in some cases IRA — activists. Which is the true element?

It is difficult for someone who has stood exposed in his own community, having said that he believed that Sinn Féin and its leaders, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, were genuine about the future, to discover that most of his community, while willing to listen when the question was first asked, are unlikely to believe that Sinn Féin is genuine.

There will be another chance to put things back together. In some ways, the motion highlights the fact that we the Unionist community cannot be salami-sliced. The Unionist community cannot think that it will manage this society easily by itself and leave Republicanism and Nationalism behind. There must be a collective way to create inclusion — not a collective form of exclusion — so that people will be relatively comfortable. It might be a long time before we are completely comfortable. However, I appeal for us to do that.

In answer to David Ford, who asked where my confidence in decommissioning was, I should explain the comments that I made on Saturday. My confidence in the delivery of weaponry is not founded on morality. This society uses morality as a weapon, which does a great disservice to our hopes for the future. In a divided society, there is no single overarching morality or truth. We can weld ourselves into a little homogenous unit and touch each other’s anal parts, like chimpanzees, for comfort, but we must learn to live together. The choice is simple. In order to show that politics works, decommissioning, or putting weapons beyond use — as some people like to term it — will come out of practicality, not morality.

Soon, we will face a choice. I hope that when the motion is defeated, as it undoubtedly will be, Sinn Féin does not spit out the dummy. I hope that it will recognise that, for whatever reasons, there is a requirement to give confidence to the Unionist community. Whatever move it makes, could it please ensure that that move is recognisable?

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

October has turned out to be a sad month. It is also the month in which the Shankill bomb and the Greysteel murders took place. It is the month of the funeral of Marty O’Hagan, the first journalist to be killed in the troubles, and of the military response in Afghanistan. Undoubtedly, one of the saddest things for us is that we meet for probably one of the last times before we go into yet another suspension.

Some of the language used today was important. We have heard again and again, as Mr Trimble said, that if a person has a past, he or she can still have a future. Those are important words, and they should not be disparaged. We should all apply those words to ourselves. I am fed up with the denial, the minimisation and the rationalisation that goes on when we talk about our past. Every one of us contributed to that past, so let us stop denying that we are unconnected to the reasons for our differences.

It is important that we continue to hear that militant Republicanism will be redundant — not in the past tense but, as David Ford said, in the future tense. That must be worked out. It is important that when Martin McGuinness, who is named in one of the motions today, contributed to the book ‘Being Irish’, he specifically addressed the Unionist people, arguing that

"they will not have to give up anything they wish to preserve — including their British citizenship"

in what he also hoped would one day become a multicultural, secular society. Those sentiments would not have been expressed in the 1970s. However, they were expressed last year and continue to be expressed this year.

It is time to move beyond the newspaper articles that undermine confidence and the shock security disclosures of the past few months. It is also time to move beyond someone else’s deadlines. The IRA need not wait for the correct political context to be set by others — I believe that it is within the IRA’s power to set that context itself. That is why our language and our actions are important. If we go into review, we must ensure that the political context remains uppermost in our minds.

I am despondent. We have one final opportunity not to do what we have done during every other review, which is to create and continue a cycle of breakdown and patch-up until we have almost destroyed the community’s confidence in our ability to make the agreement work. It is hurtful to use the word "exclusion" and tell people that they are not wanted, that they are to be excluded or marginalised — except for those who feel that they have a self-importance given to them at birth. It is important that, when an exclusion motion is tabled, or a review is entered into, parties realise that it is not only their issues that are on the agenda, but all parties’ issues. Authorship of the agreement is ownership of the agreement, as we should work to include all parties. Some Members may say things that we do not wish to hear; none the less, it is extremely important that we hear them, especially if some think that those who support the agreement are the minority of a majority. A majority voted for the agreement in the referendum. However, if those who support the agreement are now in the minority, we must hear them say why it is not working.

Clarity about substantive issues and about the creation of relationships that enable those substantive issues to be dealt with makes for good negotiations. We know the substantive issues that contribute to making the agreement work, but we are useless at creating the relationships that would enable us to deal positively with those substantive issues. We must stop talking at each another and begin to talk to one another. To date, that major ingredient has been missing. We know the confidence-building measures that must be put in place. Our communities almost despair that we have not got enough faith in one another to put those confidence-building measures in place. Senator Mitchell said that

"Intransigence takes people’s hope, violence takes away lives."

I have a great deal of respect for Alan McBride, whose wife and father-in-law were killed in the Shankill bombing. He represents victims in his work at the WAVE Trauma Centre and represents victims’ organisations in the Civic Forum. He says that he does not represent all victims. At the Civic Forum he said that he recognised that he was

"a minority in that majority community because he would still choose to say yes to the Belfast Agreement. He could see no other conceivable, workable solution that would bring us to where we are today."

He went on to make the important point that there would be the beginnings of a new future:

"if all parties keep up their end of the bargain".

We should remember that that man lost his wife and his father-in-law, but he still believes that it was important for him that we put the agreement together. He believes more work must be done. As political leaders, the least that we can do is to stop demanding political progress and begin to work at it. If we are to go into review, the most important message that we can send out to people is that, this time, we shall set the terms of reference. It is ridiculous to talk about opening up the entire agreement. We know what substantive issues must be worked at and fixed, and that is the message that we must send out to the community.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Since entering the Assembly I have been consistent on two points. First, the political representatives of active terrorist organisations retaining arms have no place in the democratic process. Secondly, I have a committed and dedicated opposition to all forms of sectarianism. As far as I am concerned, the remarks by Mr Adams about people who do not want Fenians, as he described them, about the place are totally and completely inappropriate, and I have made that case many times here.

On the basis of those principles there is absolutely no way in which, even at the price of Unionist unity on this, I could conceivably support the UUP motion. There is no basis upon which one can argue, from either a rational or a moral ground of justification, that a motion to exclude one group which is not entirely dedicated to peaceful methods should be supported by another group that is guilty of exactly the same intransigence.

Until today I had thought that if there were a contest for the crown of utter political hypocrisy, Mr Trimble and Mr Blair would be the front runners. However, Mr Adams has placed himself in prime position for that crown. When we hear people such as Mr Adams, Mr McGuinness and Mr Ervine give forth lofty sentiments about working together, democracy and peace, we have to examine their antecedents. Mr Adams himself was commander of the Belfast Brigade on Bloody Friday, and Mr McGuinness was a self-confessed officer — commanding officer, perhaps — in the Derry Brigade during a period when 22 people had their lives taken from them.

We hear the mantra repeated by Mr Trimble, and echoed by Mr Adams, that because people have a past does not mean that they cannot have a future. It could be nonsense, or it could be true. However, the real issue is where they stand at present and whether they have shown any ability or capacity to transmute themselves from terrorist to democrat. I see no evidence of that. I see no such evidence because both Mr McGuinness and Mr Adams are members of the seven-man IRA Army Council, and recent information is that Mr McGuinness is now the general officer commanding. We have these people coming forward, and we have the "trainspotter supreme" gesticulating. Someone should send him a pair of binoculars so that he can see Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness more closely.

The truth is that Mr Trimble, as usual, has got absolutely nothing. He got nothing when he signed the agreement in April 1998. He was totally conned by Mr Blair. These are two lawyers. Mr Trimble is a lawyer who was conned by a letter from Mr Blair that gave him some sort of comfort. Mr Trimble should have understood that one party to a multi-party agreement, even if that one party were a Government, could not alter, amend or substitute any term of that agreement without the consent of all. That is the sort of stuff for first-year law students, not an alleged constitutional lawyer.

He desperately wanted to get his sticky fingers on what he believed to be the levers of power in the devolved Government. He got nothing after the Mitchell review in autumn 1999. He tells us now that George Mitchell made all sorts of statements about what was agreed, but when George was asked to make some public utterances as to what had been agreed, George disappeared. Mr Trimble got nothing after the Hillsborough talks in May 2000 either. However, before leaving George Mitchell’s review, I should mention the infamous letter of resignation. This man of political awareness and acuity was so confident that the IRA would decommission that he offered his letter of resignation if his hopes were not fulfilled.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can the Member clarify whether he is speaking for or against the motion?

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

That is not a point of order, and I do not have to clarify it. It is typical of the bogus points of order that Mr Adams engages in. The truth is that Mr Trimble got absolutely nothing then. Then there were the Hillsborough talks in May 2000. He got absolutely nothing then either. Having got nothing three times, he was willing to be persuaded that he should re-enter the Assembly and the Executive.

Now he is under pressure from his own party and believes that there is a window of opportunity because of the events in New York and Washington. The focus of the world democracies is on terrorism generally, and sooner or later it will be on the terrorism of the IRA. He believes that that provides him with an opportunity to bring this, on the face of it, macho motion to exclude Sinn Féin.

In truth it is nothing of the kind. In essence the motion is a fraud. It permits Mr Trimble to withdraw his Ministers, hang about for 10 days or two weeks while all sorts of pressures are brought on Mr Adams and Company to produce some absolutely worthless gesture about decommissioning that will enable Mr Trimble to get those sticky fingers back on the levers. So the UUP motion is not one that any democrat could support.

There was talk from Mr Mallon about stunts, but this is not the first time that a motion supported by every Unionist has come before the Assembly. In December 1998 the UKUP proposed a motion that every Unionist agreed with. What was that motion about? It was about preventing the representatives of paramilitary organisations who had not decommissioned from entering the Executive until they had shown their bona fides.

Mr Trimble supported that motion, but a few months later he abandoned all that and entered, in league with members of Sinn Féin, into the Executive. Having got them into the Executive, he was faced with the problem of how he could get them to honour the basic requirement of any democracy. Of course, all along the line he failed. Now, probably in league with his puppet master in 10 Downing Street, he produces the argument that they have to be put out.

Two weeks ago I described the political hypocrisy of Mr Trimble as mind-boggling. That was based on his condemnation of the UDA for its activities in north Belfast. However, he used the UDA and the UVF and their political representatives to get the Belfast Agreement signed and to be elected as First Minister. Now, within two weeks, he excels even that level of hypocrisy by inviting the representatives of one set of terrorists to bring about the demise of another.

