Northern Ireland Assembly, 19 March 2014

702 contributions from 42 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I will not call amendment No 11 as it is mutually exclusive with amendment No 10, which has been made. Order, Members. Amendment No 12 made: In page 11, line 31, leave out "four" and insert "six".— [Ms Lo (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment).]

Amendment No 13 made: In page 11, line 34, leave out "four" and insert "six".— [Ms Lo (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment).]

Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 26 to 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, Members. I have been advised by party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement among the Whips to suspend the three minutes and move straight to the vote.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 20; Noes 77.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I will not call amendment No 18 as it is consequential to amendment No 17, which has not been made. Amendment No 19 made:

In clause 45, page 24, line 20, at end insert -

"and the process by which a legal opinion is obtained in subsection (2)”.— [Mr Weir.]

Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question, That amendment No 20 be made, put and negatived.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We now come to the fourth group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 36, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 37, 47, 50, 51, 56 and 62, which deal with general powers and duties, community planning, general power of competence and performance improvement. Members should note that amendment No 42 is mutually exclusive with amendment No 43 and that amendment Nos 51 and 56 are consequential to amendment No 50.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I beg to move amendment No 36:After clause 68 insert

"PART 9A

GENERAL DUTY TO PROMOTE SHARED USE OF THE PUBLIC REALM

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Many stakeholders greatly welcome the inclusion of community planning in the Bill. However, there are concerns that, unless the wording of the Bill is strengthened, this will be a missed opportunity. It is important that the community is involved in shaping health and well-being provisions. The Alliance Party has therefore tabled several amendments in this group on community planning and how to ensure that it is best utilised.

As part of local government reform, we are not simply amalgamating councils but are conferring on them a range of new powers. Those include specific new powers that will give councils a huge opportunity to promote shared space. Chief amongst those include powers over regeneration and neighbourhood renewal, as well as planning decisions. Those powers will give councils control over a series of mechanisms to promote shared public space. The maintenance and protection of shared space is a cross-cutting responsibility for the entire Northern Ireland Executive, other public bodies and civic society.

Amendment No 36 provides for a general duty to promote the shared use of the public realm. Councils would therefore be duty-bound to promote shared use of public space between people of all religious beliefs, political persuasion or racial group. That obviously applies only so far as it is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions. It recognises not just the need to promote shared space but that it is a responsibility of all public bodies. Therefore, it is imperative that we reflect that cross-cutting responsibility in the legal framework for new councils. All public space in Northern Ireland should be open and shared. However, evidence shows that fear affects our basic choices, such as where people live, what they wear and where they access public services. Amendment No 36 would create a new duty that would ensure against that.

Alliance's amendment No 37 to clause 69 seeks to add equality and good relations to the long-term objectives of community planning. We are rather shocked that the two nationalist parties have tabled a petition of concern against that. At this time, when building a shared future is so important, they need to explain to people why they are opposed to embedding good relations into community planning and are prepared to support only an inferior amendment that references only equality. We believe that —

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Does the Member agree that, in essence, you cannot have good relations without equality and, likewise, cannot have equality without good relations? They go together. They go hand in glove. It is therefore a nonsensical argument to describe us in Northern Ireland, or anyone else, as having a hierarchy of equality issues. Good relations and equality are one and the same thing; they go together. It is vital that, in these matters, we take forward our whole responsibility to ensure that, working hand in hand, we have equality and good relations in our shared spaces, our shared society and our shared community.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Absolutely. I thank the Member for his contribution.

We believe that equality and good relations should be central to community planning. We recognise that, although they are different concepts, they are mutually supportive. Too much time and energy has been wasted on arguments about whether equality is more important than good relations. We reject that distinction. Commitments and policies on equality and good relations must be applied to reinforce each other, rather than setting them in opposition. There is a clear relationship between the two.

Any society that intimidates or generates fear among some of its citizens or systematically excludes or discriminates against them cannot be equal. In turn, a shared society cannot be delivered without equality. Therefore, to achieve equality, we must insist on inclusion, and to achieve inclusion, we must insist on equality. Equality arguments must not be used to undermine good relations, and good-relations arguments must not be made to undermine equality.

Good relations must not be an excuse to ignore or deny significant issues of injustice or exclusion. Rather than having a hierarchal relationship between the two, they are interdependent. A hierarchy between equality and good relations must be avoided as it too often masks the maintenance of a de facto, hostile and parallel reality in which there is a shared-out future rather than the shared future that we all want.

I draw Members' attention to our other amendments — Nos 38, 40, 41 and 42. Amendment No 38 builds on clause 69 on actions, as our amendment specifies:

‘"including actions and functions related to the planning, provision and improvement of public services"

in community planning. After all, that is what community planning is about: it is about delivering better and more coordinated services.

Amendment No 40 requires:

"the community and voluntary sector and businesses"

to be included as community planning planners. Communities know what local needs are. Voluntary organisations and businesses often provide services on behalf of councils; therefore, their involvement as partners is crucial. Businesses are very important in economic development.

Amendment No 41 inserts "outcomes achieved in" into clause 74 alongside "progress made", which focuses on monitoring not only the progress but the effectiveness of community planning. We cannot just talk about output; we need to talk about outcomes as well.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for giving way. I have been listening very intently to her argument. Can she explain the silence that she has introduced in her amendment? That silence in no way, shape or form defines what good relations is, and in no way, shape or form defines good relations in the context of international obligations. How can you make an argument, which you do with some eloquence, about the requirement to have a balance between good relations and equality and then have complete and utter silence when it comes to what good relations should mean in law?

I suggest to the Member that, in the circumstances in which there is a vacuum in the middle of her amendment, the right course of action today should be to withdraw it or not move it and, over the next short period, work up an amendment with the Minister that is not silent about what good relations should mean in law in Northern Ireland.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his contribution. I am aware that there is perhaps a very definite definition of "good relations" in all our legislation. However, we have been using the term for a long time. We have been using it in community and race relations. Councils need to do their best in order to have good relations in whatever way they define them.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I take on board what has been said, particularly by Mr Attwood. He urges the Member not to move the amendment. I am content with what is in the amendment. If there were an issue that needed further definition of "good relations", one possible route would be to move the amendment, have it passed, and then seek to attach additional explanation or qualification to it at Further Consideration Stage. That might be another way around it.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Mr Weir, you are always so helpful. [Laughter.] I would certainly be very pleased to do that. I urge you to support the amendment, after which we can table a further amendment.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes, of course.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

If that is the Member's thinking, does it is not suggest that the Alliance Party now accepts that there is gap in the amendment? We could legislate today on good relations, which is a very important principle that we should all live up to, but not legislate by defining it today. That is bad law, Mr Speaker. That is a bad way to legislate, even if there are good intentions behind so doing.

In any case, there is a way through this. Only a matter of weeks ago, my colleague in the House of Commons tried to introduce an amendment to the then Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that did what the Member's amendment fails to do, which is to define "good relations" with regard to tackling prejudice and promoting understanding — words that are borrowed from British legislation. Is it not the wiser course of action today, given that we could legislate without certainty about what will happen at Further Consideration Stage, not to move the amendment and for the Alliance Party to work with Mr Weir, the SDLP and the Minister to ensure that the Bill is as tight as it possibly can be at Further Consideration Stage?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

No. I know that Mr Attwood has a legal background —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We should clarify the position of the House. I understand that the Member has already moved the amendment. I just want to clarify that for the House, because I certainly did not pick up that she had not moved it. To bring clarity to the debate, I ask the Member whether she has already moved the amendment?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes, I have. I have already proposed the amendment. It is important. Surely you cannot put everything in primary legislation. You cannot include every definition. The amendment establishes the principle that we want good relations.

I applaud Dr Alasdair McDonnell's attempts at Westminster. I have been following the debate. His is a very good way of defining it. Perhaps when he has it redefined in Westminster, we can follow the definition. However, it is important now that we have the amendment in our primary legislation. If we need further amendments to put in the definition, I will be very happy to work with all parties. Let us have a meeting to look at how we define "good relations" in the Northern Ireland way.

Mr Speaker, may I continue, please?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes, of course.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am interested to hear what the Member is saying. Quite frankly, she is to some degree just talking around this. She is not actually naming or doing anything. When the Member is addressing the House today, will she, for the sake of those of us on this side of the House, give one or two examples of where she has seen bad practice? Is she thinking, for instance, of the naming of a play park after a convicted terrorist, which was pushed through by SDLP and Sinn Féin councillors? Is that the type of thing that you have in mind when you talk here today? Will you be a wee bit more specific instead of talking in generalities?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Sure. Lord Morrow, I am surprised that you even asked me that question; I really am. Surely we in Northern Ireland have seen the divisions, the bad feeling between communities and the deep political divide. I love this country, but many things are wrong here in Northern Ireland. Good relations is one of them. The lack of respect for each other and the hostility between neighbouring districts is another. Ninety per cent of our public housing is for one side or the other. We have bus stops on street after street, because people are too frightened to get public transport or to stand at a bus stop that is not in their area. We have so many leisure centres that only one side or the other will go to. In Belfast, we have 40-odd leisure centres. That number may be wrong, but there is a large number of them. There is one for you and one for them. The people in one neighbourhood will not go to the leisure centre down the road, so we have to build another one for that community. There are far too many examples for me to say.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. I take the basis for some of her argument, but does she accept that there are some really good practices and examples of people working together in Northern Ireland? Even during the really dark times of the Troubles when I was growing up, you played football every Saturday and during the week, and you mixed with every community. I am not just talking about two communities but a wide range of communities. I have to say that work practices in some areas are, yes, still very much divided, as is housing. However, there are some good practices. I would not like the Member to put out a message that everywhere in Northern Ireland is totally divided.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I very much agree with you, Mr Elliott. I have been involved in community work for 20 years, so I know about the good work in many communities and about the leadership from community groups, women's groups and youth groups. The cross-community work of those youth groups and community organisations has been wonderful, and they are doing their best. However, we, as legislators, need to put a marker down to say that we support good relations and equality. Let us all work together to bring Northern Ireland to a better place where we will have a shared future.

