Northern Ireland Assembly, 15 January 2013

422 contributions from 64 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you advise the House what action can be taken against a Member who breaches the code of conduct? In particular, I refer to the personal conduct of Members who have:

"a duty to uphold the law and to act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them."

Furthermore, in respect of promoting good relations, Members must:

"act in a way that is conducive to promoting good relations...and promoting a culture of respect for the law."

Specifically, the Member for South Belfast Mr Maskey said on Sunday that Short Strand residents were behaving impeccably, despite evidence of residents wearing balaclavas, wielding baseball bats and throwing bricks and bottles at the protesters. Furthermore, last night and this morning, he said on various media outlets that his response to the violence visited on members of the Short Strand community, which is to be condemned, would be to meet it with violence. In those circumstances, what action can be taken against a Member who has flouted the code of conduct for Members?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

First, Members will know that I give them some latitude on points of order. Secondly, this is not a point of order. Thirdly, it is not an issue for the Speaker. I direct the Member to the Standards and Privileges Committee or to Clerks in Parliament Buildings. It is certainly not a matter for the Speaker, and it is not a point of order.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, is it in order for the Member across the Floor to misquote another Member in the House? Whatever happened outside the House, as you have pointed out, Mr Speaker, is not necessarily anything to do with you. This has been said in the House, and he has misquoted the Member.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I want to say to the whole House — [Interruption.] Order. Let us all be careful in whatever contribution we make in the House. Let us not make a bad situation outside the Chamber worse. Let us all be careful. We all have a responsibility, as political parties in the House, to behave in an appropriate manner. [Interruption.] Order. Let us all move on.

Private Members' Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. One amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

I would also like to inform the House that a valid petition of concern was presented today in relation to the amendment. Under Standing Order 28, the vote on the amendment cannot be taken today. Both votes, therefore, will be taken at the start of business on Monday. However, the debate can take place in the Chamber today. I also remind Members that another effect of the petition is that the vote on the amendment will be on a cross-community basis.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That this Assembly reaffirms its commitment to the principles of inclusivity, mutual respect, peace and democracy; condemns all acts of violence and intimidation against police officers, elected representatives, other members of society, homes and property at all times; and calls on all political parties to support the spirit of the Belfast Agreement.

I must say that I am puzzled by what there is in the amendment to be concerned about, but perhaps that will become clear during the debate, which I hope will be respectful. I hope that we will use moderate language and have even tempers. Equally importantly, we should have an honest debate and perhaps even a passionate one and face up to some inconvenient truths. If we do not, we cannot command the respect for this debating Chamber that we need from those looking in and among ourselves. This is not a day on which to dwell endlessly on how far we have come. It is a day to front up to what has yet to be achieved, and some big ticket issues are on the to-do list, even though we have come a decent way on our journey.

In 1998, I was a journalist reporting the Troubles and not the only journalist supportive of the objective of the Belfast Agreement to bring about a political process that would offer peace. That was because, for far too long, far too many journalists stood at the white tape, waiting to tell the world the name of the man who had been murdered or whose jobs had been bombed out of existence. I could not tell you how many deaths I reported while presenting 'Good Morning Ulster' in the 1980s. Sometimes, that took me deep into the human cost of the Troubles through reporting the impact of a murder by talking to a priest, a minister, a neighbour or colleague, perhaps a close relative who knew the deceased as a son, a father, a husband and a relative. Such people spoke from the heart about the human cost.

On other days, only politicians were available, and it seemed to me that they simply blamed each other. Some mornings, it was as if the politicians had forgotten that there was a body in the morgue, such was the bitterness of the mud-slinging. It seems to me that we are back there again: mud-slinging. It was the leaflets. It was the vote. It was a democratic vote. It was pure provocation. This debate is an opportunity to call "Time out" on that and to reflect. The leaflets have been distributed. The vote has been taken. The consequences reveal that there are problems that we all have to deal with.

Fifteen years ago, I reported the promise of the Belfast Agreement, a promise that better times lay ahead: better times and better politics, as this Chamber replaced direct rule; respect for each other's identity and culture; and a peace dividend for an economy that had been relentlessly targeted, diminished and held back by a concerted terrorist campaign for 30 years. Let me be as clear as I was yesterday about the violence of the past five weeks: it is all wrong. It has done huge damage to our economy and to the public purse.

Let us not rewrite history. An IRA bomb could and sometimes did cost the economy tens of millions of pounds in a split second, and the continued threat of republican violence means that tens of millions more that could be spent UK-wide alleviating poverty, deprivation and dereliction is currently ring-fenced for antiterrorist policing. I cannot imagine how l, as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, can reach out to those republican terrorists. My party brought forward an agreement that was put to referendum here and in the Republic and hugely endorsed. It was also rejected in spectacular and murderous fashion by republican terrorists in Omagh and, more recently, through the murders of PSNI officers, soldiers and a prison officer.

"Leadership" is the buzzword today. My predecessor David Trimble showed leadership in 1998. He attended funeral masses in Buncrana in Donegal for three of the young victims of the Omagh bomb, dismissive of the personal discomfort potentially coming his way from the Orange Order. Let us not forget that, earlier in that year, before the deal and the referendum, he stood shoulder to shoulder with Seamus Mallon, with whom he was to share the office of the First Minister, in Poyntzpass, to be with the community there in the wake of the murders of Philip Allen and Damien Trainor. So it is nothing new for those in the key offices of this devolved Government to stand together to condemn murder and violence. What would be new would be for some Members to accept the little phrase — the subclause in the middle section of our motion — that:

"condemns all acts of violence and intimidation against police officers, elected representatives, other members of society, homes and property at all times".

"At all times" means that there are no circumstances that justify violence, including the murder of police officers. It is an absolute, not a conditional statement.