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

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I will be voting for and supporting the exclusion of Sinn Féin. I would also vote for the exclusion of the PUP if that were an option.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I speak in favour of the motion. I am not sure if there has been an amendment tabled, given the attacks on Mr Trimble. There is a crisis of confidence in the political institutions and the political process in Northern Ireland. Whose fault is that? Even the IRA recognises its culpability. Its statement spoke of putting in place a

"confidence-building measure".

There is no confidence, and that lack of confidence has led to the motion’s coming forward. The Provisionals have been involved in 32 murders since 1994.

If the IRA will not disarm and disband, the time has come for the House to ensure that its political representatives have no role to play in the governance of Northern Ireland. As a result of the terrible events in the USA on 11 September, the free world has changed forever. Sinn Féin/IRA must realise that. Its fascist campaign is over; it cannot be resurrected.

The Prime Minister has declared war on terrorism. If he is serious, he could send no clearer signal of his intent than to start here in his backyard. I have not forgotten the Prime Minister’s handwritten pledges made to the people of Northern Ireland in May 1998. They included the promise that those who use or threaten violence would be excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland and that prisoners would be kept in prison unless violence was given up for good. I ask the Prime Minister about the promises to the people of Northern Ireland. He has failed us miserably.

Yet Sinn Féin/IRA arrogantly continues to defy public opinion in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and it ignores the public statements of Her Majesty’s Government and the Irish and American Governments. Decommissioning is patently not just a Unionist demand or the result of a Unionist deadline; it is a democratic demand and part of a democratic deadline. In seeking justice, we do not seek to bring down Stormont and the democratic institutions. Indeed, it is because Stormont and the democratic process mean so much to us and we have so much respect for them, that we cannot allow either this place or this process to be debased any longer by the presence of the political representatives of terror in the Government of Northern Ireland.

Republicans confound the truth regularly, because the problems that they allegedly suffered under the Stormont Parliament come at the lower end of the scale of human grievances. To make comparisons with South African people under apartheid, as they often do, is absurd. Their comparisons only belittle the serious grievances suffered by those people.

The Republican campaign slowed down legal reform in Northern Ireland. The result of the IRA-inspired rape of this community was more hatred, distrust, bitterness and strife between the people of Northern Ireland. The Republican movement should hold its head in shame. Seven and a half years after Dick Spring said that the IRA must decommission, it has failed to do so. The Republicans are the wreckers of the Good Friday Agreement. Their continued campaign was, and is, wrong; it is criminal and filled with deceit.

As for the claim that the guns are silent — what nonsense. I referred to 32 people murdered by the Provisionals. However, even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. During the period of the Cold War, many people protested against nuclear weapons. The fact that those weapons were silent did not make them any less of a threat. It is the same with the illegal stockpiles of weaponry held by the IRA. The usual excuse of silent guns will come as a surprise to the RUC officers who came under automatic fire in north Belfast recently. It will also come as a surprise to the families of those who suffered IRA punishment shootings. The real human rights abusers are those who shoot or beat young people tried by a kangaroo court. Yet there is a deafening silence from senior Sinn Féin Members, including their Ministers. Strangely they are not so reticent when they suspect Loyalists or the security forces of wrongdoing.

The schizophrenia that characterises Republicanism is, therefore, alive and well today. At the Sinn Féin party conference 10 days ago, Gerry Kelly said that he knew all three Colombian "tourists" — that is strange. When they were arrested, Sinn Féin was at pains to say that those men were not party members and that no one, even those who had appeared on platforms with them at previous gatherings, seemed to know who they were. Gerry Adams had to be told by the Cuban Government that Niall Connolly was his party’s representative in Cuba and Latin America — that is questionable. I wonder how many other representatives about whom he knows nothing are out there? No doubt, they and Mr Adams are as elusive as a wet fish.

In addition, let us not forget the Florida gunrunning plot. At the time of the incident, the IRA said that it was not responsible, yet those who were convicted are now listed as Republican prisoners alongside the killers of Garda Gerry McCabe. In the dark world of Sinn Féin/IRA, evil is good, murder is justifiable, and the truth, like other people’s lives, is a cheap commodity.

Recently, the president of Sinn Féin claimed that terrorism is ethically indefensible. Where has Gerry Adams been for the past 30 years? The dead and wounded of Bloody Friday, Claudy, Birmingham, La Mon, Harrods, Enniskillen or Canary Wharf could have told him that a long time ago. The victims of those attacks, which were all on civilian targets, would have little difficulty in identifying those responsible as terrorists rather than freedom fighters. How dare the perpetrators of these outrages on civilians send condolences to the American victims of terror? Links to ETA, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), Libya and now the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) are well documented.

The problem for Sinn Féin/IRA is that the truth hurts. It has told so many lies and generated so much propaganda that it believes its own publicity. It cannot accept the fact that the IRA is a terrorist group, because it cannot face the awful truth of what it has done to this country and its people over the past 30 years.

Let us look at what it has done: it has bombed the centres of cities and towns; destroyed the economy; frightened off outside investment; created unemployment; murdered the forces of law and order; and murdered and maimed innocent people, Protestant and Catholic. Despite this, it has the effrontery to talk about human rights, jobs and equality. That is blatant hypocrisy, and with full intent to deceive the uninitiated.

Footage of IRA funerals shows that leading Sinn Féin members play key roles in those events, and some might even say that they organised them. The prime example must be the funeral of Thomas Begley, the mass-murderer of innocent shoppers on the Shankill Road. Was Mr Adams not a pallbearer that day? In response to the cry "Bring back the IRA", a certain gentleman felt confident enough to reply, "They haven’t gone away, you know". How could he speak with such authority?

The same individual now issues thinly veiled threats to those Nationalists who are tempted to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It appears that it is acceptable for Sinn Féin MLAs to be in the pay of the British state by virtue of their Stormont seats, but not so for young Catholics who want a job serving all the people of Northern Ireland as part of the police force.

It is, therefore, time to call a halt to the gut-wrenching hypocrisy of Sinn Féin/IRA. This process has given it a chance to leave behind its past and to build for itself a democratic future. It is not the fault of democrats that the IRA is still wedded to the path of fascist armed struggle. Democrats should not be expected to indulge the IRA any longer, and they should not be punished for the failure of fascists. We have been patient and have gone beyond the extra mile in an attempt to secure peace, while others have not budged. Time and time again we have jumped.

David Trimble, with tremendous courage, has taken great political and personal risks to sustain the process. No one could have done more, and I pay tribute to his skills, resilience, dedication and responsibility. However, the responsibility for the present crisis lies with the Sinn Féin/IRA Republican movement as a whole. It alone has failed to fully implement the Good Friday Agreement. Having listened to Sinn Féin today, I know of no spectacle more offensive and more ridiculous than the Republican movement in many fits of pretentious morality. I support the motion.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is ar alt 30 mír 2(a) d’ Acht Thuaisceart Éireann 1998 a bhraitheann rún an iarChéad-Aire, agus féachann sé le baill de chuid Sinn Féin a eisiamh ó oifig aireachta.

Níl aon amhras faoi thiomantas mo pháirtí don neamhfhoréigean agus do mhodhanna síochánta daonlathacha amháin. Mar sin de níl ciall ná réasún leis an rún. Níl ann ach leithscéal le gníomh a dhéanamh níos moille leis na hinstitiúidí a chur ó mhaith. Níl sa mhéid a fheicimid inniu ach toradh chairt na scriostóirí a leag sé amach ina litir chuig a chomhAontachtaithe tá bliain ó shin nuair a chuir sé síos ar a intinn an Tionól a thabhairt chun éigeandála, na hinstitiúidí a chur ar fionraí agus an locht a fhágáil ar Phoblachtanaigh.

Is léir go bhfuil an tUasal Trimble in éadan an athraithe. Sáróidh ar a rún inniu. Mar sin féin, tá seans go n-éireoidh leis na hinstitiúidí a chur ar fionraí nó iad a scrios go hiomlán fiú féin.

Faoi alt 30 d’Acht Thuaisceart Éireann 1998 is féidir Aire ar bith a chur as oifig má sháraíonn air/uirthi téarmaí ar bith an Ghealltanais Oifige a chomhall. Cuimsíonn siad i bhfad níos mó ná tiomantas don neamhfhoréigean agus do mhodhanna síochánta daonlathacha amháin. Cuimsíonn siad gealltanas dualgais oifige uile a chomhall de mheon macánta. Cuimsíonn siad gealltanas fónamh don mhuintir uile ar bhealach comhionann agus gníomhú de réir na n-oibleagáidí ginearálta a bhíonn ar rialtas comhionannas a chur chun cinn agus leithcheal a chosc.

Cuirim i gcuimhne do Chomhaltaí go n-éilíonn an Cód Iompair, a chaithfidh Airí a chomhlíonadh i dtólamh, ar Airí oibriú ar bhealach a chabhróidh le deachaidreamh pobail agus le comhionannas déileála a chur chun cinn.

Lena chois, sa Dearbhú Tacaíochta sa chomhaontú tiomnaíonn rannpháirtithe iad féin don chomhpháirtíocht, don chomhionannas agus don chomhurraim mar bhonn leis na caidrimh laistigh de thuaisceart Éireann, idir an Tuaisceart agus an Deisceart, agus idir na hoileáin seo.

Tá sé íorónta mar sin de go bhfuil muid ag plé rúin a fhéachann le mé féin agus mo Chomhghleacaí aireachta Máirtín MacAonghusa a chur as oifig aireachta. Cuireadh an rún seo chun tosaigh ag iarChéad-Aire a sháraigh níos mó ná uair amháin go neamhnáireach Gealltanas Oifige an chomhaontaithe, a Chód Iompair, a Dhearbhú Tacaíochta agus Acht Thuaisceart Éireann 1998. Chinn na cúirteanna go ndearna an t-iarChéad-Aire, le linn dó bheith in oifig, beart mídhleachach nuair a dhiúltaigh sé ainmniúcháin a dhéanamh do chruinnithe earnála na Comhairle Aireachta Thuaidh/Theas.