Our amendment simply makes the outcomes achieved part of the two-yearly report.

Amendment No 42 to clause 76, which deals with community involvement, ensures that councils actively seek the engagement of consultees and take their views into account. Community planning is a new concept that, if done right, could bring about a more holistic approach to coordinating resources from councils and statutory bodies in order to deliver effective services for local people. However, given the examples that we have seen elsewhere in the UK — Scotland and Wales — and here in our own neighbourhood renewal schemes, there needs to be buy-in from statutory agencies to make this work, rather than their paying lip service to it. More grass-roots level involvement will also create that bottom-up approach and strengthen the structure.

The Alliance Party is minded to support all the other amendments but for amendment No 43, which is tabled by the Minister, with good intentions, I have to say. However, to add the word "reasonable" makes it more restrictive in how the council makes arrangements to involve communities. I urge the House to oppose the amendment that adds the word "reasonable". I think that it would be counterproductive to trying to involve communities in participating. It is so important that communities feel that they are part of the community planning process and that what they say will be taken into account.

Taken together, these amendments will widen the process of consultation and engage more people in the planning of their local communities, which can only be good for the development of effective community plans. I welcome the Minister's efforts to strengthen community planning and to encourage meaningful engagement with communities or other interests. Those are vital elements to the Bill. I urge the House to support these amendments because they will greatly improve the process of community planning. A community plan is a long-term and evolving process. Service delivery will continue to improve over time. Therefore, it is important that we start with the best and most robust mechanism that we can.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Yes.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I actually agree with the Member on this point, but I wonder where would we find such a definition of good relations? If Sinn Féin would like to introduce it, perhaps there is an example of it.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Yes, no problem. I thank the Member for his intervention. An interpretation clause could add, for example, that good relations involves having regard, in particular, to tackling prejudice and promoting understanding. There is suggested wording for a clause that might fit there.

Just to further my case, good relations cannot be built on inequality. Inequality is not the foundation here at all for good relations. Equality is the bedrock of good relations. That is why section 75 is worded the way it is. No society can overcome inequality by saying that if it upsets some people, we should not do it. That only preserves inequality.

Moving on to clause 69 and amendment No 39, the Minister of the Environment's amendment: this section on community planning is an extremely important part of the Bill. Sinn Féin believes that public services should be delivered locally and as close to the citizen as possible. Community planning provides tremendous opportunities for greater partnership working between councils, statutory agencies and the community and voluntary sectors. It brings joined-up thinking, which can bring greater expertise and local knowledge to bear in addressing the challenges that face our local communities. I am pleased that the Environment Committee is working to ensure that our local communities will be fully involved in making things better for those who live and work in their areas.

In that regard, I welcome the Minister's recognition that improving the social and economic well-being of a district includes promoting equality and tackling poverty, social exclusion and patterns of deprivation. Community planning will allow local communities to address the needs of their areas. They will be better equipped to promote prosperity and improve business strength while also promoting equality of opportunity and addressing the needs of those vulnerable people who are at risk of being left behind. This Part of the Bill can only benefit local communities.

Work is already under way to prepare for community planning. Some community planning pilots are under way, and the statutory transition committees are beginning to work with NISRA on making the most of the emerging knowledge from the 2011 census.

Poverty, social exclusion and child poverty in particular have been the focus of much discussion recently in the Assembly and in the media. It is important that we all contribute in a joined-up way to tackling our high level of deprivation so that we do not pass it on to the next generation. The whole concept of community planning is very positive: it makes local councils bigger players in contributing, for example, to economic recovery and regeneration, with all the rights and responsibilities that go with that.

That concludes my comments.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

We should all be very happy that we have got to the stage at which we are talking about community planning going ahead. A good example of some of that work is being pioneered in our own city through the One Plan. We were very good at getting the plan together, but we were not quite as good at ensuring that we had Departments lined up to deliver parts of it. We always need to be mindful that, although a plan is very important, delivery is equally important. The process around the One Plan has been a good lesson in bringing people together from all sections of society to try to work out the best way forward for an area. We can look at that, learn from it and maybe perfect it.

The Committee worked very closely with the Minister and the long-suffering departmental officials on this area of the Bill to try to ensure that we could agree to compromise. It is good to see some of the ministerial amendments on poverty and social exclusion. It is important that everything that we do on delivering public services keeps those issues in mind.

We are glad to support amendment No 36 from the Alliance Party, but we will be tabling amendments at Further Consideration Stage. It is slightly surprising — I am sure that it is just an innocent oversight — that sexual orientation is not included in the section 75 groups that are mentioned in the amendment. We are happy to work with Ms Lo and the Alliance Party to look at that.

We then come to the big one, amendment No 37, and I was delighted to hear that Mr McElduff has been reading very closely Hansard reports from Westminster and Mr Durkan's speeches over there. That was clear in his response to Mr Basil McCrea's question on how we define good relations. Mark Durkan made a pretty good stab at that in Westminster in the debate on the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I am glad to hear that others have taken that on board. I will read some of the text of the amendment he tabled into the record to show that we are committed to getting this right.

I understand that the Alliance Party has come to the issue with a good heart and does not intend to get things wrong: we just want to get it right. This is an opportunity, and, as Mr Attwood said, you should not miss an opportunity to get something right. We need to work together at Further Consideration Stage to try to improve the Bill in that regard. We are happy to do that: we will come with wording for whoever wants to read it, and hopefully we can get a consensus. I am glad that Mr Weir has suggested that he would be happy to work with us on this as well. Maybe he should have a word with some of his colleagues in Westminster. They did not seem as keen as he was earlier, although he may contradict his earlier statement —

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Gladly, yes.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

So that the Member does not put words in my mouth, I will clarify that I was not necessarily indicating that I would be happy to support any particular amendment. I am not sure whether Mr Attwood was suggesting that the amendment be withdrawn, which clearly cannot be done as it has already been moved, and something tabled at Further Consideration Stage. I was simply suggesting that an alternative route that the Alliance Party could pursue would be to vote to pass this amendment and then, if there was felt to be a need for further definition, seek to refine it at Further Consideration Stage.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Any amendment moved can be withdrawn through the will of the House. It is important to clarify that.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Speaker, and I thank Mr Weir for his clarification, which has been very helpful throughout the whole process. In the Committee and elsewhere, he has kept all of us right on the conventions here, and we are glad to have such an adviser on the Committee. Hopefully, he will reconsider how supportive he will be on some of this later, but we will wait and see.

The amendment tabled at Westminster seemed to get quite a lot of support around the House. The feeling was, however, that it was an issue that we needed to deal with here, and maybe we can try to get it right. I will read the relevant parts of the Westminster amendment:

"A public authority shall not interpret its obligations under subsection (2)

in a way that is incompatible with measures taken on the basis of

objective need.”.

(1B)

In subsection (5) of section 75 of that Act insert—

“good relations” shall be interpreted in line with international obligations

and, in particular, with regard to—

(a)

tackling prejudice, and

(b)

promoting understanding.”.’."

The final part on prejudice and understanding goes back to Mr McElduff's point.

That is where we are coming from. We are happy to look at anybody else's wording, but I think that we can finally find a way through to ensure that one does not simply trump the other but that we can have both. The Bill is an opportunity to enshrine not only good relations but equality in local government across the North.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Yes.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I am not quite as optimistic as the Member that we will get agreement on the definition of good relations. I waited for a long time to hear his definition. He mentioned "tackling prejudice". Who decides what prejudice is? I think that we need a much stronger narrative. I do not think that we will get away with making a single amendment. I join others in agreeing that we need to do this, but the devil is always in the detail. Is it his party's intention to bring a firm amendment at Further Consideration Stage to define what is meant by good relations?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr McCrea for his intervention and confirm that we intend to do so. We are happy to work with him and anybody else to see whether we can strengthen that commitment and that —

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will, yes.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I want to thank the Member for the collaborative approach that he offers to us. I am very supportive of and really grateful for that. I think that, sometimes, the House lacks that sort of cooperation.

The Community Relations Council has a lot of guidance on what constitutes good relations. The guidance may not be law, but the council has been around for the past 20 or 30 years, and I am sure that, if we look to it, it would give us some guidance.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am grateful for the Member's support. It is right that we try, where possible, to reach consensus on these issues. It might be pretty difficult, but we have to try, and I am happy to take advice from the Community Relations Council or anyone else.

I was saying that lots of Members around the Chamber can come up with instances when we have all fallen down on good relations.

I could come up with plenty of those and plenty of times when we have fallen down on equality, but we have to do better — that means all of us. We intend to get this right. We want to ensure that good relations is not used as a reason to trump equality issues around the Irish language, social housing and other things. We need to ensure that we do not allow good relations to be an excuse to prevent equality. It has to be based on the principle of objective need, and that is where we will be coming from in any discussions that we have or any amendments that we put forward after this. I look forward to working with any of the parties, and, hopefully, people will come to it in a positive frame of mind.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It appears that a lot of parties will be working together from now on. I will look forward to that in a positive manner.