I was shocked to watch the discussion on the late news on UTV last night and to hear Alex Maskey, a Member of the House, state that, if he lived in the Short Strand, he would be out throwing stones at the street protests [Interruption.] I condemn the violence visited upon the residents — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome your ruling at the beginning of the session. I listened to Mr Nesbitt start his comments by saying that today is not about what happened yesterday or last week but about what we do from here on in. I strongly advise Mr Nesbitt not to misquote me in the Chamber today. [Interruption.] There is a full transcript available, as Mr Nesbitt, as a former journalist, will know. He should not misquote me in the Chamber today. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has it on the record.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I am confident that I reflect the spirit of the words that I heard last night on UTV's late night news.

I condemn the violence. I do not condone any violence. Mr Maskey, if I understand him correctly, is concerned that somebody will get seriously hurt. So am I. He is calling for leadership. So do I, but we need to understand what sort of leadership is required. Is it to justify violence in any circumstances? Not in my book, it is not. Some unionists on the lower Newtownards Road think that leadership means me standing shoulder to shoulder with them on the streets. I think that it means offering a path that takes them off the streets to a political place where they can have hope of delivery on the issues that concern them. Nobody needs to be injured to do that, just as nobody needed to die to get us where we are today in the Chamber.

My party calls for a return to the spirit of the Belfast Agreement. I acknowledge that the DUP has tabled an amendment to that part of our motion. We will not die in a ditch over that, as long as we get this opportunity to explain exactly what we mean by the spirit of the agreement. I have already referred to perceived difficulties in delivery regarding politics, the economy, culture and identity, but there was another area where the Belfast Agreement was an unqualified success. That is in regard to the constitutional question, which was settled in 1998 and endorsed by referendum. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. The recent census does nothing to undermine that position. Only one in four people took the option in the census to describe themselves as "Irish only". That is no basis on which to build a united Ireland.

Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and that means that the Union flag is the flag of this country, and it is everybody's flag. I do not expect the people of the Short Strand to start wrapping themselves in the Union Jack every time they set out from home. In fact, I would like to see an end to some people wrapping themselves in the Union flag — the ones who throw stones and petrol bombs at the Short Strand and at the police. That does nothing to promote the values of Britishness that I cherish.

The spirit of the Belfast Agreement also means that we in the House commit to tackling the big, outstanding issues, of which there are many. If there is an opportunity, coming out of the past five weeks, it is for us to face up to the challenges of dealing with the past, reconciliation and building a truly shared future. It seems to me that we could do no better today than begin by seeing whether we can agree a common definition of what we mean by those concepts. I debated the issue of dealing with the past, albeit briefly, with a former republican Member of this House in another place in Dublin. It was immediately clear that we did not agree on the starting point for dealing with the past. He certainly did not see it as starting in the late 1960s but wanted to go back considerably further.

When and, more importantly, for whose benefit do we want to deal with the past? Is it for those who have been most impacted by the violence, incident by incident, or is it to enable society to move forward? What does reconciliation mean? Sinn Féin offered a vision recently. It is not my vision, but the spirit of the Belfast Agreement says that you do not stop there; you continue to negotiate. What does a shared future mean? For me, it is not the neutrality that we see in Belfast city centre and the signs in pubs that say, "No sports shirts". For me, it is about a sign that says, "Rangers and Celtic tops both welcome". It is about being more than simply bland. That is the spirit of the Belfast Agreement that I would wish to revive.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I beg to move the following amendment:

Leave out all after "times;" and insert

"and calls on all political parties to give full effect to their commitment to the consent principle, which recognises Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom."

In moving the amendment, I concur with much of what Mr Nesbitt said. I hope that our amendment does nothing to detract from the underlying principles of the motion, with the exception of the past of the Belfast Agreement. Like Mr Nesbitt, I am amazed that there is a petition of concern, but there it is. It is within the rules of the House to table it, and it has been tabled.

The onus on all of us as political representatives in the House today, in the current environment, over the past weeks and in the coming weeks, is to display two main characteristics. Our first responsibility is to take that leadership role on our shoulders and give effective representative leadership to people. We did that yesterday, and, hopefully, we will do so again today. Unfortunately, there are occasions when individual Members let themselves down considerably in the media. In exercising that responsibility, we also have to be direct and honest.

The motion condemns all acts of violence and intimidation. We did that yesterday, and, as I say, we need to do so again. Unfortunately, a former Member of the House — a former Member for West Belfast, now a TD in the Irish Republic — Mr Gerry Adams was interviewed and said that no acts of violence of any kind had emanated from the Short Strand. Unfortunately for him, the video evidence is contrary to that. All acts of violence of all kinds need to be repudiated, and the violence needs to stop.

The debate gives us a gilt-edged opportunity to delve down into some of the underlying reasons for the problems that we face. If, in an honest and responsible fashion, we face up to those underlying reasons, we can make some progress.

I read a headline in a national newspaper last week that stated that the Belfast riots were not over a flag but the creation of a fairer society. When I read the headline, I thought that at last, on a national basis, some journalist has got it. Then I read the story: he did not get it. Unfortunately, he went off on a tangent as others have done.

In trying to create an inclusive society with mutual respect, peace and democracy, one of the problems that we are dealing with today is that there are many peaceful protestors out on the streets who do not see much evidence of that. That is part of the problem. If we have a scenario such as occurred in Northern Ireland in 2012 when parades from the loyalist community passing a Catholic church were subject to severe restriction, monitoring and adjustment by the Parades Commission but a republican parade passing a Protestant church was not subject to the same restriction, scrutiny or attention by the Parades Commission, people will get an impression.

A delegation from my party asked the Equality Commission to come to see us last week, because there is an impression out there that jobs are not allocated on the basis of merit. Some people in the Chamber tried to create the scenario 30 or 40 years ago that an unfair and non-inclusive society led us to where we were with the violence. However, they do not seem to accept where we are now and that many people in the unionist community see an unfair, non-inclusive society. Those people see the promotion of Irish at the expense of Ulster Scots. They see national identity being diminished if you are British but promoted if you are Irish. It made me wonder when I read the headline that said that the Belfast riots are over not the flag but the creation of a fairer society.

