I accept the Member's point that people will want to appraise the package. Any future use of borrowing power by any Executive will be subject to the full scrutiny of the budgetary process, not least because additional borrowing would be resourced through additional revenue raised from rates. Nothing will bring about more transparency in the use of borrowing power than that.

For that reason, the Executive want to make it clear that future borrowing power will be used solely for strategic capital investment. Borrowing will not be used to fund running costs, pay wages or cover other expenses; it will be used solely for strategic infrastructure and public service investment. The Executive are conscious that the payments will be spread over time, and we want to ensure solidarity between generations. This Assembly will provide the necessary public service infrastructure for future generations. All the Committees will know how those matters are being handled.

The existence of the strategic investment body, and the qualitative difference that it makes to our capital expenditure profile, will enable the public to see the additional benefit of new investment, so that the added value will be obvious. That is part of the transparency that is important for the public and its representatives in the Assembly.

The Member also referred to Ebrington. I am aware of, and have been involved in, many discussions about the site, because I too represent the Foyle constituency. Having made the case to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for the transfer of the sites, the Executive want to ensure that they are put to optimum use in the public interest. We will continue discussions involving a range of sectoral interests to decide the best use of that particular site.

Many people urged the Executive and Departments to buy some of the sites that have now been transferred.

Members told us to buy Ebrington Barracks and to pay £10 million for it. Instead, through this package, the Executive have acquired the sites free of charge. The Executive can use the money that Members told us to spend on buying the sites to fund £125 million of borrowing power for short-term investment.

If Members listened to what they have advocated, they would realise how good this deal is. They wanted the money to be spent on buying those sites, and additional money would then have had to be found to develop them. Instead, the sites have been acquired free of charge, and the money that would have been spent on buying them can now be put towards infrastructure and public service investment.

I welcome the statement and the package that goes with it. This is mature politics in action, which is long overdue in Northern Ireland.

Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister confirm that the investment needed for water services alone is around £3 billion, or £6 million a week for 10 years? If that investment were not made, what would the consequences be? The Assembly and the public want to know whether the Minister for Regional Development has made any suggestions on how to meet the responsibility and the enormous backlog. I hope that he does not take the same attitude as his Colleague Mr Poots, who sits back and complains and lets other people do the work for him.

The information that we have received from the Department for Regional Development is that a substantial investment of around £3 billion is needed for water services. We cannot sit on that issue. It must be dealt with.

A point was raised earlier about the charges that would be incurred on the bases that have been transferred: those charges come under the new regime of resource accounting and budgeting and involve a charge of some 6% for held assets. Water services have considerable assets. Under resource accounting and budgeting, we would be charged for those assets. Consequently, there would be significant additional charges.

There is also the issue of how the Administration is funded. Funding increases come with per capita equivalents to increases in England in Wales. There are no longer any increases in public expenditure on water in England and Wales. No additional money is available in that way. If we are to deal with the investment that is needed in the water sector, additional sources of finance must be found. That is an important matter.

European Union Directives are a source of concern for water services. Those Directives will require expenditure, and if they are not implemented, penalties will be incurred. That is an important issue that must be addressed urgently. We understand that the Minister for Regional Development is considering how to deal with those problems, and he may soon introduce proposals. Those proposals may address the raising of finance, if finance is to be raised at all. I do not know whether that matter is on the Minister's mind. However, we will consider with interest his proposals for water services.

The Department for Regional Development has significant problems. Other Departments also have problems with infrastructure. We hope that the package will benefit all Ministers and will enable matters to be dealt with strategically without displacing the interests and responsibilities of individual Ministers. That is why, as the Deputy First Minister said, we will invite other parties to associate with the operation of the strategic investment body.

I congratulate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on taking the steps that secured the package. Everyone agrees that more resources should be put into public services, and all parties have, in one way or another, called for such investment. The package offers a chance to accelerate investment in vital services. I also welcome the response given to Mr Hay regarding public consultation on Ebrington Barracks.

Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that the initial package will be spent on strategic investments such as the new cancer centre, so that people can see that devolution does make a difference, and that we advocate quality public services to meet society's needs?

As I said, the First Minister, the Minister of Finance and Personnel and myself raised issues that would be significant elements in the shorter-term when we negotiated the short-term spending boost as part of the overall package. The cancer centre was the primary significant project that we thought could be funded from a short-term package. All Assembly parties know how important the regional cancer centre is to the regional health strategy. Achieving the regional cancer strategy will make good the work of the important new cancer units.

We are determined - and we are sure that our Executive Colleagues are determined - to support the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in realising the regional cancer strategy. We regret the different things that have prevented progress being made, and it is for such reasons that we believed it important to secure a short-term dividend, and not just to rely on longer-term borrowing power. Decisions and announcements on precisely how the money will be used will follow.

I am happy to reiterate the reassurance about public consultation on Ebrington Barracks and other sites.

Last week, I was tempted to hijack a plane that was supposed to be arriving laden with millions of pounds. However, the roads infrastructure in west Tyrone was so bad that there were no white lines to guide the plane down.