I want, first, to talk about amendment No 36, which is the new clause proposed by the Alliance Party. I understand the principle of the amendment, but I suggest that the proposals contained in it are too narrow. It talks about religious belief, political opinion or racial group but misses out the other section 75 issues. There is a significant gap in the proposal; even Mr Eastwood mentioned that, maybe not specifically, but I took it that he saw a gap as well. I am bit surprised that the Alliance Party has not gone for equality for all in this process, because normally it is quite good at making the case that it wants equality for everyone. However, it has not done so in this case.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am happy to give way, yes.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I only really named a few; I am not saying that that is the total list. It could cover all the section 75 groups. I just do not want to name everyone in a long speech. We are saying that it covers all the section 75 equality groups.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for that, but the amendment does not specifically name them all. It names those three, which leaves a gap. Therefore, the Ulster Unionist Party has some difficulty with that particular proposal.

Again, I support the principle of amendment No 37, but I am concerned about how it would be implemented. It may be quite difficult to implement in law and, particularly, in the Bill. I am surprised, however, that there is a petition of concern about it, because I thought that the principle of it was fine, its general process and potential was good and it had the ability, hopefully, to recognise all the section 75 issues in the legislation.

Amendment No 40, as we say in Fermanagh, puts the cart before the horse. The basis of the clause to which the amendment refers is that the Department may specify bodies or individuals by order. Instead, however, the amendment tries to put wide-ranging bodies into the Bill, especially community and voluntary groups and businesses. I would be surprised if all those would not come within an order anyway. I understand where the Alliance Party is coming from, but I would be surprised if those groups were not within an order.

I am a wee bit concerned as well about businesses. Smaller businesses are the bedrock of Northern Ireland's business community, but small businesses are not mentioned. The amendment mentions businesses in a wide-ranging fashion. Organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses have quite a number of members who employ small numbers of people but are very important to the local economy. The amendment has merit, but it needs to be revisited. Again, I would be happy, in the spirit of today's cooperation, to discuss this with Ms Lo and her party, maybe ahead of Further Consideration Stage, to see whether we can improve the amendment.

Amendment No 45 is the Ulster Unionist Party amendment and, again, is on councils' general power of competence. Personally, I am not a great believer in the general power of competence. It is very wide-ranging and is prone to huge difficulties in the future. However, if it is to go ahead, I am merely trying to include some safeguards so that there is not a significant overlap with other Departments. That is the reason behind the amendment. It is just to ensure that, where there is overlap, other Departments' views are considered. I will use a wide-ranging example. If a council decides to build a health centre, it must take on the Department of Health's views, or, if it is going to build some educational institution, it must take on the Department of Education's views. That is all that amendment No 45 from the Ulster Unionist Party is attempting to do. Hopefully, people will accept and realise that.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

There is probably less meat in this group than there was in the previous group of amendments, but I will try to deal with some of the uncontroversial matters first.

I will start where the Member who spoke previously left off and say that amendment No 45 seems to be a relatively sensible amendment to provide that safeguard. So, the DUP is certainly happy to support amendment No 45.

Our position on the ministerial amendments is similar. Again, this has probably been an area where, in general, there have been good working relationships between the Department and the Committee. Some amendments have come from the Minister, and some have come, to a certain extent, at the prompting of the Committee. However, I find favour with the ministerial amendments in this group.

I will perhaps leave three of the more controversial amendments to the end. The other Alliance amendments, amendment Nos 38, 41 and 42 all seem to be relatively sensible. We had this debate about community planning, and, in truth, nobody knows precisely how community planning will work out. Many in the sector and beyond have raised widespread concerns that the legislation as it was drafted was perhaps not quite tight enough, and amendment Nos 38, 41 and 42 attempt to tighten that situation to ensure, as far as possible, that it can work well.

The one caveat is that, irrespective of whatever amendments are tabled to this section or whatever legislation is in this section, the proof of the community planning pudding will be in the eating. This is where there might be a differential quality throughout Northern Ireland. You can have all the legislation in the world and all the things that are either loose or tight by being compellable, but how community planning will work will depend largely on the attitudes of those in council and how much of an opportunity they see in this, the attitudes of the wider community and, very specifically, the attitudes of statutory bodies through their level of cooperation. The danger, as has been said, is that, on day one, the chief executive of the local area will turn up to the community planning meeting, but, six months down the line, the person who bumps the kettle on to make a cup of tea for whomever is there in the office will be the department's representative. With the best will in the world, the one weakness is that, whatever legislation is put in place, a lot will hang on that attitude, and, at the end of the day, cooperation and attitude are very difficult to legislate for. They are difficult to compel in that way. If the community planning process is done right, there will be a great opportunity to improve things, particularly for local communities. I hope that people enter into it in that spirit of cooperation and with the right attitude. I think that amendment Nos 38, 41 and 42 will help us to take at least a step forward in ensuring that that is there.

I move to amendment Nos 36, 37 and 40, all of which are Alliance amendments. I was a little bit surprised at the extent of the opposition to amendment No 37. I did not see it as a particularly significant amendment and certainly not one that potentially warranted a petition of concern. I am certainly happy enough to go along with it. Again, there is a problem with this. I suspect that, because it is subject to a petition of concern, amendment No 37 is clearly going to fall. Whatever form it comes back in at Further Consideration Stage, the key test, as with a lot of these things, is implementation. I am not convinced. I appreciate that Mr McElduff, Mr Eastwood and others have suggested that here is a line — to be fair, it might just be one line — denoting what they believe to be a definition of good relations. I am not sure whether, if everything is simply be boiled down to a line or two to provide a definition, it will be sufficient. I am getting worried, because I see Mr McCrea nodding at what I am saying. I will immediately reverse my position at that point.

It may be a question of greater detail in the guidance. Mention has been made of the Community Relations Council. The essential problem is that there is a lot of detail to be gone into. With a lot of the issues that touch upon good relations and equality, the problem is that there is no common understanding. That was touched on by one of the Members who spoke previously. The danger is that one person's good relations may be regarded as curbing somebody else's equality. Somebody's push for equality may be regarded as creating bad relations in an area. Even within the individual categories, one person's idea of equality may be regarded as someone else's form of suppression or, indeed, one person's idea of good relations. We will probably have a debate this afternoon about where the issue of flags fits into good relations. However, that is probably a decision where one person can argue that a particular decision was intended to provide equality and good relations and another, from the other side, will simply say that it creates the opposite effect. It is fraught with danger. Nevertheless, we appreciate the intention behind amendment No 37 and, from that point of view, are happy to support it.

We understand the thinking behind amendment No 36 and, again, there are good intentions behind it. Like other Members, I am not sure of the definition and necessary relevance. The public realm, certainly in the actions taken by DSD, for instance, largely looks to bricks and mortar. Public realm schemes, as they operate throughout Northern Ireland, are on the basis of things like the renewal of pavements, brighter lighting, better seating — a range of things targeted largely at town centres as a form of regeneration. The idea of shared space and everyone living together in harmony or at least tolerance is, generally, a good idea, but I am not sure that we can translate that into actions that a council has to take in public realm works. There is no particularly natural fit. To be honest, while the intentions in amendment No 36 are good, it is not an amendment that I find favour with.

I take on board what Mr Elliott said about the cart being before the horse with regard to amendment No 40. We looked at that amendment in Committee. There will clearly be a need for guidance. The legislation indicates that the Department will produce a fairly exhaustive list of how things should be done or, at least, some guidance. It strikes me that this is an area where there is a lot of detail to be put in place. When this issue was raised in Committee, departmental officials said that the reason why there was nothing very specific in place was that the best way of handling it was through guidance. Simply to name

"community and voluntary sector and businesses"

in the legislation, when it will already be covered by guidance, is relatively unnecessary. The best approach was indicated at an earlier stage by the Department. Guidance would be a much better way of dealing with the issue of deciding who the representatives from outside the public sector should be. I am not sure how far forward the amendment will take us.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. What is your view of the potential for inconsistency, if it is not clear in the legislation which groups will be included?

I am conscious that some councils are already more inclined towards community engagement than others. Is the amendment possibly a way of ironing out inconsistencies?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

There is always a balance to be struck between consistency and a certain level of flexibility to meet local needs. I mentioned that yesterday, and I think that it is one of the complications of the Local Government Bill. For example, community planning will be very different, potentially even because of the range of groups that will be engaged. If you are dealing with an area that is largely rural with a small town, such as the new Fermanagh and Omagh District Council in Mr Elliott's area, what is done there may be different from what is done in North Down and Ards District Council, and the level of engagement and the issues that need to be tackled may differ from what is needed for Belfast City Council.

It strikes me that guidance can cover consistency. The general point in amendment No 40 that community planning

"must include representation from the community and voluntary sector and businesses"

is so vague that I am not altogether sure how much consistency it would give. Consequently, I am not convinced that having the amendment in the Bill will be of particular benefit. I think that the issue can largely be tackled by way of guidance and, if needs be, by regulation. I am not convinced of the merits of having amendment No 40 in primary legislation. With that, I will close.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I am very happy to speak on the general powers. Before I start, I want to say that, after I had stood down from being a councillor having been co-opted to the Assembly, it became very evident to me that there was no easy way for councils to work with the Assembly and vice versa. I really hoped that there would be something in the Bill that would get the Assembly and the councils working together. There are hints of that. That is very much a general comment, but I hope that we will expand on that before we get to Final Stage.