A fairer society is something that this party wants and has been campaigning for for years. It is what we need to get. If people on the streets, whether they are passing the Short Strand or living there, could see a much fairer society, they would say that the people up on the hill are doing the job that they were elected to do. We have made some progress, but we have considerable progress to make. We need to get to the point — hopefully, we will get to it this week — where people understand the resentment that exists not just in working-class unionist communities but right across unionist communities and in nationalist communities about an ongoing failure to understand the concept of disadvantage in those communities.

If you have a one-sided inquiries process into the past, people in our communities will ask, "How long wil this go on?". The perpetrators of the violence in the first place will not admit that they were wrong and will not apologise, but the Prime Minister, who is responsible for dealing with the violence, then apologises for an overreaction on the part of those who were dealing with the violence.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Yes, I will.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member clarify why the DUP and, indeed, the UUP have consistently voted against motions in the House calling for cross-party talks with the Irish Government and the British Government to agree a comprehensive mechanism to deal with the past?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Yes, I can answer that. Unfortunately, in dealing with the past, you are met with those whose organisation perpetuated the violence for decades. They will not accept the part that they played in creating and perpetuating that violence. They will not accept that they were wrong, that they were in error and that they should apologise and move on. They will not do that. They accept that they were combatants. They try to equate combatants' acts of murder with the actions of those who responded to their murder. That is why we cannot deal with the past in the way that the honourable Member would like us to.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Yes, I will.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Will the Member encourage his party leader to respond to the correspondence that my party leader sent him last week setting out methods of dealing with the past in a comprehensive way? As yet, we have not had a response.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I am sure that, if the honourable Member's party leader wrote to my party leader last week, there will be a response in due course and probably within a matter of days. The honourable Member will not complain that there has been undue delay, given the problems that we have out on the streets. I am sure there will be a response.

In conclusion, I come to the Unionist Forum, which I have heard various nationalists and republicans mention. They have complained that it is one-sided and that unionists talking to themselves will not solve the problem. In some respects, I agree: it will not solve the problem. The capacity for both the SDLP and Sinn Féin to involve themselves in the outcome of the Unionist Forum is essential. I have raised some of the issues — only some because of time restrictions — and they will come through the Unionist Forum. At that point, it will be an absolute prerequisite for nationalists and republicans to say, "This is how we are going to step up to the mark to dealing with this". If there is disadvantage in the unionist community — there is — we will want to hear what you are going to do about it. We definitely will. You will not be excluded then; you will be very much included. We will know what we want to do, and we will want to hear your proposals for dealing with the disadvantage, the sectarianism, the one-sided inquiry process and the diminution of Britishness as a consequence of the promotion of Irishness. We will want to hear your proposals about that, yes we will. You will have a very strong and effective role to play, and hopefully you will play it.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I speak in favour of the motion. It is welcome, not just because of its authorship but because it represents an attempt to return to the high ground of leadership, hope and aspiration that was endorsed, ratified and welcomed by the people of Ireland in the development of the agreement. That is historical reality. There is another reality affecting our current circumstances. When I look at the amendment, in particular the removal of the reference to the Belfast Agreement — more commonly referred to as the Good Friday Agreement — I think that is a pity. I state this for the record: I embrace and respect the consent principle, which also means accepting the current constitutional status quo. I respect it, and I accept it. I say that because I have the power under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement to bring about a united Ireland. I have to convince sufficient numbers of people and my colleagues to bring about that constitutional change. Until that position arrives, I will accept the status quo. I hope that that is as clear as I can make it. There are no grounds for political violence against the political arrangements on this island, because we now all have the possibility —

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Member give way?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Perhaps to someone else, but you have just had your opportunity, if you do not mind.

People have the opportunity now to change the political circumstances of governance on our island. If that could be done tomorrow, I would do it tomorrow; if it takes longer, I am prepared to take longer, and it will be done by peaceful persuasion and through the democratic mandate of the people of this island. We should all embrace that.

In the flag protests, I see a continuation of the denial that is represented by the tabling of the amendment. The amendment, if it had not removed the reference to the Good Friday Agreement, would have been perfectly acceptable. However, to ask me, who was involved in the negotiations and campaigned for and engaged in a widespread national debate along with my party colleagues to convince republicans that it was the opportunity for a new beginning, to repudiate that agreement is not on. It is a denial of the progress that we have made and debases not just the progress that has been made since the Good Friday Agreement but the value that was added in the negotiations at Hillsborough and St Andrews. Therefore, if we are getting denial from political unionism, which the amendment represents, it is little wonder that, on the streets, unionists are responding to that absence of political leadership with violent political reaction to an issue that could and should be understood and should be accepted on the basis of parity of esteem.

Is flying the Union Jack 365 days a year parity of esteem? Can anybody sensibly argue that that represents parity of esteem for nationalists and republicans? It does not. Is there a single council that will fly the tricolour at the present time? No. Do I feel any less Irish as a result? I repudiate and do not accept for one moment those who are arguing that the reason that we have political —

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Let me finish this point and then I will accept your intervention.

Some are arguing that the unionists — and they are unionists; let us describe them as they are — who are rioting on our streets, visiting violence on people in their homes and stopping and disrupting life in our cities and towns are doing so on the basis that their national identity, as they would describe it, has been diminished by the fact that Belfast City Council is now a much more inclusive place and represents diversity in our society. I want to hear people explain that in rational terms.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. He said that he now accepts the constitutional position of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom unless and until the majority of the people vote otherwise. Is he now saying that he accepts that the IRA campaign of ethnic cleansing, particularly in the border areas, was also wrong? Can he condemn that today? Does he accept that some of the actions of his party, coupled with those of the SDLP, in naming play parks after those who are seen as terrorists is the way forward?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has a minute added on to his time.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Thank you very much. I accept your perspective absolutely, and I respect it. I do not agree with it, and I do not expect you to agree with my perspective on the people I knew who became involved in the IRA. I know them, and I know my community. I know that they were heroic figures in our community. I do not shove that down your throat, and I do not expect you to understand it. We have some uncomfortable conversations to engage in, and I stand ready and willing to do that.