The motion brought by the former First Minister relies on section 30, subsection 2(a) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. He seeks to exclude members of Sinn Féin from holding ministerial office, and when one of them rises to speak, he leaves the Chamber.

My party’s commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means is unequivocal. Therefore, the motion has no rational basis. It represents no more than a smokescreen for subsequent action aimed at collapsing the institutions. What we are dealing with here is the outworking of Mr Trimble’s wrecker’s charter as set out in his letter to fellow Unionists a year ago, when he outlined his intention to see a crisis in the Assembly, achieve suspension of the institutions and place the blame on Republicans.

It would appear that Mr Trimble is opposed to change. His motion will fail. He may, however, succeed in again provoking the suspension, or even the collapse, of the institutions.

Section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 allows for the exclusion from office of any Minister on the basis of a failure on his or her part to observe any of the terms of the Pledge of Office. These terms include a pledge to discharge in good faith all the duties of office. They include a pledge to serve all of the people equally and to act in accordance with the general obligations in Government to promote equality and prevent discrimination.

Let me remind Members also that the code of conduct, which Ministers must abide by, requires Ministers to operate at all times in a way conducive to promoting good community relations and equality of treatment. Furthermore, in the declaration of support for the agreement, participants commit themselves to partnership, equality and mutual respect as the basis of relationships in the North of Ireland, between North and South, and between these islands.

It is ironic, therefore, that we are debating a motion put forward by a former First Minister, who in his period of office was in clear and flagrant breach of the agreement’s Pledge of Office on a number of counts — its code of conduct, its declaration of support, and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. In his period of office as First Minister, the courts found that he acted unlawfully in refusing to make nominations to the North/South Ministerial Council’s sectoral meetings.

It is also ironic and a little hypocritical that Mr Trimble informs us of his intention to bring the motion challenging my party’s commitment to non-violence and exclusively democratic means yet tells us in almost the same breath that when his motion fails, as it clearly will, he will withdraw his party colleagues from the Executive and bring about the collapse of the institutions.

It would appear that Mr Trimble’s own commitment to democratic means extends only to the point at which he ceases to get his way. Mr Trimble announced his intention to put his motion to the Assembly and, at the same time, threatened to take action to bring down the political institutions if his motion does not get the endorsement that he seeks. It does not seem to matter to Mr Trimble that over 70% of the people who participated in the referendums, North and South, voted in favour of the full operation of the institutions.

Against a background of overwhelming support, North and South, for the agreement and the institutions, Mr Trimble has provoked the suspension of the operation of these institutions three times. He has fractured the operation of the North/South Ministerial Council and blocked sectoral meetings of that Council on education, and health and food safety. His actions have led to the postponement of further plenary meetings of the Council, and he has impeded proper ministerial consideration of work on accident and emergency services, emergency planning, high technology equipment, cancer research and health promotion. He has impeded the operation of the Food Safety Promotion Board at a time when food safety is so crucial to people across the island of Ireland.

Mr Trimble has threatened to withdraw his party’s Ministers from the Executive to render unworkable the remaining political institutions and to bring about a further suspension or collapse. No one should underestimate what the effect will be if Mr Trimble is allowed to continue with his wrecker’s charter. Many of those who voted for the institutions did so in the belief that an Executive comprising local Ministers could and would benefit their lives in the way that we have committed ourselves to doing in the Programme for Government. They voted in the belief that if we are to catch up with the rest of Europe on the delivery and quality of services — health and social services, in particular — we stand a much better chance of doing so with an Executive of local Ministers and a local Assembly than under direct rule, which presided over the rundown of those same services in the past.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Most importantly, the Good Friday Agreement offered a historic opportunity for a new beginning, a fresh start for everyone in society. It gave all Unionists the opportunity to see myself, as Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and my party Colleague, Martin McGuinness, as Minister of Education, impact positively on their lives. That is beginning to happen. The agreement gave Nationalists the opportunity to see Unionists carry out their offices for the benefit of all and act without holding on to power for themselves and without excluding others. That we still await.

Those who refuse to take up the challenges place at risk the opportunity to make the agreement a success. It is little wonder that people now ask me whether the prospect of success might be precisely what motivates or agitates Mr Trimble. I am asked whether it is Mr Trimble who is becoming increasingly nervous as Nationalist Ministers, and others, show evidence of their commitment to serve everyone equally. People also wonder whether Mr Trimble has the same difficulty, or even greater difficulty, with Sinn Féin and SDLP Ministers’ placing equality at the heart of Government as he has with accepting the democratically expressed wishes across the island of Ireland.

The logic of seeking to move from the conflict of the past to a new and peaceful future is to realise that to overcome the hurt of the past requires dialogue and co-operation. The key to conflict resolution is a resolve to avoid using the process to gain short-term political advantages over old adversaries. Dialogue, negotiation and implementation of agreements already reached cannot and must not be reduced to political manoeuvring. We who are partaking in a transition process need to convince our supporters that co-operation rather than confrontation is the way forward. To undermine those who seek an alternative way is to risk a mood swing against the whole process. That would benefit no one.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

During the first few hours of this debate, I noted that several Members spoke in acrimonious tones. The word "hypocrisy" seemed to feature in everyone’s speech. I look at this debate more positively than some who have spoken. I welcome Mr Trimble and the Ulster Unionist Party to this debate on the exclusion motion. My Colleagues are well used to such things — they have been through them on several occasions.

On the first occasion, Ulster Unionist Party Members decided to lock themselves in their Glengall Street office. The whiff of the debate might have been too strong for them. On the second occasion, they ventured into Stormont although they locked themselves in their rooms. Therefore, it is real progress to have them here for an exclusion debate. As Mr Mallon said, they used to consider such a debate to be a stunt; Mr Trimble now sees it as a clever tactical move, replete with moral efficacy, and that must be progress for Unionism.

There are those who say that it is hypocritical of Mr Trimble to withdraw his Ministers, or to contemplate doing so, having chided the Democratic Unionist Party for many months, if not years, for taking up what he described as an unacceptable position. I recall that when Nigel Dodds and I first went into ministerial office, he referred to us as rogue Ministers. Members may say that that is hypocritical of Mr Trimble, but I see it as progress. Just because someone got it wrong in the past, it does not mean that he must get it wrong in the future. I welcome the fact that he has taken the DUP line on exclusion and withdrawal. He may want to take it a step further and recognise that immediate resignations are required.

There are also those who consider a joint Ulster Unionist/PUP motion to be hypocritical. How, they argue, can the UUP table a motion to exclude IRA/Sinn Féin while in harness with the PUP? Well, it gives us an opportunity to vote twice for the exclusion of IRA/Sinn Fein, and we should not miss any opportunity to exclude terrorists from Government.

The main issue is the exclusion from the Government of Northern Ireland of a terrorist group still wedded to active terrorism. It is not a new issue for debate — there are no new factors. In the debate on 18 September, I outlined in detail the breaches of the so-called ceasefire and the contraventions of the principle of exclusive commitment to peaceful and democratic means. I showed that the Provisional IRA had carried out 170 punishment shootings during the period of its so-called ceasefire. On top of that, I said that it had been involved in 250 paramilitary beatings, in robberies, in excluding people from Northern Ireland, in gunrunning from Florida, in training and in equipping itself with new expertise in bomb warfare in the jungles of Colombia, as well as multiple murders. The IRA has murdered Jim Guiney, Robert Dougan, Brendan Campbell, Andrew Kearney, Eamon Collins, Brendan Fegan, Paul Downey, Charles Bennett, Joe O’Connor, Christopher O’Kane and Paul Daly. That organisation is on ceasefire and is supposed to be committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.

We have had the hypocrisy — there is that word again, Mr Deputy Speaker — of the leader of IRA/Sinn Féin saying in the Assembly today that no reason had been given for excluding it from Government. Are not those names good reasons why it should be excluded from Government? IRA/Sinn Féin is still tied in to active terrorism and has not given it up. As Mr Adams said himself, the IRA "has not gone away, you know." It is not necessary to argue too much of a case that the Provisional IRA, with its political wing, Sinn Féin, is in breach of any requirement to be committed to peaceful and democratic means. It has used its weaponry to extract concessions and intends to continue to do so.

We have had the nauseating spectacle of Sinn Féin/ IRA’s attempt to dissociate itself from terrorism because, today, there is an acceptance throughout the world that those who are involved in terrorism should be shunned. IRA/Sinn Féin attempts to distance itself by saying that there is some distinction to be drawn between the violence that it was engaged in and the violence that we saw in New York and Washington. Indeed, at the Sinn Féin conference, the Member for North Belfast said that the IRA was not a terrorist organisation:

"When I went to war against the British because they were at war with the occupied section of my people, I didn’t think it was immoral. On the contrary, I thought we had a moral right. But I have no hesitation in condemning what happened in America because hijackers took civilians in aeroplanes and crashed into other innocent people in the towers and the Pentagon. Those were quite obviously acts of terrorism."

He cannot condemn the bombing of the World Trade Centre out of one side of his mouth and then decree that virtue and merit should be ascribed to the bombing of Canary Wharf, the City of London, Enniskillen, La Mon or any of the other acts of terrorism in which the IRA has been engaged. The leader of IRA/Sinn Féin suggests that the heroes of Enniskillen and La Mon are brave men. The world rightly condemns terrorism, of which the IRA is an integral part.

The road is running out for the IRA. The world has changed since 11 September, and its members know it. They will now consider trying to placate world opinion by some token act of decommissioning. The two dumps with their obsolete weaponry have already been compromised. Perhaps they will consider concreting over them. That will not satisfy Unionist public opinion, nor will it satisfy world opinion. To be meaningful and credible, decommissioning must be complete and publicly verifiable. Moreover, it will necessitate a programme for dismantling the IRA’s paramilitary machine, which in every aspect is still active.