My colleague has already spoken on amendment No 36 and the other amendments from the Alliance Party in the group. I very much agree that the amendment is the right way in which to go, but I have problems with exactly how it will be done; how it will be defined; how we will make things happen in a way that means that we do not put too onerous a burden on councils; and how the legal side will be interpreted. I look forward to us all working together on those matters.

I am still concerned about the issue of community planning. We discussed it while debating the Planning Bill two and a half years ago. In the Antrim Borough Council area alone, I think that there were 335 community groups. Somehow we have to find a way — I do not yet see it in the Bill — of getting all the different community groups involved. At the time of the Planning Bill, I asked the Minister who is involved in the community and was told that it is the people who live there, who work there, who pass through there and who are affected by what happens there. Before we realised it, we were talking about everybody. I look forward to future amendments that will put something in place to encourage community groups' involvement. However, how do we do it so that it is not the people who scream loudest or are most aggressive who always gets their way?

I acknowledge my colleagues' concerns with the power of competence, but there is one side of it that I am particularly keen to see happening. Last year, I attended a Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) meeting at which lawyers from Scotland showed us how they had got over many of the difficulties of public-private finance. The power of competence will give councils the chance to get money on the back of the money that they get in from rates and other sources. We need that to be explored and expanded on in the Bill. For example, when the Education Committee went to Scotland, we saw that its schools were being built by hub companies that had been set up. They had worked their way through the regulations from Europe and the UK so that they could build schools by using more subcontractors from local areas. The power of competence offers a great chance. If you look at my patch in South Antrim and the Ballyclare West project, which has stopped at the moment, a road was meant to be built at the back of a whole group of housing developments. That is an ideal way to do things, which could work in the future, and councils could get income from the sales of houses. It is that sort of competence that I am very pleased to see coming into the Bill.

I fully support amendment No 45, which was proposed by my colleague. It tries to get everyone with overlapping powers to work together. That fits with what I have just been saying. We have to make sure that the Departments work with councils and that the powers are created in a friendly overlapping way so that we do not have people competing against each other.

The one amendment that no one seems to have spoken about so far is amendment No 62. I feel that it is incredibly important that Northern Ireland should fit in with all international obligations. However, I know from the all-party group that I chair on the European Union that even trying to keep an eye on what is coming from Europe is going to be extremely difficult. Whether we look at the zebra mussels problem in Strangford lough or the present problem in Lough Neagh over planning, the regulations and rules will come not just from Europe but Westminster and everywhere else.

It is absolutely right that we have the amendment, but what concerns me is that councils might need more resources to be able to carry out and follow the rules that are coming down to them. For example, to go back to Lough Neagh and planning restrictions, we need surveys of the wildlife and the ecosystem. Who is going to pay for that? We need to put something in place that ensures that there is a way of getting the resources. Part of that is how we work with the Departments and how we pull it all together. That concerns me. At the same time, we need bodies in place such as the all-party group and much larger organisations that are following all the regulations that are going to come our way. That is phenomenally important and we must not forget it.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

It is quite interesting that this debate seems to be the calm before the storm. Everybody has a great sense of humour and is getting on and saying, "Can I work with you?" It is quite amazing. It will be interesting to see how the day ends up.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It depends on whether we are still standing or sitting.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Yes, exactly. I find myself in agreement with a number of people. I am sorry to confirm to Mr Weir that I was nodding vigorously for no other reason than that I agreed 100% with what he was saying. It just goes to prove that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Mr Weir raised some interesting points. The particular areas that I want to look at are amendment Nos 36, 37 and 40. I will also touch on amendment No 62, which Mr Kinahan brought up.

One of the real problems with amendment No 36 is that I am not entirely sure why we need it in the Bill because we have section 75 protection. That is already in law, and you have to take cognisance of it. In effect, section 75 is there because there are some differences in our society, compared with other societies. You might even call it abnormal. The problem is this: is this amendment trying to spread our abnormality into the public realm? If anything can be learnt from this peace process, it is that, if you try to legislate for things, sometimes you have the perverse effect of enshrining into law that which you are trying to remove. I am not sure that this amendment is the right way to go about it.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I will, indeed.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

We want to put a duty on councils to look at shared spaces to make them more neutral, more welcoming and more inclusive to all sections of society. Section 75 is very much about equality scrutiny of policies, but this puts the duty on the council to look at all the functions and actions that they carry out and to bear in mind promoting the shared use of public space.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for the intervention, but, as Mr Weir put forward, the trouble is that one person's equality, right or opinion may contradict another. What we do not want to see in our society is some form of grey or beige outlook where nobody's opinion is tolerated. In fact, one of my key worries, and I have said this repeatedly in the House, is about the use of "political opinion" and the notion that people are allowed to say that you cannot hold a certain political opinion. In any other jurisdiction, that approach would be considered to be non-liberal — illiberal — because the whole idea about a pluralist democracy is that you are allowed to hold differences of opinion. Lord Morrow and Mr Weir hold a different opinion from me on certain issues, and, in a democracy, they have absolutely got the right to do that. If you get to a situation in which you are not allowed to express that opinion for fear of offending somebody, that is a pretty bad place to be. It is not the type of place that I want to live in.

Although I understand that the amendment is well intended, I worry that, if we go down that road, we may never get our society to the point of being normal. We may never get to a situation in which we will be able to embrace diversity or take a certain amount of tolerance with other people, or one in which people do not go round saying, "We're going to be offended by every single issue".

The point was brought up, and it is germane to what is going to happen later, that if somebody in Castlereagh council, for example, says that they want to fly the Union flag, does that offend somebody else? It is in the public realm. Can you come back and say, "No, you're not allowed to do that"? Equally, if a GAA match is taking place, is that offending somebody? You get this issue around who decides who is offended and why. So, I am concerned about amendment No 36.

The key term in amendment No 37 is "good relations". Who is going to define "good relations"? What does "good relations" mean? I do not think that you are going to get away with one line or one phrase that says that good relations are no prejudice and looking after equality, because it is a much deeper issue. It is something that we need to discuss and thrash out. To be honest, you can only start talking about good relations when you are not going to have motions brought forward that provoke a petition of concern. People know what the effect of the motion is going to be, and they know what the reaction is going to be. That is why we do not really have good relations here.

Unless you get a firm definition into which consensus is built, I feel that you could have quite a lot of interpretation going on in the courts. That is why I asked our colleague from Foyle if he was going to bring forward a definition. I agree that this is not a good way to legislate. We need to do this in a better way.

Moving on swiftly to amendment No 40. Here, again, in the spirit of goodwill, I am in agreement with Mr Elliott. There are no bounds to our generosity today; it is going to be a great —

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I will give way. When I say "generosity", I am not sure if it includes Mr Lyttle. It depends on what he has to say.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way, and I apologise because I have not been here for all of his speech. However, I was following it. In the interests of inserting some accuracy into the debate, I say that there are existing definitions of good relations. Neither good relations nor promoting good relations are defined in legislation, but the Equality Commission has developed a definition. It says:

"The growth of relationships and structures for Northern Ireland that acknowledge the religious, political and racial context of this society, and that seek to promote respect, equity and trust, and embrace diversity in all its forms."

So, we have workable definitions available to us. I think that the purpose of today's amendment is to put a principle in place, and there are very clear workable definitions available to us in the implementation of that. I thank the Member for giving way.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his contribution. The worrying thing that he said in his intervention was that there are multiple definitions of good relations.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

There is a clear one there.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

There are multiple definitions. If we can get consensus for what it is, and, certainly, Members have indicated that they are going to bring forward a definition, I would be interested to see if the Assembly can get an agreed definition. If that is the case, that is all to the good. However, I do not minimise the challenge. It is not just as easy as saying, "Let's take the CRC's definition" or, "Let's take somebody else's definition". It is something that we have to argue, discuss, come to a consensus on and agree on ourselves. I am sure that the Member agrees that it would be a good thing if we were able to do such a thing.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I will.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I do not disagree. I do not want to overplay the multiple definitions. There are clear working definitions available. I agree with him: the Assembly should work to clarify those, implement them and lead on them. However, frankly, this long after the Good Friday Agreement, it should be very clear and second nature to Members of this Assembly. I hope that he agrees with that as well.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I will take his intervention. Moving on —

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Yes.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you. We, in the past 20 or 30 years, have had a whole — I do not want to use the word "industry" — industry, for want of a better word, on promoting good relations. It seems such a nonsense to say that we have no definition, guidelines or framework about what good relations are. We have talked on and on for years about promoting good relations. How can we say that we do not know what good relations are?

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I do not know how you can say it, but I will be surprised if you can bring forward a definition of "good relations" that will gain the complete support of the House without a considerable amount of work. There will be work that has to be done. Maybe you have an answer, Mr Dickson. Maybe I am doing you an injustice.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Not at all. I just want to acknowledge the point that the Member made about the amount of work that will be required to be done. That is also a very sad reflection on the House. As Ms Lo said, we have spent some 20-plus years — indeed, many of us have spent a great deal longer than that — working clearly on the equality agenda and also defining and working in the field of good relations. It is a very sad reflection that we cannot get to a point where we can reach agreement on that or at least produce a sufficiently broad definition that will bring consensus.