There have been references to the discussion on the television last night. The individual concerned was shot in his own home, and a friend who was helping him to decorate that home was shot dead. That is the background against which he makes his comments. There is a lot of hurt on all sides of our community, and we need to understand —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is almost gone.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

We need to understand our responsibility. This place is based on the agreement that was endorsed by the people of Ireland; the Good Friday Agreement, with added value from the Hillsborough negotiations and the St Andrews negotiations. We should continue that political leadership and that direction.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is gone.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak, and I appeal to people to try to look to the future rather than to the past.

I speak in support of the motion and, in particular, its appeal for support for the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. However, we need much more than spirit, and I call on unionist leaders to embrace and support the values and principles of that agreement, because it is within that agreement that we all can and must find our way out of the current mess. In fact, I believe that failure to live up to those principles and values, and the political cherry-picking of that agreement, has contributed significantly to our present difficulties. The agreement directly addresses some, perhaps most, of the difficulties that we are now facing and gives this Assembly its legitimacy and authority to do what we do here. Without the agreement, we have no foundation or legitimacy.

We are told by some that the agreement confirmed the status of Northern Ireland in the UK and that, therefore, the Union flag is the national flag, and that that is the end of the matter. However, I will remind people gently that the agreement says:

"the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities".

That is a lot, Mr Speaker. Impartiality, diversity, respect, equality, parity of esteem and just and equal treatment. How can any of us square that with a winner-takes-all approach to flag flying or any other aspect of life?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

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

No. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

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

The question for unionist leaders today is whether they have signed up for the transformation of division in our society or for its mere containment and management. This choice goes far beyond flags. Where is parity of esteem? Where is the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement in their call for gerrymandering of Belfast to retain unionist control or in fair housing allocation in Girdwood or in North/South co-operation or even in such an obviously good idea as the Narrow Water bridge, where a massive slice of the cost, some 90%, was being funded from elsewhere? Where is there even a hint of parity of esteem in their handling of the flag issue and the associated violence?

The motion calls for inclusivity and mutual respect. How much inclusivity and mutual respect is demonstrated by establishing a narrow one-sided conversation in the form of a tribal Unionist Forum?

Why is there such opposition to the re-establishment of the Civic Forum that is part of this institution? It is a mechanism that would empower our civic society and facilitate the type of inclusive conversation, based on mutual respect, that is needed to resolve controversial issues eating away at our society.

Mr Speaker, how can we have inclusivity and mutual respect if unionist leaders will not honestly tell their people that, in the new order of life and politics and in the transformation of division, things will look and feel a bit different?

The ways of the past cannot be the way of the future, yet what we are hearing from the leader of the DUP is that violence is the result of the Alliance Party changing what he called the established status quo in the City Hall and that all this violence has been brought about by just one action. On the other hand, the next day, we are told that it is about a whole plethora of things. In any of that, there is no mention about the 40,000 scurrilous leaflets that were circulated in east Belfast and which were intended to bring about the sort of violence that we have. There is no mention of elected representatives —

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just so that the leader of the SDLP gets his facts right, there were not 40,000 leaflets distributed in east Belfast. They were delivered across the city, so, if you are going to quote something, do it accurately.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us move on. [Interruption.] Order.

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

That is even worse. I thought that it was only in east Belfast, but I now know that it was even more widespread. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

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

There is no mention, in all of this, of elected representatives of both parties taking part in, supporting and condoning illegal protests night after night, side by side with men of violence.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is gone.

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

There is not much point in talking about a shared society and then supporting activities —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is gone.

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

— and policies designed to increase division.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I join the House in condemning the violence on the streets of east Belfast last night, and, indeed, I stand against any inflammatory language that may have been used by elected representatives in relation to that issue. I have seen the harsh consequence of that type of interface violence first hand. I have sat in homes at the bottom of the Newtownards Road and in Short Strand and had grown women break down in tears because they have not been able to communicate the consequences of that violence with even the closest members of their families. I have had to assist them in moving home as a result of that violence. It is not helping or serving any cause whatsoever, and people need to think seriously about that.

I welcome and support the opportunity that the motion gives to every Member of the Assembly to reaffirm explicit support for a shared future and the principles of the Belfast Agreement at this very difficult time. I and my party will not support the amendment from the DUP, which is wholly unnecessary and is a concerning attempt to dilute the motion and remove reference to the Belfast Agreement.

Indeed, it is deeply concerning that Mike Nesbitt, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, does not see that as a concern, as a key signatory of that agreement.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

No, I will not.

I am very aware that the people of Northern Ireland expect much more than rhetoric from the Assembly on this serious level of violence and disruption in Northern Ireland, and they are calling on elected representatives to deliver on demands that a majority — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

— of people in this community made when they voted in favour of the Belfast Agreement in 1998. Unfortunately, elected representatives have fallen short of delivering on those principles and demands, particularly on the issue of building a shared and integrated society and particularly by missing an opportunity to demonstrate what a shared future policy would look like in action, when they opposed a respectful, balanced and sustainable flags policy at Belfast City Hall and in councils across Northern Ireland. Rather than use the flags issue as an opportunity to demonstrate —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, Members. There are a number of conversations going on around the Chamber, and they should be taken outside. [Interruption.] Order. Allow the Member to continue.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Rather than use this flags policy as an opportunity to demonstrate what a shared future would look like in action and in practice — balance, compromise, mutual respect and, dare I say, even change — the DUP, UUP and PUP U-turned on long-standing support for designated days, and misled the community that this policy and the Alliance Party — the only party to stand up for the shared future position — were anti-British and anti-identity. That is plain wrong. There is nothing anti-British about a UK Government and Royal College of Arms-endorsed policy of respectfully displaying the Union flag on designated days.