The SDLP has coasted through the debate by telling the Ulster Unionists, Sinn Féin and the DUP that they are wrong, without focusing on its own behaviour. The SDLP could keep the Assembly operating, but I know that it will instead maintain its link with IRA/Sinn Féin. Like the Taliban in Afghanistan, it will not give the terrorists up. However, the SDLP must choose between Taliban tactics or side with those who will not accept terrorist rule.

The Prime Minister, Mr Blair, and President Bush, at the start of the present campaign, which affects the whole world, said that they would invite nations to choose to be with or against the terrorists. They asked "Whose side are you on?" Today, in Northern Ireland, the same question is posed in this Chamber. When we go into the Lobbies, we will see who votes for the terrorists and who votes against them.

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

We are debating a motion that should never have come before the House. Those of us who signed the Good Friday Agreement recognised that it required more than signatures to end conflict and to facilitate the development of new political partnerships. Mutual trust remained to be built, not just by working the new institutions but by delivering on all the confidence-building measures prescribed by the agreement, including decommissioning. Mutual trust is clearly not yet sufficiently present among all the pro-agreement parties, and especially not between Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party. Until it is, the agreement’s promise will be only fitfully realised and its very continuation endangered.

Removing the only context in which the agreement can submit considerably increases the risk of its collapse. For 30 years, Sinn Féin supported the IRA’s campaign of violence. Thousands of its victims were from the Protestant, Unionist community. The need for Sinn Féin and the whole Provisional movement to build confidence in its commitment to the Good Friday Agreement was therefore an inescapable and profound challenge. Building that confidence had to mean more than participation — no matter how enthusiastic and committed — in the institutions alongside Unionist representatives. Participation accompanied by mere promises on decommissioning does not generate sufficient confidence that the IRA really intends to put its arms permanently beyond use. I accept that the inspection of arms dumps has not been unhelpful, but promises to the international commission have not been followed through by practical steps towards putting arms permanently and verifiably beyond use.

Do the IRA and Sinn Féin not see that a minimalist and apparently reluctant approach to decommissioning is seriously undermining pro-agreement Unionist confidence in Sinn Féin’s commitment to the agreement? It is also, perhaps, undermining the agreement itself. I cannot believe that they do not see that. To judge by some things that were said and by some things that were done, I am forced to believe that some of them do not care. It is a strange position for a movement that claims that its ultimate objective is to unite the people of the island.

It is not just Unionist confidence that Sinn Féin and the IRA are required to encourage. The wider Nationalist family in Ireland, which also suffered greatly during the 30 years, from IRA and Loyalist violence, and which overwhelmingly opposed politically motivated violence is just as entitled to know whether the Provisional movement is fully committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.

As much as anyone who has been involved in politics in Northern Ireland, I recognised that putting 30 years of violence behind us was never going to be easy or swift, no matter how widespread the support. People in both communities needed convincing both by their own leaders’ words and by the words and deeds of leaders in the other community. Resolute action to have all aspects of the agreement gradually implemented in parallel was required. A willingness to take account of each other’s difficulties, as well as one’s own, was required. Perhaps, Martin McGuinness’s words at his party’s Ard-Fheis last week about how Unionist concerns need attention can be welcomed as a shift in that direction.

The UUP and other Unionists, just as much as Sinn Féin, should have realised the need to take others’ difficulties and perceptions into account. Prevarication in the early months of the Assembly over the Executive and the North/South Ministerial Council and, more recently, sanctions against Ministers’ attendance at North/South meetings have raised doubts about the depth of their commitment to the political process and the Good Friday Agreement. Loyalist paramilitaries claiming to support the agreement should also have realised and acted on the requirements to build trust, just as much as the IRA. Their re-engagement in violence has been even greater than the IRA’s, and it has stretched the meaning of being on ceasefire beyond belief. Is the PUP’s support for the exclusion motion to be taken as a signal that the Loyalist paramilitaries who are associated with that party are, at last, prepared to commence actual decommissioning? If so, the PUP’s support for the motion, in one sense, can be taken as a welcome signal. If not, the sincerity of its support for the motion is seriously open to question.

I recognise that the UUP agreed to enter the Executive — not once, but twice — following IRA promises on decommissioning. As a result, together with Ministers from my party and Sinn Féin, UUP Ministers have demonstrated what can be done for the people of Northern Ireland when we combine our political resources. Last week, I addressed the House with Sir Reg Empey on the threats hanging over hundreds of workers in the aerospace industry. This week, I am due to engage with Sir Reg and Mr Morrow on the economic development of west Belfast and the Shankill. I am engaged with Ministers de Brún and McGuinness in dealing with drugs and alcohol abuse, especially among the young. I make those points to illustrate the positive work that the Executive and the Assembly are doing. We should work together to address the problems that affect all the people of Northern Ireland. However, to sustain our efforts, we need more trust and confidence between pro-agreement parties.

We are on the brink of another of those critical moments that have plagued the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The SDLP remains convinced that the agreement, with all its checks and balances — constitutional and political — together with its human rights, policing and justice agendas is the only basis upon which lasting peace and stability can be achieved. What is needed, even at this late stage, is a political breathing space that would help to cement the agreement. That would strengthen, not lose or endanger, the emerging partnerships. Through their past actions and their intentions over the next few days, the Unionist leadership, together with Sinn Féin, are denying the process the space that it requires.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

As someone who has supported the agreement through thick and thin, I know a bit about taking political risks. I take no pleasure from the fact that we find ourselves forced to table this motion. However, I see no alternative. I remind the House that the mechanism that is reflected in our motion was envisaged in the agreement and, therefore, in the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

There were — and still are — three things that the Republican movement could do to demonstrate its good faith in the implementation of the agreement: decommissioning; saying that what it calls "the war" is over; and ending the violence. Curiously, ending the violence perhaps receives the least attention. Although it appears from the evidence of recent years that the Republican movement has given up fighting the Army and the police — a contest in which it could never get more than a draw — it has certainly not given up terrorising its own community; nor have certain Loyalist elements. When it suits them, Republicans and Loyalists terrorise the interface to make one side stir up the other. Nowhere would an end to violence be more welcome than in those paramilitary fiefdoms. Unfortunately, those fiefdoms seem to have expanded over the past five or six years.

The Republican intimidation and terror machine was at its most visible during the recent election campaign. In ‘The Irish News’ on 5 June 2001, Ms Rodgers, who was the SDLP candidate in West Tyrone, said that she had received a warm reception from most people in West Tyrone, but that

"there are some Sinn Féin supporters who are engaged in a sinister and systematic campaign of abuse and intimidation against me and my election workers".

That is a disgraceful situation in a democracy. When that election was over, Ms Rodgers said that she did not want to make a fuss. Had that intimidation come from part of the Unionist community, we would still be hearing the fuss. There is no doubt that it suits Sinn Féin to undermine the electoral process, but it does nothing but harm to the SDLP and the institutions that are elected through that process. I sometimes wonder whether the SDLP is really the voice of moderate Nationalism — the voice of the community that is having to live under the jackboot of nightly terrorism from the Republican machine.

For clear language on the subject, I turn south of the border to Mr Quinn, the leader of the Irish Labour Party, who made some pertinent comments at his party conference. He said that

"To be a Republican is to believe in the sovereignty of the people. But these people are not true Republicans. For three years, they have refused to comply with the mandate explicitly voted for by the people of the whole island, north and south. That mandate was to put arms beyond use."

He went on to say:

"it’s time… to stop peddling the lie, that the putting of arms beyond use is some kind of British or Unionist diktat. It is a direct order from the Irish people, no more and no less."

On occasion, we hear similar language from Mr Mallon. I have a question for Mr Mallon and his party. If a direct order of this kind is disobeyed, what action follows the words? Mr Bush and Mr Blair made direct demands of the Taliban regime. When they were not obeyed, that regime got the answer — in fact, just the beginning of the answer — yesterday. It is just as well for the IRA and the Irish Republic that we are dealing with this issue entirely through the constitutional mechanisms available to us, and not by more drastic means.

The SDLP could have won considerable political advantage by distinguishing itself from Sinn Féin. A consistently robust attitude towards intimidation by the IRA and towards its failure to decommission would be an obvious way to express that distinction, and I am surprised that the SDLP rarely seems to adopt such an attitude. The SDLP could also point out that terrorism has contributed nothing towards the realisation of the dream of a united Ireland. Indeed, it has made that possibility more remote than ever. Those are powerful arguments but for some reason, they are not being properly made.

The d’Hondt system was used to form the Executive. The system was not designed for that purpose; it was designed for use in the formation of Committees. The d’Hondt system, when used in the formation of an Executive, creates an unusual and distorted system of government. It was employed mainly to accommodate the Republican movement. If Republicans are not going to fulfil their obligations on decommissioning and non-violence, there is no need to persist with those distortions. That, however, does not mean moving away from an inclusive system of government. It means drawing a distinction between a fully inclusive system that includes terrorist organisations and an inclusive system that does not include those terrorist organisations.

The appointments to the Policing Board have already created a precedent for that situation, and I warmly welcome the SDLP’s appointments to that board. I believe — I suspect that the SDLP believes — that, in due course, Sinn Féin will make appointments to the board. I would like to believe that, in due course, Sinn Féin will do what is necessary for its representatives to become bona fide members of the Executive. However, as Mr Attwood said a few weeks ago, without some use of the stick, how are we going to persuade Sinn Féin to do that? The precedent of the Policing Board shows the correct course to follow as we seek decommissioning and non-violence. In the interim, a price must be paid by those who do not comply with the will of the vast majority of the people.

The Ulster Unionist Party wants to work in an inclusive system, and we find it offensive to be accused of having any degree of equivocation on that score. My Colleagues and I have worked assiduously in every part, and through every mechanism, of the Assembly to demonstrate our commitment to inclusiveness. We have worked companionably and constructively with all parties, and we have shared information and ideas with a view to providing good and fair governance for all the people of Northern Ireland.