At the end of the day, I just want to ask the Member this question. He said that, in the first instance, we are trying to establish a principle of bringing good relations alongside equality. This is not about undermining equality. I hope those who have put forward the petition of concern genuinely reflect on that. It is about strengthening it and underpinning it and bringing good relations alongside it.

If Members are truly genuine in the comments that have been made — I am sure that Mr McCrea was when he said that we are attempting to establish a principle and to determine then, at the next stage, whether we can bring forward those determinations — I put the challenge out today to the Members to withdraw that petition of concern and join us in accepting the principle of equality. These are parties that have spent their entire lifetimes preaching, teaching and encouraging this community and society to get on board the equality agenda. We are on that equality agenda; we are asking you to take the next step and bind that to good relations.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I must admit that I am inspired by that speech, Mr Dickson. It was an intervention, but —

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Yes.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will be brief. Does the Member accept that there have been occasions in recent years when the issue of good relations has been used to trump equality and stop certain developments taking place? That is why it is so important that we get a proper definition of it and that we use objective need as the basis for that. I read out our proposed Westminster amendment earlier. I hope that people will understand that we are coming at this with a genuine desire to get it right. We do not want to see a situation in which one trumps the other. Our attempt is a good one, and we are prepared to listen to other people's attempts.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I thank Members for their interventions. I will deal with that and move on, as we have said our piece. It is self-evident. This debate shows that there is no unified belief in what good relations are, what the relationship with equality is, and what we are trying to do. The very fact that petitions of concern are brought in on such issues says, "Look, there is a problem here".

Nevertheless, taking it in the round, Members said that they are interested in trying to resolve the matter. It is not a simplistic process, but it has to be done. I agree wholeheartedly with people who say that it is too long since the 1998 agreement and that we should have sorted this out. However, let us sort it out now. I do not think that you will be able to do it on the basis of one simple line. I am not even sure that you will be able to do it in the Bill. However, I am willing to give it a go.

I move on to amendment No 40. I was saying that I am in agreement with Mr Elliott's point that, when you specify certain groups and things, there is a danger that you exclude others. The most organised, well-funded and biggest organisations will feel that they should come in and have a say in government, and that is fair enough. However, what about smaller businesses? What about individuals? What about everybody else who deserves to have their say and be heard?

Councils are not above the community. Councils are not separate from the community. Councils should be the community. It is the job of councillors to represent as many facets of people's opinions as possible. That is their role in a democracy. It seems to me that specifying it in this way is counterproductive and not the right road to go down.

I will finish. Mr Kinahan made the point that amendment —

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I will indeed.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I want to commend Basil McCrea. He has, to some degree, excelled in what he has said. I find myself generally in agreement with what he said and with the manner in which he has presented himself and his case. I am not sure whether he set out to do this or not, but he has demolished very well the SDLP's reason for bringing a petition of concern here today. I can understand Members voting against something. If you feel very strongly about it, you bring a petition of concern. My party does that from time to time and will do so in future. However, it is very difficult to understand bringing a petition of concern on an issue that they feel is not right in its detail.

There is an onus. I do not know whether this puts the Minister on the spot or not. I understand that he comes from that party, but I am leaving him out of this whole equation for the moment. He will get an opportunity a little later to say his bit and clarify his position. It is extremely difficult to understand the SDLP coming here today with a petition of concern on this issue.

I want to reinforce Basil McCrea's point. I was a member of a council for some years, and I thought that we were working at community level. This is now telling me, to some extent, "No, there is another community there that you are not working with". I do not understand or accept that. I believe that, by and large, councils are working with the community at grass-roots level. I want to reinforce Basil McCrea's point on that. Well done to him.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I am grateful for Lord Morrow's intervention. We have differences of opinion on many things, but we are at one on this issue. I do not think that a petition of concern is the right way forward on the issue. It seems to me that there is a more serious problem afoot here. I am sure that the debate will come forward at Further Consideration Stage, and we will see what we can do on it.

In closing, Mr Kinahan feels that amendment No 62 is particularly important. I ask the Minister this: what does it mean when it states:

"incompatible with any international obligations".

What is "international"? If we have obligations under the European Union to deal with waste product by way of an incinerator or something like that, we have to meet them. We are in danger of being sanctioned if we do not deal with chicken litter and various other waste products. Does this amendment give the Department the power to say, "You will build an incinerator in x"? Is that what that means? I know that a lot of people will be quite worried. They will say that they understand the need for a dump or an incinerator but that they would prefer if it were not on their patch. So perhaps the Minister will clarify exactly what that means. I conclude my remarks.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. It seems that cooperation has broken out. Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, before I offer my view on the Alliance Party’s amendments, I will, with your permission, deal with a number of my own in this group. Some arise from recommendations made by the Environment Committee during Committee Stage. I thank Committee members for their helpful recommendations and timely scrutiny of the Bill.

Amendment No 39 adds to clause 69, which places a duty on councils to deliver community planning. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that:

“improving the social well-being of the district”

will include "promoting equality of opportunity" and that “improving the economic well-being” will include:

"tackling poverty, social exclusion and patterns of deprivation".

Clause 76 makes provision for the involvement of the community in the development of a council’s community plan. Amendment No 43, which I tabled in response to the views of the Environment Committee, will provide that councils and their community planning partners will be required to make “reasonable” arrangements to ensure that stakeholders have the opportunity to express their views and have them taken into account. The statutory guidance that my Department will issue to support the operation of community planning will address the form that these reasonable arrangements might take.

Amendment No 44 will amend clause 78 to place a requirement on Departments to promote and encourage community planning rather than provide for them to “aim to” do so.

I tabled amendment No 46 in response to comments from the Examiner of Statutory Rules. The amended clause 85 would provide for a super-affirmative Assembly procedure to be used in cases where my Department seeks to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply legislation that would prevent or restrict a council’s use of the general power of competence. This would involve an enhanced consultation process and require the order to be laid in the Assembly twice before it could be made.

Amendment No 47 will provide for councils to publish their assessment of performance by 30 September each year rather than 31 October. This will provide a slightly longer time frame for the local government auditor to undertake her assurance responsibilities in relation to a council’s improvement plan.

Amendment 50 is linked to amendment Nos 51 and 56. With the Deputy Speaker’s permission, I will give the background to these amendments simultaneously. The new performance improvement framework makes provision for the local government auditor to issue for each council an annual report on whether the council has complied with the relevant legislation and any guidance issued by my Department. The provisions will be amended to provide for a risk-based approach to be adopted when deemed appropriate by my Department. This will mean that audits can be undertaken on specific councils in a given year, once the new performance improvement regime has been operating for a number of years.

I propose amendment No 62 to ensure that councils play their part in the delivery of international obligations, which, as defined in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, do not include EU law. This is provided for separately. I am not sure that I like the example of building an incinerator. I distance myself from that suggestion.

The amendment would make provision for any Department to direct that any proposed action that would be incompatible with an international obligation must not be taken. It would also allow any Department to direct a council to take any action required for the purposes of giving effect to an international obligation. I urge Members to support the amendments.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister give way?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Certainly.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I will give a different example, rather than an incinerator. The United Kingdom has international obligations under Kyoto regarding CO2 emissions and energy use, but Northern Ireland as a region does not and councils do not. Is the legislation that he is looking at suggesting that in some way we ought to reduce energy consumption? What type of international obligation are you talking about that might affect a council?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr McCrea for the intervention. He might be getting closer to the mark now. I am not thinking of any — that will be for councils, obviously — but he might be getting closer if I were thinking of any.

I now move to the amendments proposed by the Alliance Party. As you heard, amendment No 36 would place an additional duty on councils to ensure promotion of the shared use of public spaces. Councils should, where possible, encourage the shared use of public space where all citizens can feel welcome. I, therefore, support the amendment, although I understand the points made by other Members.

Amendment No 37 proposes the introduction of a new requirement on councils and their community planning partners to identify long-term objectives for improving equality and good relations between section 75 categories. I believe that, as outlined today by quite a few contributors, we need an agreed definition of good relations to support the amendment. I would be glad to work with Ms Lo and all Members who have expressed a willingness to collaborate in an attempt to agree a definition of good relations. My amendment No 39, however, proposes a similar thing regarding equality of opportunity. For that reason, I urge Members not to accept the Alliance Party’s amendment.

Amendment No 38 is designed to emphasise the need for the community planning process to consider, in the context of setting community plan objectives, the planning, provision and improvement of public services. I am content to support the amendment.

Anna Lo and Stewart Dickson proposed in amendment No 40 that clause 70 should specify that representatives from the community and voluntary sector and the business community should be required to participate in community planning. I do not believe that it is appropriate for my Department to place a statutory duty that would require non-statutory bodies to perform functions in support of a council. The role of those bodies will be set out in statutory guidance. It is vital that we encourage and facilitate the participation of those sectors and others.

I will respond to an intervention from Mr Agnew. Community planning is not a one-size-fits-all issue. Although there are statutory bodies that will have a role to play in all council areas — those bodies will be named in subordinate legislation — areas will have different requirements and will therefore require participation from different organisations.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I know it is important to get things onto the record in Hansard. I appreciate what he says about amendment No 40, but does he envisage that the voluntary and community sector and, indeed, businesses will be part of community planning groups?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I envisage that they will be. I very much hope that they will be, and I hope that they hope that they will be. Community planning is an exciting new power going to councils, and it is important that we maximise participation in it in order to yield real, tangible benefits for communities. As the amendment would be likely to add an extra burden on organisations, such as those in the voluntary and community sector, as well as businesses, that should be free to choose whether they participate in community planning, I urge Members not to support it.