The Ulster Unionist Party said in 2000 that by accepting the:

"legitimate expression of British identity through the flying of the flag on the 17 [flag-flying] days ... the SDLP and Sinn Fein will be honoring their obligation in the Belfast Agreement to show 'sensitivity' and 'promote mutual respect' rather than division".

The PUP said:

"Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom as per the will of the people. There is no requirement to all day every day ensure that that glaring fact is appreciated."

So what changed?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

No I will not give way.

I want to use this opportunity to make this clear point to the people of east Belfast and across Northern Ireland: this issue has been manipulated by political parties and people who are less concerned about creating a sustainable and positive expression of British identity in Northern Ireland and who are more interested in exploiting strongly held feelings for a flag for their own selfish political end, regardless of the consequences.

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

Will the Member give way?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I am not going to give way. There are many members of the Alliance Party and indeed people from across —

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

Will the Member give way?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

If I could finish, I might give way. Indeed, people from across this community understand and, indeed, have given their life in service for the positive values that that Union flag represents. Those values and that British identity are in no way disrespected or diminished by the adoption of a balanced policy of respectful display of the Union flag in line with the UK Government and Royal College of Arms designated days policy. That policy also respects and reflects that not all members of this community regard the Union flag as representative of their values and identity, and it is right that councils represent this diversity of identities in other creative ways.

I am fully committed to engaging with people who are disconnected from politics, but for unionist politicians to tell this community that a unionist forum or a united unionist candidate is somehow going to change the fact that it is in the best interests of this community to work out the principles of compromise and balance enshrined in the Belfast Agreement is raising unrealistic expectations and leading the people up a dead end.

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

Will the Member give way?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes, I give way.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. He has very usefully pointed out the ridiculous position that the Ulster Unionist Party and the PUP are in whenever they accepted designated days in 2000, but the DUP in Craigavon council and in Lisburn council also accepted designated days. That is consistent with the other two unionist parties. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Order.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his intervention. He is absolutely right and, indeed, it makes a mockery of the U-turn that we saw in Belfast City Council.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has a minute added to his time.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes, I give way.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. Further to that, the issue of the flag flying on Parliament Buildings was never raised by the DUP, at least since 2007. Why was it only raised in response to what happened in Belfast City Hall? What sort of signal is that sending?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his —

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Maginness made a point in relation to Craigavon council. He said that the DUP supported designated days. That is patently untrue, and I would like to clarify that fact now. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Order. The Member has it on the record.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Member, obviously, did not dispute the point about the DUP's acceptance of designated days at Lisburn City Council. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further lies are being told in the Chamber. The DUP on Lisburn City Council has never accepted designated days, and our flag flies every day in Lisburn City Council.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Order. Members should be very careful about calling other Members liars. Let us be very careful of our terminology and our language in the Chamber. [Interruption.] Order.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I agree with your ruling, but I think that an opportunity should be given to the Member to withdraw his allegation.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member did not name a Member. That is the difference. However, I still warn the Member, and Members in the House, to be very careful of the terminology used in the Chamber, especially the use of language.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point is that an opportunity was — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Order.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

— missed to show a shared-future policy in action. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, can I close quickly and assure the House — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

— that the Alliance Party will not be deterred or intimidated for standing for a shared future in Northern Ireland.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member's time is gone. Order.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you to consider the fact that when a Member gets up in the House and repeats what was said by another Member when it is clear that what was said was totally inaccurate, would you make a clear ruling on how that should be responded to. I accept, of course, that unparliamentary language, such as "liar", is unacceptable. However, when a person deliberately gives wrong information on the Floor and accuses other Members — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Could you, Mr Speaker, give some direction on such matters?

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let me deal with this point of order first from Lord Morrow. As Speaker, I do not sit in judgement and determine what is right or wrong and what Members say in the Chamber. However, during a point of order, I give Members the opportunity to correct what has been said and to get it on the record. That is the important point. [Interruption.] Order. I will take the point of order from Mr Humphrey.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

During his contribution a moment ago, Mr Lyttle referred to the DUP, the UUP and the PUP as having reversed their position on designated days. Let me make this very clear: in Belfast City Council, the DUP and the UUP have consistently voted for the Union flag to fly and have never supported designated days, so that is untrue.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Once again, the Member has that on the record. Let us please move on.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Yesterday, David Ford identified that there were underlying tensions in the community, and that the issues that have arisen over the last few weeks had been going on for some time during the summer. That makes the decision that the Alliance Party made in Belfast City Council, and I will come to that later, all the more bizarre. However, I will visit the issue of why these tensions may exist. The motion talks about:

"inclusivity, mutual respect, peace and democracy".

Those are very important issues because, if we are to bring the community with us on all of these issues, we need to respect and reflect that.

In my duty in the House and in my other duties, I meet people from all sections of the community daily, and I deal with people from all sections of the community, and I seek to deal with them in a very fair and impartial way for the best interests of the community. I think that the Assembly and the Executive have been doing good work to build good relations in Northern Ireland. However, many of the problems that exist are outside our control.

Across the way, we have republicans and nationalists. That is what they are, and they are entitled to be republicans and nationalists; therefore, they will put forward a particular agenda. We have the Alliance Party, which claims to be a non-sectarian party, and I will deal with that in a moment. But — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has the Floor.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In all of this, the fulfilment and meeting of particular agendas can cause real damage to a community. When it comes to historical and public inquiries, for example, there seems to be an entire focus, which is aimed against the loyalist community and people who have engaged in loyalist terrorism —

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I did not see the Member give way to anybody.

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

He gave way to me.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not have debate across the Chamber.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will correct what I said: he only gave way to his own colleagues.