It has been said that the IRA will not do anything under pressure. It certainly does not do anything when it is not under pressure. Each time proper pressure is applied, we start to see some sort of movement in the Republican machine. Once again, we must apply pressure. The routine is becoming wearisome, but that is what we must do. Otherwise, we will continue to have a situation in which paramilitaries decide what peace is and in which the Provos say that there will be no peace if they have to give up their guns.

We must ask again what sort of society we want to live in. Is it to be a society that recognises and values diversity, and in which equality means equality of respect and opportunity, and freedom means the ability to live in peace with others? Or is it to be a society based on ideas peddled by the Republican movement, in which diversity is seen as a threat, the only law is Provo law, equality means joint authority and freedom has been perverted to mean a hatred of all things British?

That is the sort of society in which all too many people find themselves living in a climate of fear in those Republican ghettos.

In 1998, the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland decided which road they wished to travel. The Republican movement is still standing at the crossroads, where we should leave it while it dithers about its next step forward. We should proceed without the Republican movement.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Whatever the purpose of the motion, I have no doubt that it has little or nothing to do with achieving that which it purports to seek. In fact, the movers of both motions know that none of this will result in Sinn Féin’s expulsion from the Executive. The more that the Ulster Unionist Party protests that its motivation to collapse the political institutions is to force the IRA into an act of decommissioning, the more obvious its real intentions become.

The Ulster Unionist Party now differs only tactically from the DUP and from those Unionist paramilitaries engaged in daily gun and bomb attacks. In fact, today’s motion is part and parcel of a deeply rooted resistance within Unionism to political change and to the effective delivery of the equality agenda. We saw that at the time of the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement when almost 50% of Unionism voted to reject the peace process. We see that every day in the despicable blockade of schoolchildren on the Ardoyne Road.

I listened with disbelief as Mr Trimble and other Unionist spokespersons attempted to rationalise the reality of naked Unionist bigotry and sectarianism. A recent enduring image was created when Mr Trimble walked into the negotiations in September 1997 — in what he termed a show of Unionist unity — shoulder to shoulder with the political representatives of the UDA, the UFF, the Red Hand Defenders and the UVF. On entering Castle Buildings, David Trimble asserted that they would not negotiate with Sinn Féin but would achieve my party’s expulsion. He did not succeed then, and he will not succeed now. Four years later, David Trimble is still fascinated and fixated by Sinn Féin; four years later, his authority and his ability to lead his community and his party is eroded. However, he still clings to the failed and foolish notion that to exclude the largest non-Unionist party in the North will somehow solve Unionism’s problems.

I am obliged to point out that Sinn Féin represents more than 21% of the electorate — one in five of the people who live here. I must ask whether that is the democratic commitment of those who would seek to exclude that community. The threat to the Ulster Unionist Party comes from within Unionism, not from Republicanism. The Ulster Unionist Party leader has delayed implementation. He has been prepared to repeatedly break the law and to use public moneys to pursue his futile and unsuccessful legal defence of his party political actions. David Trimble has carried letters of resignation in his pocket. Finally, he resigned from the Executive — how ironic. I wonder has it even occurred to him that one of the consequences of his foolish brinkmanship is that he finds himself in the very position that he has sought to impose on Martin McGuinness and Bairbre de Brún. He is the one who is outside the Executive. That would be funny were not it so serious.

Instead of putting those sad experiences behind him, it seems that the Ulster Unionist Party leader is intent on repeating his mistakes by waltzing out of these institutions — once again hand in hand with Dr Paisley and supported yet again by the PUP. However, there is a certain consistency to David Trimble. It is not only his relationship with Dr Paisley that has been opportunistic, hypocritical and ambivalent, Mr Trimble’s on-off relationship with violent Unionism goes back to his Vanguard days, and specifically to his role as legal adviser to the UDA-led Ulster workers’ strike in 1974. Indeed, Mr Trimble, we can all have a past as well as a future.

That ambivalence was again evident when he could not reach an accommodation with Dr Paisley in his quest for signatures for today’s motion. Who did David Trimble, the crusader for decommissioning, turn to for support? He turned to none other than the political representatives of the non-decommissioned UVF. That is not so surprising when you recognise that Unionism’s real agenda is not at all about decommissioning. Were that his genuine objective, the leadership of Unionism had the opportunity to demonstrate authority and vision in early August when John de Chastelain, in strict accordance with the Good Friday Agreement, reported that he had successfully negotiated a formula to put IRA weapons beyond use.

It was presented on a plate, largely because Sinn Féin had used its influence on behalf of the peace process, but Unionism could not find the courage to respond positively. I was disappointed to note today that neither Seamus Mallon nor Sean Farren availed of the opportunity to defend the initiative on IRA weapons and did not defend the agreed mechanisms of the Good Friday Agreement.

However, at the time, neither did the Irish or the British Governments. Even now, such validation would be very helpful. Unionism’s real agenda is to stall the change that is already in train and to slow the progression towards a society that is built on equality. It matters not to the opponents of change how peacefully that objective is pursued.

Ulster Unionism’s consistency has been its persistent opposition to change, but if Unionism believes that it can prevent change, it is sadly mistaken. If Unionism believes that it can return to the days of untrammelled power, it is even more mistaken. And if Unionism believes that it can deny Sinn Féin’s electoral authority as the representatives of the majority of Nationalist and Republican people in the North, it is absolutely and fundamentally mistaken.

Sinn Féin is committed to resolving all of the issues between us by entirely peaceful and democratic means — all problems, including the issue of weapons. I am pleased to have the opportunity to reiterate that today.

I urge those Unionists who do accept that there is a need for change to accept the hand of friendship that Sinn Féin offers and to join us in managing that change, so that it will be peaceful and beneficial to all of the people of Ireland, regardless of their religious or political persuasion.

I respond to a point raised by Dr Paisley in his contribution: contrary to his assertions — and it would be helpful if he would check the facts — there were no representatives of either ETA or the Puerto Rican organisations at our party conference. They neither attended, nor were they invited to attend. It is important that the record reflect the facts.

Collective elected leadership is the responsibility of us all. We are the representatives of our divided society. We represent the diversity of our society. We can self- determine in the Assembly to make politics work and to deal with the issues that have sustained conflict and division for generations, or we can self-determine not to do that. But what happens then? Go raibh míle maith agat.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As my Colleagues have already indicated, the SDLP will support neither exclusion motion. We will oppose both, just as we have opposed all previous exclusion motions. The SDLP’s position in regard to exclusion motions has not changed; the position of the party opposite has.

I understand the frustrations that are expressed in the Chamber today, and outside of it, regarding the failure to achieve decommissioning. We do not join with Sinn Féin in dismissing those concerns, and we are not playing games of "now you see it, now you do not". In other words, we will not address a party conference saying that there are legitimate Unionist concerns and then march in here and rubbish the very legitimate Unionist concerns that have been expressed — concerns that are well rooted in the agreement itself.

It is three and a half years since the Good Friday Agreement. It is time that we achieved decommissioning — not only by Republicans, but by all paramilitary groups. That was the promise of the agreement. People voted for the agreement with the prospect that along with the inclusive political institutions we would have decommissioning.

I reject those who insist that decommissioning is a red herring, or that it is a rejectionist ruse. For several years we have heard Sinn Féin’s claims that decommissioning was not a requirement of the agreement in the first place; that the insistence upon decommissioning was a figment of Unionist rejectionism. Because I reject that, I welcome what Martin McGuinness said at the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis: the party seemed to recognise that there are legitimate Unionist interests in respect of decommissioning.

Those legitimate requirements in respect of decommissioning do not attach or belong to Unionism alone, inside this Chamber or in the community at large. We need to achieve decommissioning not only in the interests of the wider community, but to meet the democratic requirements of the country.

Mr Trimble spoke earlier about wanting to preserve the agreement and these arrangements. The SDLP wants to work with all other parties, not just in preserving the agreement but in developing it and the operation of all its institutions to their fullest possible potential. It is precisely because we want to protect the agreement that the SDLP has not supported exclusion motions in the past and will not support exclusion motions today.

In doing that, I want to nail Peter Robinson’s misrepresentation that somehow we will be simply voting with Sinn Féin. [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order, order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In opposing the exclusion motion we are not voting for Sinn Féin; we are voting to protect the agreement. Three weeks ago in the Chamber the SDLP tabled an amendment to a DUP motion. The effect of that amendment was to call — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. If Members will allow other Members to speak, more views can be expressed in the remaining time. I encourage all Members to listen in some degree of quietude to the views being expressed now and until the end of the debate.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The clock was not stopped during your intervention.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Thank you.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The effect of the SDLP amendment was to call

"on all parties who profess to be committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means to unequivocally repudiate any and all such [paramilitary] violence and to call on all paramilitary groups to give real effect to the decommissioning provisions of the Good Friday Agreement".

That was the SDLP amendment. The first part of it was entirely consistent with the Mitchell principles; the second part was entirely consistent with the Good Friday Agreement. Sinn Féin voted against the amendment. It was joined in the Lobbies against that amendment by the DUP. The DUP was voting with Sinn Féin here three weeks ago in repudiation of an amendment that reflected the Mitchell principles. [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for someone to misinterpret what took place, when clearly the DUP voted for precisely those words when it became the substantive motion?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Robinson has made his point.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The DUP went through the Lobbies with Sinn Féin against that amendment. So, who voted with Sinn Féin in relation to the decommissioning issue in the Chamber a few weeks ago? Mr Peter Robinson need not think that he can throw up some sort of asides against the SDLP.

Let us be clear. If we are going to preserve these arrangements, we must make more progress. The institutions have worked well. In all the recrimination that might break out in the Chamber, let us not forget that together we have operated these institutions and these arrangements well. All parties in the Chamber have operated Committees well; all parties in the Executive have contributed to better governance in this part of the world. All parties that have participated, and that have been allowed to participate, at any level in the North/ South arrangements have made effective contributions to improving co-operation on this island.

The irony is that the institutions are now threatened, not because of any inherent failures in the them, not because of an inability of parties in the Chamber or elsewhere in the arrangements to work together, but because of difficulties in other areas of the agreement. We must make those good. The best way to concentrate on making good those outstanding issues elsewhere in the agreement is not by collapsing the institutions. I do not see how we get to the fuller implementation of the agreement by jeopardising such implementation as we already have by playing a game of chicken with the institutions.