In amendment No 41, Alliance Party Members propose that, when reporting on community planning objectives, councils' statements on community planning should focus not only on progress made but on outcomes achieved. A council's community plan is likely to cover short- and longer-term objectives. However, I acknowledge the significance of reporting on outcomes and encourage Members to support the amendment.

Amendment No 42 proposes a change to clause 76 that would require a council and its community planning partners to actively:

"seek the participation of and encourage the persons mentioned in subsection (2) to express their views".

That requirement has the potential to place an additional burden on councils and their community planning partners and does not take account of the desire of individuals or groups to be involved in the process. Following officials' engagement with the Environment Committee, I have tabled amendment No 43, which would require a council and its partners to ensure that reasonable arrangements are in place for engagement with the community. That will be supplemented by statutory guidance, which will provide further detail on arrangements for community engagement.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Minister give way?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Certainly.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I certainly have spoken to the voluntary sector. They feel that putting in the word "reasonable" will restrict rather than promote the chances for engagement. I do not know what the Minister's view on that is. They said that it is well intentioned but would have the opposite effect.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

They are right, in that it is well intentioned, and I certainly hope that they are wrong to say that it would have the opposite effect. I have met representatives of the community sector on the issue, and they do not all have the same view. However, I remain committed to working with the voluntary and community sector and all sectors, particularly on community planning as councils move forward with it. I urge Members to support my amendment instead of amendment No 42, tabled by the Alliance Party.

Finally, Mr Elliott and Mr Kinahan tabled amendment No 45, which relates to cases where my Department intends to make an order altering a statutory provision that, it thinks, overlaps the general power of competence. The amendment seeks to ensure that account is taken of the views of bodies acting in exercise of those powers prior to the making of any order. The amendment is, in my opinion, unnecessary, as clause 125 already requires orders made under clause 85 to be subject to consultation and specifies that such orders must be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. That is a sufficient level of scrutiny, and I ask Members not to accept the amendment.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Before I call Ms Anna Lo to make a winding-up speech, Members should note that it will be convenient after the conclusion of Ms Lo's comments to take a short break for a cup of tea or whatever.

Mr McElduff said that the definition of good relations was not in amendment No 37. He wants that definition to include tackling prejudice and promoting understanding.

Amendment No 39 is not mine.

Mr Eastwood talked about good relations. He said that we were good at putting together plans but not so good at delivering them. He is glad to support amendment No 36 and happy to work with the Alliance Party to strengthen it to include the LGBT community, and we are happy to cooperate on that. He talked about amendment No 37 and offered to cooperate. Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I really appreciate the atmosphere here today: it is one of the rare occasions when all parties have been cooperative. There is a harmonious atmosphere, and we should continue with that and replicate it all the time. It is such a pleasure to be working this morning with so many parties offering their support and offering to work together.

Mr Elliott thought that amendment No 36 was too narrow and did not include all section 75 groups. As I said, we are happy to extend that. He was surprised that two parties had lodged a petition of concern, and so were we. With regard to amendment No 40, he was surprised that those groups would not be included and thought that the amendment was not necessary. He asked about smaller businesses and said that he thought that they needed to have a say. He offered to work with us on that.

Mr Weir supported amendment Nos 38, 41 and 42, although he said that amendment No 38 needed to be slightly tighter. His worry was that it was difficult to legislate for cooperation, and he said that the attitudes of the wider community, councils and the cooperation of statutory bodies were needed to make the community plan work. I agree with him: that has been the sentiment expressed by many stakeholders, who said that it was good on paper but they needed to see how it would work out. He was surprised to see the extent of the opposition from the two nationalist parties to amendment No 37 and said that he was happy to support it. He said that the intention of amendment No 40 was good but he could not support it. He said that it was a case of putting the cart before the horse and that the matter would be covered by guidance or regulation, which is a better means of moving it on.

Mr Kinahan asked how we do this, because the problem lies in trying to get everybody to work together. He also expressed concerns about how to get all the community groups together. He gave examples of many organisations wanting to take part and asked how we would include everybody. He was pleased to see the power of competence being given to councils. He said that it was important that Departments worked with councils and that they did not compete against each other. That is a good point.

Mr McCrea commented on the atmosphere and said that he was a bit worried that it might be the calm before the storm. I hope not, Mr McCrea; we have plenty more work to do this afternoon.

On amendment No 36, Mr McCrea said that we had section 75 in law and asked why we needed a new duty to promote shared space. He said that we did not want to see everything become neutral, grey and beige. He wants a pluralist society in which pluralist opinion can be expressed freely. We are not saying that our amendment is opposed to that; rather, we say that there should be shared space where everyone can express their identity, cultural preferences and traditions freely without fear. I agree with what Mr McCrea says, but our amendment would create space where everyone could express their identity and culture freely.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes, of course.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

We generally want to go in the same direction, but I think that the Member was covered in speaking about flags and various other things that are in a public space. Some people think that those are part of their culture, and other people think that they are not. There is where we have difficulty. If it becomes a zero sum, where nobody is allowed anything, that would be a regrettable place to be in. I am not saying that the Member and I can solve that; I am just pointing out that it is an issue that we need to address.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Sure.

On amendment No 37, Mr McCrea agreed with others that we needed to define what "good relations" means and have consensus to build on it.

Amendment No 40 is ours. Mr McCrea agreed with Mr Elliott that the best-funded organisations will get the biggest say, and he asked about others' role He said that that was not the right road to go down.

The final contributer was Minister Durkan. He supports the shared use of public spaces under amendment No 36 and said that, in fact, it was in the strategic planning policy statement. I am grateful for that information. The Minister is from the party that submitted the petition of concern on amendment No 37, so I would not expect him to support it. He said that we needed an agreed definition.

Again, I really want to stress that, although there may not be a definition in law, we have been working on this issue for a very long time. There is the Equality Commission's working definition of good relations, which I will read again to Members. It states:

"The growth of relationships and structures for Northern Ireland that acknowledge the religious, political and racial context of this society, and that seek to promote respect, equity and trust, and embrace diversity in all its forms."

That is its definition of good relations. We are not working in a vacuum, so let us put this in the Bill, and then we can work on the definition at Further Consideration Stage or adopt that definition. We will work with all parties to reach consensus in the House in order to say, once and for all, what we mean by good relations and to put that in our legislation. We need that; we definitely need it.

On amendment No 38, the Minister said that he supports us. Thank you. On amendment No 40, he said that it is not appropriate to require non-statutory bodies to participate and it has to be up to them whether or not they take part. He said that the guidance will obviously encourage participation from the community and voluntary sector.

The Minister supports amendment No 41. He said that amendment No 42 may add an additional burden to councils and voluntary organisations and he urged Members to support his amendment No 43 instead.

The sitting was suspended at 1.17 pm and resumed at 1.51 pm.

Question put, That amendment No 36 be made.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 21; Noes 74.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I ask that Members take their ease for a moment while we change the top Table.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Beggs] in the Chair)

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

As a valid petition of concern has been tabled in respect of amendment No 37, the Question will require cross-community support. Amendment No 37 proposed: In page 40, line 25, at end insert -

"(iv) equality and good relations between the categories of persons listed in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”.— [Ms Lo.]

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

Question put.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 53; Noes 42.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order, Members. Two Tellers for each side have not been nominated. The amendment falls.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 71 to 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I will not call amendment No 43, as it is mutually exclusive with amendment No 42, which has been made.

Clause 76, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

We now come to the fifth group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 48, it will be convenient to debate the amendments listed, which deal with technical and consequential changes to the Bill.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move amendment No 48:In page 54, line 13, leave out "(1) to (5)”.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 49: In page 54, line 15, leave out "under section 95(6)” and insert

"by the Department about the council’s duties under that section”.— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 52: In clause 98, page 54, line 31, leave out "(1) to (5)”.— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 53: In clause 98, page 54, line 33, eave out "under section 95(6)” and insert

"by the Department about the council’s duties under that section”.— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 54: In clause 98, page 55, line 1, leave out "under section 95(6)” and insert

"by the Department about the council’s duties under section 95”.— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 55: In clause 98, page 55, line 20, at end insert -

"(5) In subsection (4) "specified” means specified in a direction under that subsection.”.— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 67: In clause 111, page 62, line 25, leave out "Article” and insert "Articles 18(1) and”.— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 70: After clause 117 insert

"Payments for special purposes etc.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The amendments in this group are technical. They include textual amendments to ensure a consistent approach throughout the Bill, typographical corrections and updating amendments. The amendments do not involve any change in policy and have been supported by the Committee. I therefore do not wish to prolong the debate by commenting on each amendment individually, but I will highlight key amendments.

Clause 113 provides a power for my Department to issue statutory guidance on any aspect on which provision is made in the Bill. Amendment Nos 48, 49, 52, 53 and 54 provide clarity that the local government auditor, in carrying out her functions in relation to performance improvement, will only consider a council’s compliance with guidance issues in relation to the performance improvement framework.