When we look at the issue of public inquiries, we hear about Bloody Sunday and Finucane. It is always in the news; it is constant. We have a Prime Minister and a Government who are constantly giving in. How many people who have engaged in republican terrorism activities have been brought to book by the Historical Enquiries Team? Many people in the unionist community are concerned. They look at 1971, 1972, 1973, and so forth, when the main protagonists were the IRA, and they see how few IRA people have actually been brought to book by the Historical Enquiries Team. And you wonder why the community out there gets aggravated about things.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for giving way. He has come at a very important point. Does he agree that there is a sadness in the Chamber today that the initial contributions from the other side — Sinn Féin, SDLP and Alliance — have not concentrated on those underlying issues, which the debate gives us the opportunity to debate, discuss and to delve into, to ascertain why people are on the streets, peacefully protesting? People seem to be keeping their head in the sand and avoiding why they are on the streets.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has a minute added to his time.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for the intervention. Mitchel McLaughlin might see IRA figures as heroes, but we see them as terrorists; the vast majority of the public see them as terrorists, and they should be brought to book for their actions. We have little faith in what is going on with the Historical Enquiries Team, unless it brings the IRA to book for its activities. The Northern Ireland Office needs to step up to the mark and take into account those views, because it has a contribution in all of this.

We have a Parades Commission that does not command the confidence of the unionist community. I have met the Parades Commission and been treated with the greatest degree of indignity by that group of people. It treats elected —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. There are a number of conversations going on around the Chamber, and I have asked that those conversations be had outside. The Member has the Floor.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It treats elected representatives with contempt and, unsurprisingly, it is chaired by a former member of the Alliance Party. In fact, it may be an existing member, but it is someone who was a councillor for the Alliance Party for many years.

Then, of course, compounding all of that, we have the City Hall decision. The status quo in this Building was accepted, as was the status quo in Belfast City Hall. Republicans and nationalists wanted to break that status quo. Of course, who does the Alliance Party side with? It sides with the republicans and, indeed, the nationalists. It made that anti-British, anti-unionist, partisan, sectarian decision. It can no longer take on the bastion of a non-sectarian, non-partisan party after its decision in the City Hall. As I travel round other parts of the United Kingdom and, indeed, other countries, I see their national flag flying on their city hall in their capital city, but not in Belfast, because the Alliance Party signed up with Sinn Féin and the SDLP to remove the national flag —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

All remarks should be made through the Chair.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

— from the City Hall for 95% of the time. Then we get —

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the spirit of other Members correcting the record, in Belfast City Hall, the SDLP and Sinn Féin backed an Alliance Party compromise around the flying of the flag on 17 days, as is applied under Department for Culture, Media and Sport guidance right across the UK. The Alliance Party did not back a motion from either the SDLP or Sinn Féin.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

And it treated the public with contempt by ignoring the consultation that took place, in which 90% of people said not to touch it. Now we are left to pick up the pieces, Mr Speaker, and we have to establish a unionist forum to attempt to pick up those pieces where others have made a mess.

In recent days, we have heard the sanctification of Short Strand residents. The people of Cluan Place may have a somewhat different point of view, having suffered violence exerted upon them, week in, week out, day in, day out.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is almost gone.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It was quite evident on Saturday where the violence was coming from. The stones were coming from the Short Strand community. We need to reflect and bring our communities together, not seek to further divide them.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I rise, as my colleague Mitchel McLaughlin did, to support the motion. In supporting it and in all Members contributing to it, it is essential that we seek to return to the hope and commitment that was provided by the Good Friday Agreement and the massive endorsement of that agreement by the people right across this island. It is important that we return to the spirit and the letter of the Good Friday Agreement. It reminds me — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

It reminds me that representatives of the unionist community have been telling people like me for many years that we are entitled to our aspirations. I have often said that I have no interest —

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I will not give way to any Member, so as not to cause offence, and I say that to my own party colleagues as well. I will just offend everybody from the outset. On that basis, and with your indulgence, Cheann Comhairle, I say that it is important that we recognise that the Good Friday Agreement was not about endorsing someone's aspirations. I repeat that I am not remotely interested in whether anybody agrees that I am entitled to have aspirations. I have no aspirations; I have political objectives, and I have rights. Those rights and those political objectives are endorsed by the Good Friday Agreement.

Where I think that the motion falls a bit short is that it talks about the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, but there is also the letter of the agreement. The agreement was not just a glossy brochure; it was a historical agreement. It was a major compromise from all sides, and, as my colleague Mitchel McLaughlin has already said, he and many of his colleagues, myself included, went up and down the length of the country supporting and promoting the Good Friday Agreement to colleagues and people in our community who saw it as a compromise and as a risk and saw it as not fulfilling all our political objectives. However, they bought into the argument that the Good Friday Agreement, providing what it does, enshrined in law a human rights and equality-based society, which was inclusive in a way that it had never been before. A framework agreement was provided for an end of conflict/state repression — call it whatever you want to call it, and I accept that we will have different interpretations of what happened in the past.

As I have said, the Good Friday Agreement has a lot of components to it. It enshrines the human rights and equality underpinning of everything that we do, including in places such as this House. It deals with the constitution, but I remind Members that not only does it deal with the current status of the North of Ireland, but it deals with it on the basis of the all-Ireland dimension. That is a very important part of the constitutional arrangements that we are now dealing with. People need to understand that unless we deal with all those elements of the Good Friday Agreement, we will fail on the promise and the hope of the Good Friday Agreement and the agreements that have been reached between the various parties and Governments in intervening years.

The Good Friday Agreement is underpinned by the principles of parity of esteem. That is not a catchphrase. How do we develop parity of esteem? I would argue that all the party leaders around this Chamber need to commit themselves today. I am fearful that, if I were listening to this debate from outside the House, I would have to work out, as a member of the public, whether I have any more confidence at the end of the debate about what is going to happen on our streets in the days, weeks and months ahead, or whether I am less confident by what I have heard in the Chamber.