Just as the SDLP opposes exclusion, it also clearly opposes the evasion that has passed for the Republican response to the issue of decommissioning.

I have already welcomed the remarks that Martin McGuinness made at the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis. However, contrast them with what I think was Mitchel McLaughlin’s second reaction to events in New York. In one contribution he actually said that seeing aeroplanes used in that way to attack people shows the nonsense of decommissioning; if things can be used in that way, then weapons are not the issue. That amounted to equating some of our issues with violence with the violence in New York, contrary to the rest of the Sinn Féin spin on that issue.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Durkan knows when he is misleading this House, and I hope that he will withdraw that remark. Mr Durkan knows that in that programme I absolutely condemned what had happened in Pittsburgh, Washington and New York. [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The question of Ministers misleading the House is one thing. Conveying a misinterpretation of each other’s comments appears to be a stock-in-trade on all sides of the House — nobody is particularly guilty of it. While Members may want to clarify matters, I cannot take matters of that kind as points of order on which I can rule.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Mr McLaughlin seems to think that I was referring to a particular TV programme. I said it was about his second contribution. It was not in the TV programme that he was referring to. He will find that the quote was carried in several media sources at the time, and not actually repudiated.

Since New York, Sinn Féin has tried to say that that was terrorism and that anything that has happened here is not terrorism. We have heard language about things being "ethically indefensible". Members across the Chamber have said, and I agree, that there is no ethical difference between the violence in New York and the violence that has been carried out here in the name of various paramilitary groupings. We cannot accept or see the ethical difference.

People might see an empirical difference as far as those paramilitary groupings are concerned now. The empirical distinction that might be made that could give people some confidence and basis of self-respect for continuing to take the risks that they have with this process would be if progress was achieved on decommissioning — not more commitments made, only to be withdrawn. It would be terrible if the Republican movement, having made further commitments in recent weeks to engage intensively with Gen de Chastelain, were to try to use the excuse of crass Unionist tactics — in particular, recruiting the two signatures for the motion from the PUP, with all of its associations — as the latest excuse for not doing anything about decommissioning.

We hear a lot about the "securocrats". We have also suffered in this process at the hands of the "obdurocrats" in the various paramilitary organisations who will not move. They insist that they will determine the pace at which the process moves on, that they will determine that various things have to be done as bargaining chips to achieve decommissioning. I take the point that was made earlier by Sinn Féin Members, but let us remember that that bargaining-chip process has been going on at an inverted level on the part of Republicans as well.

We need to make sure that we can move forward with this agreement and the institutions intact. We can only do that if we are able to believe that this dispensation gives us all hope of a new inclusive basis for working together. The best way to create the belief that people have changed their ways over past violence is for them to give up the means.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I welcome the debate on the two motions. I also welcome the fact that on this occasion there is a good turnout — particularly on the Ulster Unionist Benches. When this was previously debated, I think that only Mr Kennedy was present to speak and vote. The change and the progress that has been made away from negative language such as "stunts", "political opportunism" and "waste of time" has to be welcomed.

The Unionist community will welcome the fact that there is a unity of purpose among Unionists in the Chamber today in taking on Sinn Féin/IRA and attempting to put them out of the Executive. Many of us wish that it had come earlier. Belated as it is, we welcome it.

I also welcome the fact that the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party has indicated that he is prepared to withdraw his Ministers and that he is going to have them resign, or dismiss them. Although that too could have come sooner, it is welcome. Many of the arguments that we are debating this evening have been rehearsed here before. The situation has not changed: there has been no decommissioning, and there was no decommissioning when we debated the issues in the past.

If it is right now that IRA/Sinn Féin should not be in the Government of Northern Ireland, it was right in May 2000, because exactly the same situation pertained then as does now. It was right in November 1999, when the decision was taken — wrongly — to put IRA/Sinn Féin into the Government in the first place. All the damage that has been done to the democratic process, and the corruption of that process, could have been avoided, had those wrong, misguided decisions not been taken by the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party.

We have made progress, and more parties now support the motion. However, it would be very welcome if the Prime Minister, who was very strong, and rightly so, in his denunciation of terrorism on the international stage were also to open up a new front against terrorism in his own backyard. He should join with the political parties who are trying to rid the Government of Northern Ireland of those who still remain totally wedded to the use of the Armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other.

There will be no use in standing up in the House of Commons later tonight to decry the fact that Governments across the world are providing safe havens and cover for terrorists when in part of the United Kingdom there are members of a political party and a Republican movement, which is still wedded to violence, who are at the heart of Government. They control half the Budget of this region of the United Kingdom. There are double standards, and Mr Blair should face up to that.

Other Members have clearly, and at some length, detailed why Sinn Féin has a case to answer. It seems that each time those issues are highlighted — whether it be the Colombian holiday adventure of three leading Republicans, or today’s debate — so that the spotlight is turned on the murderous activities of the Republican movement, the stock reply is that Sinn Féin has no case to answer.

There is a very strong case to answer. There have been 30 murders since 1994. Guns have been used, beatings have been carried out, and there has been racketeering and intimidation. There has been a summer of violence, much of which, as the Chief Constable made clear, was orchestrated by the IRA. We had the Florida gunrunning episode, during which it was made clear that at the highest levels the Republican movement was involved in the plan to import armaments from the United States. Sinn Féin’s liaison with the narco-terrorists, the drug dealers of Colombia, has also been very clearly exposed.

The nauseating distinction, already pointed out by my Colleague Peter Robinson, made by some in the Republican movement who label the terrorism of 11 September as unacceptable and claim that they were not engaged as terrorists, but as freedom fighters in a struggle for liberation, is also hypocritical. That hypocrisy will not be lost on the relatives and loved ones of those who they turned into human bombs, or left orphaned, and for whom they have not one word of remorse, regret or apology. Rather, they try to justify their war and their terrorism.

I have listened to Mr Mallon lament the fact that in two weeks’ time there may not be an Assembly. Of course, that is very much down to how he and his Colleagues vote today. Will they decide to back the terrorist frontmen, or will they vote with the democrats to put the frontmen out of Government? That is their choice.

I listened to the argument that to exclude Sinn Féin would not be in keeping with the provisions of the agreement. The agreement and the legislation that flowed from it include explicit provisions for the exclusion of parties. Therefore, a vote to exclude parties would carry out what is included in the Act and, therefore, what flows from the agreement.

To answer all the talk about full and early implementation of the agreement, why not use one of the provisions in the legislation that was designed to exclude parties that are not committed to exclusively democratic means? The SDLP’s decision to vote along with Sinn Féin/IRA is not based on any desire to protect the agreement; it is a decision to protect its own party. The SDLP should have learned by now. Mr Durkan, in his first speech in the House as leader elect of the SDLP, does not seem to have learned anything from the past four or five years. He should have learned that by going down the same road with Sinn Féin/IRA and by refusing to take it on, he is encouraging its greater electoral success.

I remind Mr Durkan — and he should consult Hansard — that on Tuesday 18 September, when it is clear that the SDLP amendment weakened the import and thrust of the DUP motion proposed by Peter Robinson, the SDLP called for the decommissioning of IRA weapons and the DUP supported that. He should, therefore, correct the comments he made earlier.

I have also listened to the argument that the only way to achieve decommissioning is to persist with the approach of including Sinn Féin/IRA in Government and to continue to offer the carrot rather than the stick, and that nothing will be achieved by coming down hard. The carrot has been dangled in front of Sinn Féin/IRA for the past two to three years. We were told initially that unless it got into Government, it could not be expected to decommission. We were then told that it was not in Government long enough to prove to its troops on the ground that it was worth persevering. It has now been in Government for almost two years, during which time it has continued to engage in murder — and still it will not decommission. It is long past the time to use a bit of stick. It must either be the handover of weapons or expulsion from the Government of Northern Ireland.

There was much coverage in the weekend newspapers about a move on IRA decommissioning, and on such occasions we have become used to the IRA/Sinn Féin leadership coming forward with a gesture designed to put itself on the high moral ground, so to speak, in propaganda terms. Let me make it clear that the concreting over of two redundant compromised arms dumps will not fool anybody in Northern Ireland. We were told by Members on both sides of the House that decommissioning would have to be completed by May 2000. We are still waiting for decommissioning to begin, and gestures and stunts will not work and will fool nobody.

There is a basic flaw in the agreement, and while the motion may not succeed because it does not have cross-community support, let it be remembered that as a result of the vote tonight, the continued presence of Sinn Féin/IRA in Government does not enjoy cross- community support. It invalidates its presence in Government just as much as it may claim that the vote is invalidated by lack of cross-community support. It applies both ways.

There must be a fundamental review of the agreement. Let us stand on the side of democrats, reject terrorism and vote for these motions.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

First, this has been a long and difficult journey for all Members, including Sinn Féin Members. It has been a difficult journey for the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP, many of the smaller parties and, of course, the DUP. Against all the odds, we reached an agreement on Good Friday 1998. Undoubtedly, that was, and will remain, a very significant date in the history of this island.

It was an interesting experience. I found the journey to the large room in Castle Buildings interesting; it was a hive of activity and a lot of excitement. People came together from all political parties, and the political representatives of those parties took their positions at the table.

At that time, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, David Trimble, whom I watched carefully, said that he was in favour of the Good Friday Agreement. I could see that it was painful for him to sign up to it. When it later became clear that the British Prime Minister had effectively handed him a side letter on decommissioning, I knew that we were in trouble and that the Good Friday Agreement was in big trouble. I also knew that decommissioning, contrary to what some Members said, would be used to prevent the implementation of the agreement and that it would be a big problem for Sinn Féin in the political process.

When Jeffrey Donaldson walked out of the peace talks, it became clear that some Ulster Unionist Party members were not prepared to face up to the change that the Good Friday Agreement heralded. Ever since that day, the Ulster Unionist Party has tried to deal with its internal contradictions over the agreement. The Ulster Unionist Party has tried to ride two horses. It stated publicly that it was a pro-agreement party, but at the same time it caved in to people such as Jeffrey Donaldson, David Burnside and others who were opposed to the agreement.