Amendment No 70, which introduces a provision to repeal provisions in the Local Government Finance Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, is a direct consequence of the introduction of a general power of competence for councils. The 2011 Act provides that a council may make payments for special purposes, subject to a specified upper financial limit. The introduction of the general power for councils will, however, enable a council to take any action that it considers appropriate, provided there is no other legislation in place to prevent it. There are no financial restrictions placed on a council’s use of the general power. As a consequence, the provisions in the 2011 Act would conflict with that new power. Therefore, it is necessary to make provision for sections 37, 38 and 40 of the 2011 Act to cease to have effect.

A number of the technical amendments relate to clauses 121 to 123. They are designed to ensure that relevant Departments have the necessary powers to make transfer schemes in relation to the transfer of functions and the conferring of powers to local government and to provide the statutory authority for the relevant Department to make schemes for the transfer of assets, liabilities and staff to the new councils. Amendment No 74 makes specific provision for the transfer of the assets and liabilities of Armagh County Museum to the council for the district of Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon. That amendment has been tabled at the request of the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure. The amendments to clause 123 will provide Departments with the necessary enabling power to make regulations for transitional and consequential issues to ensure the smooth transfer to the new councils.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I call the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment. [Laughter.] We will have a brief interlude. I now call the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, Ms Anna Lo.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I am very sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Department was able to bring many of the technical amendments to the Committee during Committee Stage. The Committee agreed that it was content with amendment Nos 67, 72, 74 to 102 in this group, 109 and 112. The Committee also agreed amendment No 70 in principle, although the Department was unable to provide the precise wording of the amendment before the end of Committee Stage. I support the amendments on behalf of the Committee.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I will be brief. I thank the Department for the level of consultation with the Committee. This is a range of technical amendments, and I am happy to support all the amendments in the group.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom labhairt i bhfabhar na leasuithe. I also speak in favour of the amendments.

I have just a couple of comments to make. The technical amendments provide clarification and make some corrections. I put on record my support for two of the amendments. One is on the general power to afford councils the opportunity to deliver. Obviously, the Minister has clarified that point. The other one concerns the opportunity for DCAL to transfer the Armagh County Museum to the new Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon council.

I do not propose to speak to the next group of amendments, so I put on record my thanks to all the people involved in the Bill up to this point. I also put on record the good work that has been done through the Minister's office and his Department and by all associated with the Bill. I hope that the good work done by the Assembly on the Bill up until now is not undermined or overshadowed by anything else that will come forward. It is a good piece of work. Further debates will happen. We welcome those debates, but I put on record the good work done by the Committee.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Members for their consideration of and support for the amendments. I thank Mr Boylan for his contribution in the Committee and in the debate over the past couple of days. I echo his gratitude to the officials, who have worked extremely hard on the legislation to date.

Amendment No 48 agreed to.

Amendment No 49 made: In page 54, line 15, leave out "under section 95(6)” and insert

"by the Department about the council’s duties under that section”.— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

Clause 96, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, Members. We now come to the sixth and final group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 63, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 64, 65 and 66, which deal with the flying of flags at council offices. Members will note that amendment Nos 63 and 64 are mutually exclusive and that a valid petition of concern has been received in relation to amendment Nos 63, 64 and 66. Therefore, they will require cross-community support. I call Anna Lo to move amendment No 63 and to address all the other amendments in the group.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I beg to move amendment No 63:After clause 109 insert

"PART 14A

FLYING OF FLAGS AT COUNCIL OFFICES

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I propose the amendments in group 6 on behalf of the Alliance Party. The Alliance Party's policy on flying the national flag on council buildings is that the flag should be flown on designated days. This has been our policy and our position for some time, long before the vote at Belfast City Council. As with the majority of councils in England, Scotland and Wales, this is the most appropriate mechanism to represent the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. I am disappointed that some parties have felt the need to yet again table a petition of concern. It is up to us as legislators to have mature and thoughtful discussions of contentious issues. It is up to us to find the solutions. Attaching petitions of concern presents us from having a full and proper debate on the issue. The amendments are already dead in the water, which is deeply regrettable.

Alliance's amendment No 63 proposes a designated days policy for flags on council offices. We are following the legal, equality and protocol advice. Flying two flags suggests joint sovereignty, which is not what people voted for in the Good Friday Agreement, and no flag at all denies the reasonable and appropriate expression of sovereignty in line with national guidance. We believe it to be a sensible and fair proposal. The amendment creates a standard policy in all councils and takes the whole flags issue off the agenda for the new councils, rather than each of them getting into a row about where, when and how to fly the flag, which would distract them from other, more important issues. We want to deal with it here in the Assembly. Amendment No 63 allows councils to adopt a bespoke local flag. Some councils already have their own flag, and for others that may help foster a sense of local identity. It is protected by qualified majority voting.

Amendment No 64, tabled by the UUP, would see a minimum of designated days for flags on council offices, and amendment No 65 would see Belfast City Council fly the Union flag every day. We will not support either of those amendments. The Good Friday Agreement agreed to parity of esteem between Great Britain and Ireland and declared that we govern with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all of the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions.

The Good Friday Agreement has implications for the question of flag flying in Northern Ireland. First, it makes it very clear that Northern Ireland is and remains part of the United Kingdom until or unless the people decide otherwise. Secondly, in matters of nationality and culture, we have divided and overlapping identities. Finally, in matters of esteem, all must be treated with dignity and in a spirit of equality.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I appreciate the Member giving way. As the Member outlines how the Belfast Agreement gives recognition to what the people want, does she not recognise that, in Belfast, 16,000 people responded to the consultation, 95% of whom said that they wanted the flag to remain every day of the year? Given that figure, does she not believe that her party should have recognised the will of the people in that situation?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I think that matter has already been settled. There are certainly many people who support the compromise agreement. That is the way to go. It is based on equality and legal advice. If we do not do it —

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

If we do not make this compromise agreement, there will be no flag in Belfast City Council; Sinn Féin and SDLP would have their way. We managed to have designated days in Belfast City Council. I give way to Mr McCann.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for giving way. The Member that she gave way to previously quoted a figure of 16,000 people. Does she not recognise that there are almost 300,000 people living in the city of Belfast?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Absolutely. That is only a fraction of the number of people who live in our capital city. I have forgotten where I am now.

With this in mind, the logic is that the Union flag is flown over public and civic buildings in Northern Ireland on designated days, which are defined by the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Creating a shared future requires leadership. We were elected to represent all those in our constituencies. It is regrettable that the Haass talks failed to propose a viable solution to the issue of flags. I have been hopeful for an outcome here today. Without placing designated days on a statutory footing, we risk the issue being the first agenda item for many of the new councils. I strongly believe that the issue is too divisive to be taken up by the new councils and left with them. It is up to us, as an Assembly, to show true leadership and to discuss the contentious issue of flags in a mature and thoughtful way. I do not believe that attaching a petition of concern has allowed us to do that on this occasion. We must endeavour to prove that we represent everyone and are truly committed to a shared future. We can start by having meaningful debate and listening to everyone in the Chamber.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Sinn Féin will oppose amendment Nos 63 to 66 and have signed a petition of concern in relation to them. We believe that they only fabricate difficulties that are not there. There is clearly a very powerful emotional connection between identity and symbols, and that goes for all our community. That is why compromise and dialogue on these issues are so important. As republicans, we have made many compromises in the pursuit of peace, and that is the nature of peace-building. We need joint action and joint initiatives. I am very conscious that change can be difficult and, to some, can feel like a loss. However, change based on equality, mutual respect and parity of esteem is a win for us all.

I believe that political unionism is in complete denial of the changed political realities and that the Good Friday Agreement legislates for equality. The days of imposing British flags and emblems where they are not wanted are long gone. In my constituency, for example, the Union flag is not flown from the council building in Strabane, and there is mutual respect and parity of esteem for all who work in the building and those who visit it. The council building in Strabane is neutral and free from flags. People from all cultures right across the district can register births and deaths and license their dogs in a flag-free environment. They do not feel in any way intimidated by one flag or another. In our council, I am certain that unionists and members of the unionist community would not support this action because it is divisive. Mutual respect means having proper regard for another individual. Without the proper respect for employees in a diverse workforce, incidents of workplace conflict may increase, and that has a negative impact on productivity and overall morale. In my constituency, even thinking of flying a flag over a council building would be seen as an obstacle to community reconciliation in this part of the island of Ireland.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I will.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Is the policy of no flags and total neutrality one that Sinn Féin believes is long-term, regardless of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland? If so, can she explain why her party thinks that it is a positive policy?

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his intervention and continue with my contribution to the debate. [Laughter.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to continue.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. Recently, my office was inundated with calls and complaints when the Union flag was flown from the social security office in Strabane for the first time since 1999. Why that happened remains a mystery. The people of my town and district did not want that. The loyalist flag protest —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

No, I will not.

Last year, the loyalist flag protests filtered into parts of my rural constituency such as Castlederg and Ballymagorry. On a number of occasions, we witnessed the illegal blocking of the main A5 road at New Buildings and Ballymagorry by flag protesters. We also witnessed a complete lack of leadership and consideration of the majority of the community in Castlederg, who would not class themselves as British, when the town was saturated with Union flags on the eve of the Tyrone fleadh. That was in complete contradiction to a call by unionist politicians in the area for Comhaltas to ensure that the fleadh would be totally inclusive and that no offensive flags should or would be flown; a wish that was respected by Comhaltas. Unionists are speaking out of both sides of their mouth as most of the unionist community in my area are genuinely motivated by a strong desire to make progress. They are being continually blocked from doing so by many small, reactionary elements who want to turn the clock back.