I urge Members to recommit themselves to let us deliver on parity of esteem for all our citizens, particularly when people are talking about flags and emblems. The Good Friday Agreement commits us to making sure that we protect and respect everybody's identity. That means flags, symbols and emblems. If we do not treat each other with mutual respect, as a society we will not go forward, and we will not be enshrining or living up to the hope and prospects of the Good Friday Agreement.

I urge all Members to send out a very clear message to the citizens out there, whom we all collectively represent, that we have a better way than what is currently unfolding on our streets. What is unfolding on our streets is a downward spiral to more violence. Someone is going to get seriously injured or lose their life. In here, we have a responsibility to direct what is going on out there into a political agreement. The only way to get a political agreement —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Time is up.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

— is for party leaders to sit down together and agree to hammer one out, give leadership to people and face down those in our community who are attacking the peace process on a day-to-day basis.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Your time has gone.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Show leadership.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In the debate, it is important that we refer to the wording of the motion. I am disappointed that the Member who has just spoken did not deal with the furore around his comments. The motion is explicit about condemning acts of violence, committing to peace and all of that. What did the Member say that he would do if he lived in the Short Strand? He can correct the quote, if I am wrong. I will certainly give way to him. He said that, given what has been happening in the Short Strand, if he lived there and his property was being attacked, he would be out throwing stones as well.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will give way to the Member.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I am very happy to clarify that. I want to make it very clear. As I said to Mr Nesbitt, people should not be misquoting anybody. Last night, in a debate with John Kyle, a representative from east Belfast, I made it very, very clear that unless people stand up and identify their problems, you will not deal with it. I made that very clear.

I would defer to Mr Poots. His party colleagues sitting beside him commended him last year for shooting at people whom he said were attacking his home. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Shooting at people who were attacking his home. I made it very clear. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I do not want to see one person throw a stone either into the Short Strand or from the Short Strand. If anybody in the Short Strand wants to stone another Protestant family's home, they are not doing it in my name, the name of my party or the people of the Short Strand. I am making it very, very clear. I do not want one stone — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

— thrown. However — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

— you cannot fault a family who have no option other than to defend their home — as Mr Poots did last year. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member who had the Floor gave away the Floor. [Interruption.] Order. It is up to the Member who has the Floor to decide to take an intervention or not to take an intervention. He invited the intervention. Let us be clear.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Maskey made an assertion about something that he knows nothing about. His assertion is wholly and completely wrong. He has also made that assertion on radio. He should be very careful about what he is stating.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has that on the record.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am not clear, even still, whether the Member has said —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has a minute added to his time.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I appreciate that.

What I heard was more a justification for his comments. We need to be unequivocal: violence is wrong, from wherever it comes and under whatever circumstances. That is the position that we have. I invite the parties opposite, and particularly that Member, to reiterate that that is the position that they hold. If the Member is going to make that unequivocal statement, I am happy to give way to him. I note that he did not take the opportunity.

We cannot support the final part of the motion about the Belfast Agreement. The Belfast Agreement is one of the reasons why people are so aggravated, annoyed and are out on the streets, which is why we cannot support that. I note that Mr Nesbitt clarified what he meant by the "spirit" of the Belfast Agreement. In that context, I accept what he said. However, we are wholly opposed to the letter of the Belfast Agreement, which the Members opposite have said that we should accept. It was wrong to release prisoners. That was wrong. That is why people on the streets are saying, "Look what they got through the Belfast Agreement." It was wrong. It was wrong for people to be put into government — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member must be heard. The Member has the Floor.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It was wrong for people to be put into government with no decommissioning and no commitment to supporting the rule of law and the police. That is what happened under the Belfast Agreement. This party changed that through the St Andrews Agreement — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

— a decommissioned IRA and a party that was prepared to say that it supported the rule of law and the police.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

It is interesting that the Members across the way, the republican and nationalist parties, laughed at the comments that the Member just made. It is no surprise to those of us on these Benches that the people who would laugh at what he has just said are the people who would name a children's play park after a gunman and a murderer.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that intervention. Let us be clear about the narrative of where we are in respect of all this. The St Andrews Agreement changed the political structures and the landscape in which we operate. The Belfast Agreement was fundamentally flawed, and we wholly opposed it. Indeed, the spirit of that agreement led to things such as 50:50 recruitment — the legal discrimination of the Protestant community. The St Andrews Agreement changed that. That is why recruitment of custody officers to the Prison Service is based solely on merit. That is why over 70% of recruits come from the Protestant community. Under the Belfast Agreement-style Patten report, that would not have been the case. So, the St Andrews Agreement has changed the way in which we and those structures operate.

Others who have created the tensions that exist include the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who apologised for what happened around Pat Finucane. What I hear is an apologist for how the security forces defended our country. Those people exploit a particular narrative that republicans want to portray, which is that they were the heroes and the security forces the bad guys. The Prime Minister is pandering. I note that Raymond McCartney nods his head in agreement. That is no surprise. The Prime Minister panders to that particular narrative. That is wrong, and that is why people out there are agitated.

We also have an Irish Prime Minister saying that he wants a public inquiry into Pat Finucane's murder. He will not, however, admit to how the Republic of Ireland armed the Provisional IRA and supported it to carry out its 30-year terrorist campaign.

You can then understand why underlying tensions exist in the unionist and loyalist community. That is something that this party will, quite rightly, expose. We will come alongside those people and support them in tackling, peacefully and politically, those underlying problems that are creating the tensions that we have today.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is up.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I am very pleased to speak today, particularly in trying to return to the spirit of the Belfast Agreement. The Ulster Unionist Party is absolutely clear that the motion is the correct one. I hope that everyone is listening to everyone else's ideas and points, because that is the only way to go forward.

In Northern Ireland, we have seen horrific scenes of rioting and violence during the past five weeks. We need political leadership today. The Ulster Unionists are providing just that, with others, through the Unionist Forum and this debate. Today, we are offering all the parties the opportunity to debate and discuss the issues, so please listen to each other.