I listened to Robert McCartney pooh-poohing the notion that Fenians were not wanted about the place. I have also heard senior members of the Ulster Unionist Party state on television in the North of Ireland since Good Friday 1998 that they were opposed to the Good Friday Agreement because they were opposed to power sharing. They believe that there should be majority rule, and that is what the DUP believes. The DUP is not a pro-agreement party; it is opposed to the Good Friday Agreement lock, stock, and barrel. It does not want a Fenian about the place. Not only does it not want a Fenian of the Sinn Féin variety, it does not even want one of the SDLP variety. Boxcar Willie, Peter the Punt, Papa Doc — none of them wants a Fenian about the place. That has posed a huge challenge to Sinn Féin.

In the recent years, Sinn Féin has tried to deal with the need to implement the Good Friday Agreement fully and to get all the political parties who said that they were pro-agreement to put their shoulder to the wheel to get the agreement implemented in full. That has been a difficult task, particularly given the Ulster Unionist Party’s decision that it would emasculate the Good Friday Agreement.

Peter Mandelson changed the rules on flags to satisfy the Ulster Unionists. The British Government caved in to the Ulster Unionists on the policing issue; they were not alone in that. At an early stage, the British Government caved in to Unionist attempts to rewrite the section of the Good Friday Agreement that deals with decommissioning and how it should be handled; they were not alone on that either.

This morning I listened to the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party taking Members on a legalistic journey for about 15 minutes. Many Members wondered where it was all leading. Not once during those 15 minutes, when he tried to state the legal case in defence of his exclusion of Bairbre de Brún and myself from the North/South Ministerial Council, did he acknowledge that he had twice been found to be acting illegally by a court in Belfast. Of course, the British Government have not said a word about it — [Interruption.]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Will Members check that any communication equipment that they have is either switched off or on vibrate mode, so that Members can continue the debate uninterrupted by pagers or phones.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It was interesting to hear the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party say that he had no doubt about the commitment of the PUP to use only peaceful and democratic means. I say that while freely acknowledging that David Ervine and Billy Hutchinson have been two of the most positive contributors to the peace process over recent years.

Only 12 months ago, members of the UDA and UVF were killing one another on the Shankill Road, yet David Trimble sought the support of a party associated with what happened then. Responsibility for what happened on the Shankill Road lay mostly with the UDA, because of its anti-agreement stance.

David Trimble made another important statement. He said that decommissioning was important as an indicator of future intent. With due respect, I have never heard such rubbish. It took someone on the Unionist Benches, a short time later, to point out that the LVF had indeed decommissioned some time ago, yet it was the LVF who killed Rosemary Nelson and the LVF who recently killed Martin O’Hagan. That is the reality.

The hullabaloo about decommissioning has not gone down well in the Nationalist/Republican community. People watched in amazement as the issue was elevated over the rest of the agreement, despite 250 pipe bomb attacks on the Nationalist community throughout the North. Yesterday, at the Davitt’s Club in Swatragh, County Derry, a child lifted a pipe bomb, and we never heard a word about it. Condemnations are dragged out in television interviews.

We see despicable scenes in north Belfast, with little children walking to school with spittle running down their faces. I was there several days ago and was told by people, with immaculate credentials, that the protesters at Glenbryn held pornographic photographs of women up to parents of the children as they walked into the school. Who was with the protesters that morning and afternoon? Nigel Dodds, the MP for the area, was there with them.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is entirely wrong and outrageous for this IRA commander, members of whose organisation went into a hospital and shot through incubators, such is its regard for children, to stand there and tell barefaced lies about what happened.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member knows very well, from here and from elsewhere, the language that should be used in the Chamber. Therefore in response to his point of order, I put back a point of order.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am satisfied with the accuracy of the information that I received on that matter.

I said that it had been a difficult journey. There are good and decent people in the Ulster Unionist Party, as there are undoubtedly good and decent people in the Unionist community who voted to endorse the Good Friday Agreement three years ago. It is important that we try to build bridges and work together. For 18 months, we have worked together in the Executive. We have worked well with the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Ministers at Executive meetings. The public would be pleased to see the way in which their elected representatives approach the work that goes on at those meetings on health, education, agriculture, the environment, the economy and many other matters.

People continually ask where Sinn Féin stands in relation to the Unionist community and Unionist political leaders who say that they are in favour of the Good Friday Agreement. We value the contribution made by those people. Unionists must also take on board the strong opinions in the Nationalist community about the way in which they have messed about in the past three years, while we tried to implement the Good Friday Agreement. I am sure that everyone heard my Ard-Fheis speech. In it, I acknowledged that some Unionists feel strongly about decommissioning. Some Unionists also feel that the issue can be used to prevent change and political progress. It is important that Sinn Féin deals with the concerns of those whom we believe are serious about the search for peace on this island. Without contradicting Mark Durkan, I stress that I am not retracting what I said in that speech. I am saying that the decommissioning issue must be dealt with and that all political parties have a responsibility to do their part to make it happen. Where do I stand? If decommissioning were to happen tomorrow morning, I would be as pleased as Punch. It is my job and that of all pro-agreement political parties and the two Governments to try to make it happen. We must create the circumstances in which we can remove all the guns from Irish politics.

I do not accept that decommissioning is the reason for the current difficulties in the peace process and the institutions. It would be wrong of me to say that, because I do not believe it. We are in difficulty because Unionist political leaders of the anti-agreement variety — and even those who say they are pro-agreement — find it difficult to come to terms with the fact that Sinn Féin is growing in political strength in the North and all over the island of Ireland. The Westminster and local government election results came as a significant shock to the Unionist community. Sinn Féin representatives now chair Strabane, Omagh, Cookstown, Magherafelt, Dungannon and Newry and Armagh councils. We also have four Sinn Féin MPs. People are concerned about the fact that the combined votes of the SDLP and Sinn Féin amount to something that can no longer be ignored.

The days of second-class citizenship are over; the days of Nationalists and Republicans sitting at the back of the bus are over. Given the increasing confidence of the Nationalist and Republican community, the last thing we want is to be part of a political process that consigns any section of the community — be it Ulster Unionist, DUP or anyone else — to the position that we have endured since the partition of this island. Go raibh maith agat.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

It falls to me to reply to the motion. Due to a misjudgement, we put the motion down with only my name on it. Then I discovered that I had to wind up, as well as propose the motion, otherwise I would have happily passed that duty on to someone else.

I will try to refer to several of the speeches that were made. I ask Members whom I do not mention to accept my apologies. It is not that their contributions were unimportant, but time is limited, and I want to focus my comments on those things that are especially significant.

I start by congratulating Mr Ervine on his contribution, which was serious and honest. Every Member who listened to it will have been impressed by it. I found it curious that so many of the comments from other Unionists were not directed to the motion; they were not directed towards criticising Sinn Féin, although that is their position. The bulk of what they said criticised my Colleagues and me. I listened to Mr Cedric Wilson, who said nothing that was not an attack on me and my Colleagues. The kindest phrase to describe it would be "a farrago of nonsense".

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The record will show that, once again, Mr Trimble has lost it.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am confident that the record will show the emphasis that Mr Wilson gave, and it will show that my comments were accurate. The same comments are true for 95% of the speech by Mr Wilson’s former leader, Mr McCartney. It is so nice to see both of them singing from the same hymn sheet again.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I have arrived in time.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I cannot reply to that comment. The acoustics of the Chamber prevented my hearing it.

I congratulate Dr Farren on his comments. In his opening line, he said that the motion, in a sense, should never have come before the House; he was right. If other people had kept their obligations and implemented the agreement in the way that they should have done, the motion would never have come before the House. It comes before the House only because of the failure of people to fulfil their obligations.

Several comments were made about recent court rulings. I will not go into details, but nearly all of them misunderstood the position. The court said that some of the reasons that I gave for my actions went outside the ambit of the Act, but it indicated that other reasons were within the ambit of the Act. I am acting wholly within the ambit of the Act and have been doing so. I have also been acting within the ambit of the existing judgements. If the party opposite does not believe that, let it go back to the court and challenge it again. It can go to the House of Lords and challenge the issue there. Then, we will see how things work out.

Reference was also made to the timing of the resignations of Ulster Unionist Members. All of those comments were wrong. The reason for our action is simply that we are not here to cause an abrupt disruption to the business of government, but to arrange for an orderly transfer of business to the relevant Northern Ireland Office Ministers when suspension comes. It is not another deadline — that was a fatuous comment. It is not to give the IRA another chance. It is not necessary. If suspension comes, people can decommission afterwards, and then there can be resumption; that is not a problem. The Members who made those comments were completely wrong.

The nature of decommissioning was also mentioned. We should remind ourselves of the simple. There is legislation. It contains a statutory definition. The definition states that decommissioning is a method by which weapons and other materials are made permanently unavailable and permanently unusable. If it is not permanent, it is not decommissioning. General de Chastelain, who is there to verify that decommissioning has taken place, will certify to that effect. Those are the basics. There may be discussion about the details, but no one can make any mistake about the basics. Those tests must be satisfied; otherwise decommissioning has not taken place. I suggest to those Members who are concerned about whether or not an act constitutes decommissioning that they remember the basic principles. They should wait and see and keep those principles in mind if and when something happens. I hope that something does happen, but if it does not, the consequence of that will lie elsewhere.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Does my right hon Friend agree that the frustration that is felt on these Benches is occasioned by the discrepancy between the requirements as set out by the former Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam, that all parts of the agreement move forward in parallel and the expectation of the Republican movement that every part of the agreement should be concluded before it will, for tactical reasons, make any move on decommissioning? Does he also agree that the objective of the entire exercise was that all parts of the agreement would move forward in parallel, and that, regardless of what anybody else says, no actual decommissioning has occurred? That is what is causing the frustration on these Benches?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

My hon Friend is right. Indeed, he could have gone further and said that while the then Secretary of State made it clear that all elements should have moved together, it was that Secretary of State who failed to ensure that that happened and who consequently did much to bring about the present unsatisfactory situation.