Equality and parity of esteem need to be embraced as instruments of inclusion and integration and as a means to encourage mutual understanding. We teach our children to understand and appreciate cultural diversity and to live alongside their neighbours of different religious and cultural backgrounds. We teach them the importance of promoting and understanding tolerance, yet here we have these amendments, which lack regard for parity of esteem and mutual respect for the people of my home town and citizens throughout the North. Reconciliation is a vision that we should seek —

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

No, I am almost finished.

Affirming equality and respect for all cultural traditions and political allegiances in the North is not about one-upmanship; it should represent common ground to be built upon. Constituents of mine have asked me why politicians are creating flag-flying issues here when they had the opportunity to put those issues to bed during the Haass talks.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Yes.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Do you agree that the Alliance Party Member is being fairly mischievous when the effects of an amendment that his party is putting forward would force the union flag on councils in areas where it is not wanted? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I agree with him. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

It is time for us all to move forward together and for unionists to stop continually bowing to the lowest common denominator in their political constituency. The Haass proposals are very much compromises. The essence of any negotiations is that, in order to be successful, all participants must be prepared to compromise in the interests of the greater good. There can be no renegotiation of what has been painstakingly negotiated. It is time for unionists to stop looking over their shoulder at the likes of Jamie Bryson and Jim Allister and to move to implement the Haass proposals instead of wasting any more time debating the subject here in the Assembly.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It has been a fairly lengthy debate on the Bill. A lot of people, particularly in the media, were looking forward to this particular section. I had the opportunity yesterday to speak at the beginning of the debate. You allowed me some latitude, Mr Speaker. Maybe I took more than I should have. What I said at that point was that this is not a flags Bill, and it should not become one. I do not believe that it will, but it is unfortunate and pretty predictable that the story tonight will be about this part of the debate. I implore Members to think about that when they make their contributions.

Thankfully, those amendments will not be passed today. There is good reason for that. We have just gone through in fine detail, and the Committee has gone through in a lot of detail over the past number of weeks and months, very important legislation that will change the way we do local government business for the next generation. The focus should be on that. I think that we have done a good piece of work here in the past couple of days.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that failure to address this particular issue means that there is a risk that local government getting on with the business of delivering public services will be severely hampered and handicapped by that hanging round its neck?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Well, that is all very well, and we have to understand that there is an issue. Of course there is an issue around flags.

We were all engaged in a process to deal with the past, flags and parades. The Alliance Party's lukewarm reaction to the Haass proposals does not leave us in a very good place either. I think that the Alliance Party needs to understand — this might be because it does not have very many representatives too far from here — that this issue is not an issue right across Northern Ireland.

Some people obviously have deep concern about their national flag. People who are nationally minded have concern and fond feelings for their national flag, but the issue is how we deal with that. I can tell you what people in my city were saying during the trouble that erupted around here, at your office and across the whole city of Belfast. The whole world was looking at us and saying, "I thought that they had that whole thing sorted out. What's going on in Belfast?" What does that do for our economy? I can tell you what people in Derry were saying. They were saying, "Don't be importing that problem over here, because we don't need it".

We were engaged —

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I will make this clear for the Member: the Alliance Party was in no way lukewarm on the Haass proposals. The Alliance Party worked tirelessly and hard, not least for victims and survivors in Northern Ireland, to come up with a set of proposals that have a realistic opportunity to improve access to justice, information and services for victims and survivors across Northern Ireland and to deal with parading and flags.

If you think that this is not an issue for Northern Ireland, you need to get your head out of the sand. As for it being a Belfast problem, it was Sinn Féin and the SDLP that put the proposal forward at Belfast City Council. So, if they think that there is a need for change and compromise at Belfast, there is a need for change and compromise across the whole region.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his contribution. Of course, the Alliance Party had nothing to do with that decision in Belfast.

I think that Members need to understand this. People right across Northern Ireland looked at the trouble that erupted here and, wringing their hands, said, "What under God have we got ourselves into this time? Why is there such a reaction?" Maybe some of us need to understand that people do have a particular reaction.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for giving way. I am one of two people in the Chamber who was in the City Hall the night that the vote was taken. The Member is quite right: the Alliance Party played a very pivotal role. In fact, it brought forward the suggestion that the flag be removed at all. Let us be clear: two men and a wee lad complained about the flag flying at Belfast City Hall. The truth of the matter is that it is unfortunate that, in this scenario, when a majority will work in the City Hall, Alliance, Sinn Féin and the SDLP come together, but that, in this place today, when we are discussing this very issue about the flying of our national flag, Sinn Féin and the SDLP reject that majority and table a petition of concern. That is appalling, and it is a complete denial of democracy.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

We could talk about democracy all night. The DUP never tables petitions of concern on issues such as this — ever. It would be a real shock if that happened in here.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Not if —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not have a debate across the Chamber.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

OK, Mr Speaker.

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

Will the Member give way?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will.

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

Was the decision at Belfast City Hall that led to the Union flag being taken down not a democratic one, which the Members opposite fail to recognise? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

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

Did the 40,000 leaflets that the DUP and the Ulster Unionist Party distributed not also have a huge role in and a huge impact on drawing and bringing people out on to the streets?

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Educating people.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Member is correct. It was a democratic decision. Unfortunately, —

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Majority rules.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Unfortunately, there was agitating and stirring of tensions outside Belfast City Hall. Talk about democracy: the offices of Members who were elected to this House were attacked because of that stirring up of tension around east Belfast and in other places. That is not recognising democracy.

We have to understand that, in Northern Ireland, we have two competing identities. The unionist identity is not the only identity in Ireland. Our identity counts as well, and I think that it is important that people understand that. I have no desire to strip councils of unionist emblems or symbols.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Londonderry.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will take any of the Members from across the Chamber to the Guildhall in Derry and give them a tour.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Do you not mean "Londonderry"?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

You call it "Londonderry"; that is fine.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Aye, that is right.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I have no —

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

You stripped that.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

OK, so that was not a democratic decision either. I will take any of you to Derry. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. All remarks through the Chair. Order.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Sometimes people do not want to listen because they do not like what they hear. However, sometimes they have to listen, because I was elected to the House in the same way as they were — by a democratic decision. I would love to take — we will maybe do a bus run — a group of DUP MLAs to Derry, and we will do a tour of — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

You can go to Londonderry as well. We will put two signs on the bus. [Laughter.] Maybe Mr Campbell could take the tour as well. We will do a tour of the Guildhall — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

— and we will look at all the symbols of British identity and of historical imperialism in our city that we have not stripped away. I think that it is important that we recognise our history, because we have a shared history. We do not like all of it, but we have a shared history. I am not proposing that we tear down the Walls of Derry because they are a symbol of British imperialism. I am not proposing that at all. What we have done in our city — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. There is no time limit on Members who want to contribute to the debate. If they want to make a contribution, they should get their name on the speaking list. I also say to the Member who has the Floor: let us try to get back to the amendment. Let us not have a debate about the Guildhall or anywhere else. Let us get back to the amendment before us.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The point that I was trying to make was that the SDLP has no desire to strip away Britishness or even the symbols of British imperialism. That is because we recognise that we have a history in this part of the world. We have to understand, as does the DUP, that we also have a future, and it needs to be a shared future.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Yes.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Would you not agree that for decades, were you to have looked at the emblems in many councils across this state, you would have been forgiven for believing that there was only one community here, and you are now trying to address that problem?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

That is a fair point, because many nationalists across the North have a very different opinion and experience of councils than have been explained from across the Benches today. We need to stop. Why are we debating flags? Mrs Cameron made a good point — I thought that her speech was eloquent and thoughtful — when, referring to the Alliance Party amendment, she said that flags should not be sneaked into the Bill by the back door because the Bill was much more important than that.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Unfortunately, she went on to say that she would support two of the other amendments on flags. Did you say that you wanted to come in?

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes. I thank the Member for giving way. Mrs Cameron also said that we should deal with the issue in the Assembly. I find it hard to describe what is happening today, in full public view in the regional legislature, as sneaking something in via the back door. The hope is to have a mature, sensitive debate, as was initiated by my colleague Anna Lo. I hope that we get back to that.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Good luck with that.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Yes, well. The place for dealing with this issue politically was the Haass process. We need to get another process on the cards as soon as possible. We are going into an election, and the DUP, and everybody else, has to speak about flags and wave the flag and punch the table. However, after this election, we will have to get back to it, because people are fed up listening to us talk about flags and parades and the past. They are all very important, but, until we deal with it, we will be bound and imprisoned into constantly debating them here, across councils and everywhere else.

I ask every political party in the Assembly to get together as soon as possible. I would love you to do it today or tomorrow, but we can already tell that that will not happen until after the election. Get the two Governments around the table to pull us together to deal with it once and for all, because my generation will not forgive us if we do not deal with this a matter of urgency.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you for giving way. On getting "around the table" and dealing with this as "a matter of urgency", will the Member clarify why his party joined Sinn Féin in boycotting the Assembly Commission when it tried to deal with this issue?

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Here we go again. No attempt — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It has been universally recognised across the world, and it was recognised last week in America, that the only way to deal with these issues is comprehensively and properly in a negotiating setting. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

We made quite a lot of progress around Haass. All parties played their part in that, but we need to get back to it. We cannot just leave it up in the air, because, otherwise, the people will not forgive us. I believe strongly that the tricolour is my national flag. I have no problem with you believing otherwise. I do not have any problem with you believing that the Union Jack is your national flag. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not have debate across the Chamber. Order.