The Assembly should have no difficulty committing to:

"the principles of inclusivity, mutual respect, peace and democracy".

However, that is the easy part. Actions from all of us will speak louder than words. But in terms of this motion, Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party forcing through taking down the flag over our capital city without community consensus was wrong.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

No. Let me carry on.

The Alliance Party leader described that as a victory. That was wrong. In terms of that motion, it was wrong for Sinn Féin's Jim McVeigh to state that it was a process towards total removal of the flag. Gerry Kelly's fuelling the fire by suggesting the renaming of the Royal Victoria Hospital was wrong. I raise those points, because we have to get back to the spirit of the agreement. None of those actions is within the principles that are outlined in today's motion.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

No. Not at the moment. [Interruption.] The Union flag is meant to represent everyone in the United Kingdom through its crosses: St George for England; St Andrew for Scotland; St David for Wales; and St Patrick for Ireland. Turning it into a political tool is wrong.

Before Christmas, I knocked on as many doors as I could in Ballyclare and Antrim to hear people's views. Whether they were Catholic or Protestant, their message was clear: the flag's flying for 365 days is not a problem, so please fly it; the protests are the problem, so please do not.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can the Member describe the Union flag to us once again? Today is the first time that I have ever heard that there was a cross of St David on the Union flag. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I have been very liberal with points of order. However, I must say to the Member that that is not, by any means, a point of order, no matter how he might describe it.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As I understand it, one of the differences in shape of the white comes from the Welsh side, but I will happily have that clarified later.

I want to go back to this point. It seems that the comment that Northern Ireland — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

— is not as divided as politicians make out is rather true. As a result of so many wrongs, we have protests. My party leader has made it absolutely clear that, because they are associated with violence, the protests must stop. We cannot be clearer than this: violence must stop, and we unreservedly condemn all of it. The economic cost to traders, we are told, is some £14 million, and the cost of policing has reached £7 million. Both costs are rising. Therefore, we call for the violence to end and for protests to come off the streets.

If we reflect on things, we see that all of us here have somehow managed to create three sectarian divisions — unionist, nationalist and neither — all of which fail to respect others, look down their nose at one another and think that they are better than others. None is; no one is. Let us drop that, and try to make things better for everyone. The Assembly needs leadership to get back to the spirit of the Belfast Agreement and to start working with consensus, not enforced division. I see the worst of that in education, where, at the moment, there is no effort whatsoever to find an agreed way forward.

We have no issue with the DUP amendment, as the principle of consent is integral to it.

The financial situation in the Republic, the recent census figures —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is almost gone.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

— and current global trends show that changing the status quo is off the agenda. I accept and welcome Sinn Féin's earlier comment. Let us all learn from today, take the points on board and go forward.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I have to say that I find it very disappointing that the DUP is seeking to stand back from agreements that have been reached and voted for right across this island. Our society wants peace and change, and the irony of that situation is that the people who are out protesting need change most. Nobody should be under any illusion about how much change we have had since the historic agreements were reached. Those are good agreements that our people support regardless of their political affiliation or which flag they choose as their own. How much change has happened? There has been change socially and economically. There has been change in policing and justice. There has been educational change, and there has been change — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— in equality for differing cultural traditions. Nobody should be afraid of change, and nobody should laugh at it. What we are seeing, through the protests —

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

No, I will not give way.

What we are seeing is an irrational, illogical response. As we know and as the Alliance Party pointed out, the position on the flag was a compromise. The flag is flown on designated days here at Stormont. The unionist parties forgot to tell their protesters that. They forgot to explain that, in agreements that are reached, you have to reach compromises. What they have been doing is pretending that things are the same as before. Things are not the same, and it is better for everyone that they are not. What the unionist parties are doing is scurrying around, hiding and trying to bluster through their contradictions. We heard Edwin Poots and Gregory Campbell blustering today, because they forgot to tell their electorate that there is going to be change. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

We have told the people who vote for us that there will be change. We are engaging with people and saying that that will mean compromises. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Members should not debate across the Chamber. The Member has the Floor.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. They have forgotten about the people who voted for them and who have been left behind by their abysmal failure to deal with the education issue. [Laughter.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

They can laugh. Listen to the laughter. Yet, Gregory Campbell — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Gregory Campbell asked what Sinn Féin will do to deal with Protestant underachievement. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will tell you what Sinn Féin will do: we will continue to bring about change so that the young people who are currently out rioting get an education rather than being left behind by the policies of the DUP and — yes, Mr Nesbitt — the UUP — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

You have failed the young people. You have failed to look at the underlying causes, and you talk now with crocodile tears about educational underachievement and disadvantage.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

No, I will not give way. You all had your opportunities.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Not as Minister.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member should not —

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

You all had your opportunities.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Not as the Minister.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member should not persist. It is quite obvious that the Member has no intention of giving way. Let us move on. The Member must be heard.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I am a member of the Policing Board. The PSNI has failed to act appropriately in relation to — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— the illegal protests. It has failed to act. I said that to Matt Baggott last Thursday when he came to the Policing Board. It failed to act appropriately when hate crime was committed against a party in the House. That is wrong, and it should not happen. I join all colleagues in the House in condemning hate crime against the Alliance Party and, indeed, any party.

Mike Nesbitt waxed lyrical about the agreement. He talked about reconciliation yet tried —

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— to proceed to say that we are all — I forget his exact words — British citizens or UK or whatever he called it citizens — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I am an Irish citizen. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The tens of thousands of people who vote for me and my party are Irish citizens. Mitchel McLaughlin —

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member is persisting in trying to get in on —

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

It is a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I hope that it is a point of order.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Well, you will judge that, sir.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Let us see whether it is a point of order.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I believe that the Member said that she was confused. For the record, I said that the agreement settled the position of Northern Ireland — the country; the physical shape of Northern Ireland — as part of the United Kingdom. I made no reference to the people not being allowed to call themselves Irish. That is just as a point of order and clarification.