It was interesting to hear a Member quote something that I said off the cuff three and a half years ago about having a past and a future. It seems to be going down in history. I have taken the trouble to locate the text of a speech that I made at the first sitting of the Assembly, because it is worth revisiting. If I may pat myself on the back, that speech was entirely extemporary. If certain Members check the record tomorrow, as they have been advised to by Mr C Wilson, they will find that they quoted my phrases inaccurately. It will be worthwhile if I take a little time to remind them of what I actually said. To set the context, I had been questioned about my party’s Assembly manifesto, which made references to "unreconstructed terrorists". In response to that, I made the following comment:

"A number of Members who are here today have done terrible things."

That was simply a reference to the violence in which some had been involved in the past. I also said:

"I do not need to elaborate, though I should say that those concerned are not all in one corner of the Chamber."

That was a recognition that the violent and terrible things done in the past were not solely carried out by the Republican movement, but that other elements also have something to consider.

I then came to the point that has been misquoted today. I said that

"We are not saying, and we have never said, that the fact that someone has a certain past means that he cannot have a future. We have always acknowledged that it is possible for people to change."

It must be noted that that does not mean that there is automatically a future — it depends on change. I then said:

"Because of the situation in this society it is desirable that all Members with a terrible past should change and should demonstrate that they have changed."

I then described the process as an inclusive one. I continued:

"There is an opportunity for people to take part in the process if they have shown that they are committed to peaceful means and democracy. I underline these points not out of a desire to exclude but simply to emphasise the things that need to be done. The sooner there is a realisation of that need, the better." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 1, p17].

Unfortunately, three and a half years later, there has not been a realisation of that need, and the change has not taken place in the way that it should have done.

Mr Durkan said that the SDLP had always opposed exclusion. That was not always the case. I remember when, in 1998, the then deputy leader of the SDLP gave a formal commitment to exclude. He said that

"For many Unionists there is the fear that Sinn Féin seeks to pocket the maximum sectoral advantage from the agreement — membership of the Executive, prisoner releases, changes in policing, criminal law reform, demilitarisation, new equality legislation — and then will fail to honour their decommissioning obligations under the agreement within the specified two-year period.

Mr Mallon then continued:

"I believe that this will not occur — and that it is not intended. But no one should have any doubt that if it did happen the SDLP would rigorously enforce the terms of the agreement and remove from office those who had so blatantly dishonoured their obligations."

Those are his precise words.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Member will recall that in that address to the SDLP Conference, Séamus Mallon made a twin offer: one that reflected and understood Unionists’ concerns and one that fully understood the natural suspicions that Sinn Féin had. We made a twin offer to both parties, an offer that was aimed at setting up the institutions in 1998. It was rejected by the Unionist party, and the institutions were not set up until a year later.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Mr Durkan is half correct. A twin offer was made, but the other half was not necessary because we did set up the institutions and included Sinn Féin in the Administration. I will not go back on it again.

Mr Durkan’s second point is not correct. There is no conditionality here. Mr Mallon said:

"I believe that this will not occur — and that it is not intended".

But it did occur. He also said that

"no one should have any doubt that if it did happen the SDLP would rigorously enforce the terms".

It has happened. Mr Durkan must therefore consider whether it is appropriate not to follow those principles through. If SDLP Members seek further advice on the matter, I refer them to yesterday’s ‘Sunday Independent’. I believe — I stand to be corrected — that the ‘Sunday Independent’ has the largest circulation of any daily or Sunday newspaper published in Ireland. I should frame yesterday’s editorial. It starts:

"The Ulster Unionist leader’s move is inevitable and largely unavoidable. Mr Trimble’s decision to press for Sinn Fein’s removal reflects a crisis of public, and not merely unionist, confidence in both the intentions and actions of the republican movement in securing the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons."

It concludes:

"His move to secure the expulsion of Sinn Féin from the power-sharing Executive should not be seen as an act of revenge and frustration. It represents a final desperate move to save an Agreement that can only be worth saving if all who accepted its terms are willing to honour them in practice. Mr Trimble is right. That can only mean IRA decommissioning. And until it happens, Sinn Féin should have no place in government."

Those are the words of the ‘Sunday Independent’.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Is that the same ‘Sunday Independent’ that crucified John Hume four or five years ago?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

It is yesterday’s issue of the ‘Sunday Independent’. The SDLP — and others — should reflect upon its advice.

Sinn Féin Members have lost the plot. They have been offered opportunity after opportunity that they have not taken. They seem to think that the game that they have been playing for the past three years can go on indefinitely; it cannot. Time and time again, we have given them opportunities. In dealing with the matters that they raised, the Government went much further than my Colleagues and I wished. Every point that they raised at Weston Park was dealt with sympathetically by the Government. What happened? There was silence in August — silence and inactivity.

Sinn Féin Members are determined to keep their heads down, hoping that somehow the problem will blow over. Consequently, this action is necessary to show them that it will not blow over. There is only one way now in which they can proceed, and the sooner that they summon up the courage to do so, the better. When they decommission — they probably will, eventually — they will demonstrate something extremely important: the war was wrong.

Mr Adams asked why there had to be a peace process. Why was there a need for one? Why was there a need for violence? There was never a need for violence; there was never any justification for violence. This was a democracy. It might have been flawed; it might have needed changes. Those changes could have been made peacefully. The violence that Republicans engaged in made the situation worse. They spread more bitterness in the community; they slowed down positive changes that would otherwise have happened; they have achieved nothing but the deaths of 3,000 people; and they have left a dreadful legacy to this society. It is time that Republicans addressed the need to change and to cure that problem.

Question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 54; Noes 45

Ayes

Unionist:

Dr Adamson, Mr Agnew, Ms Armitage, Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Mr Berry, Dr Birnie, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mrs Carson, Mr Clyde, Mr Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Mr Dalton, Mr Davis, Mr Dodds, Mr Douglas, Sir Reg Empey, Mr Ervine, Mr Foster, Mr Gibson, Sir John Gorman, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr Hussey, Mr B Hutchinson, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Kane, Mr Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Leslie, Mr McClarty, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Mr Morrow, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mrs I Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr M Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Savage, Mr Shannon, Mr Trimble, Mr Watson, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr J Wilson, Mr S Wilson.

Noes

Nationalist:

Mr Adams, Mr Attwood, Mr Bradley, Mr Byrne, Mrs Courtney, Mr Dallat, Ms de Brún, Mr A Doherty, Mr P Doherty, Mr Durkan, Dr Farren, Mr Fee, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Mr Haughey, Dr Hendron, Mr G Kelly, Mr J Kelly, Ms Lewsley, Mr Maginness, Mr Maskey, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McGrady, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Mr McNamee, Mr Molloy, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mrs Nelis, Mr O’Connor, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Ms Ramsey, Ms Rodgers, Mr Tierney.

Other:

Mrs E Bell, Mr Ford, Mr McCarthy, Ms McWilliams, Ms Morrice, Mr Neeson.

Total Votes 99 Total Ayes 54 (54.5%) Nationalist Votes 39 Nationalist Ayes 0 (0.0%) Unionist Votes 54 Unionist Ayes 54 (100.0%)

Question accordingly negatived (cross-community vote).

Motion made, and Question put:

That in consequence of the failure of the Provisional IRA to offer up its illegal weaponry for destruction; the Republican Movement’s continuing terrorist threat, and active pursuit, of terrorist outrages to secure its aims; the maintenance by the IRA of an active terrorist organisation; the growing number of cases of IRA involvement in terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and across the globe; the fact that the Provisional IRA is inextricably linked to Sinn Féin; and the involvement and dominance of members of Sinn Féin in the decision-making "Army Council" of the Provisional IRA, this Assembly resolves that Sinn Féin does not enjoy its confidence because it is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful means, and further, in accordance with Section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, determines that members of Sinn Féin shall be excluded from holding office as Ministers for a period of 12 months from the date of this resolution. —[Rev Dr Ian Paisley.]

The Assembly divided: Ayes 56; Noes 45

Ayes

Unionist:

Dr Adamson, Mr Agnew, Ms Armitage, Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr B Bell, Mr Berry, Dr Birnie, Mr Boyd, Mr Campbell, Mr Carrick, Mrs Carson, Mr Clyde, Mr Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Mr Dalton, Mr Davis, Mr Dodds, Mr Douglas, Sir Reg Empey, Mr Foster, Mr Gibson, Sir John Gorman, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hay, Mr Hilditch, Mr Hussey, Mr R Hutchinson, Mr Kane, Mr Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, Mr Leslie, Mr McCartney, Mr McClarty, Rev Dr William McCrea, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Mr Morrow, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mrs I Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr M Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Roche, Mr Savage, Mr Shannon, Mr Trimble, Mr Watson, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr C Wilson, Mr J Wilson, Mr S Wilson.

Noes

Nationalist:

Mr Adams, Mr Attwood, Mr Bradley, Mr Byrne, Mrs Courtney, Mr Dallat, Ms de Brún, Mr A Doherty, Mr P Doherty, Mr Durkan, Dr Farren, Mr Fee, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Mr Haughey, Dr Hendron, Mr G Kelly, Mr J Kelly, Ms Lewsley, Mr Maginness, Mr Maskey, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McGrady, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McHugh, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMenamin, Mr McNamee, Mr Molloy, Mr C Murphy, Mr M Murphy, Mrs Nelis, Mr O’Connor, Dr O’Hagan, Mr ONeill, Ms Ramsey, Ms Rodgers, Mr Tierney.

Other:

Mrs E Bell, Mr Ford, Mr McCarthy, Ms McWilliams, Ms Morrice, Mr Neeson.

Total Votes 101 Total Ayes 56 (55.4%) Nationalist Votes 39 Nationalist Ayes 0 (0.0%) Unionist Votes 56 Unionist Ayes 56 (100.0%)

Question accordingly negatived (cross-community vote)

Adjourned at 5.55 pm