First, have Government bonds been ruled out? Is that a good financial manoeuvre in view of the fact that loans would be long-term? Are we talking about a fixed-term contract with an interest rate of 5·25% for 20 or 30 years?

Secondly, other means of raising money were mentioned. I welcome that the Deputy First Minister said that he would inflation-proof the business rates. Could there be a tremendous hike in domestic rates to compensate for that? What are the other means of raising money, and will they be put into the public domain for consultation?

The prospect of issuing bonds to finance infrastructure investments has some attractions, but all bonds would ultimately have to be guaranteed by the Northern Ireland Executive. The Treasury has made it clear that it would not support a bond-financed approach, nor would it be prepared to act as ultimate guarantor - that would probably be sought from financial institutions and investments if a bond were to be floated.

Significantly, the Treasury's rates are better than those that would be gained from the market on floating a bond. It is therefore not simply a matter of the Treasury's difficulties with the concept of bonds. Some of those difficulties are not related to Northern Ireland but rather to other areas. The arrangements offered are better financially, and that is significant.

With regard to other sources of finance, we hope to set up public-private partnership (PPP) deals through the strategic investment body. PPP partners could raise finance through bonds, and they would carry the risk. Other ways of raising finance may be available, some of which were referred to earlier. The objective of the strategic investment body is to bring in expertise and to focus the existing expertise in the Administration on examining what is available and what can be done to provide the finance to achieve progress in the best possible way.

Business and domestic rates are not connected with this initiative. Rates are already a problem, because of comparisons between local taxation and taxation across the water. The increase in business rates was kept low because there is no significant disparity between business rates here and business rates across the water. There is, however, a disparity in domestic rates, and there have been significant arguments on that issue. We must show that there will be equality with regard to tax, rates and council taxes across the United Kingdom. That has been happening. I hope that the message is getting through that there will be no sudden or dramatic change.

I congratulate the Ministers on securing the free transfer of security sites and prison sites to the Executive. Those named so far are of major strategic and monetary value. There has been much speculation, in the Lagan Valley constituency, for instance, about the possible use of the Maze site. Will the Ministers consult fully with local authorities and responsible community groups in the areas concerned before the use of those sites is determined?

I am aware that in different localities there are different levels of interest in the sites, and there has already been some debate on the issue. Now that we have the sites we must ensure that best use is made of them. In determining the best use for the sites, it is important that they relate directly to the benefits of a transformation to a peaceful situation. They must be symbols of reconciliation, and they must be used for regeneration. If the sites were sold, the money raised would have to be used for similar purposes. That is fair in the context of the normalisation dividend that we started to negotiate before Christmas.

All relevant local interests must be involved and consulted. Strategic interests must also be considered. Given that the transfer of particular bases as part of the package has been a matter of luck, circumstance and negotiation, it would be appropriate to involve the strategic investment body.

Members will have a mixed reaction to the news that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister negotiated the package jointly, and, with their respective records of success at negotiation, we must be glad that the Deputy First Minister had a large input.

Given the restraints that have been imposed on borrowing, which are outlined in the statement, do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that a large percentage, if not all, of the borrowing would be unnecessary if investment were made as a result of reductions in public expenditure? In the light of that, what plans do they have to examine the number and cost of Government Departments, the size and cost of the Assembly and the amount of money that is allocated to the North/South bodies and the Civic Forum?

Finally, what comfort can ratepayers take from the fact that the increases over the next four years in domestic rates are anticipated to be only four times the rate of inflation rather than more?

It is not our intention to change existing patterns for rates increases over the next couple of years. I have stated the reasons for the above-inflation domestic rates increases several times. I will not speculate as to why Mr Weir has not quite understood the point about comparabilities with other parts of the United Kingdom. Normally, the Member is enthusiastic about bringing us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, and it is strange that in this case he is not. Perhaps, though, it is not surprising. Is he willing to accept the benefits but not the burden of such matters?

There is some substance in the Member's comments. We are keenly interested in reducing expenditure where possible, and that is an element of the review of public administration that will be advanced quickly. We hope that it will be implemented in the course of the next year, and, as is necessary, it will run in parallel with the review of the rating system. We will consider whether significant savings can be made in the management of public bodies outside the central Departments. The Member may not have appreciated that the creation of the strategic investment body to centralise expertise on finance and rating and financing projects through PPPs may itself involve a reduction in expenditure at departmental level.

The cost of the Assembly is not a matter for Ministers; it is entirely for the Assembly Commission. However, I am confident that the people of Northern Ireland are glad that they have an Assembly that enables them to influence the decisions that are taken on such matters. The people of Northern Ireland are glad that the Assembly exists, and they can put value on the carping that comes from people who contributed nothing to the creation of the Assembly or to society's progress here in recent years.

I join Members who have congratulated the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on a wonderful achievement. It is a strategy for Northern Ireland that I hope will help to pay for what we need. At times, our attitude is awful. We demand and beg for this, that and the other thing, believing that, somehow, the money will fall from heaven. I do not know from where people get that idea, but the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have made it clear that heaven will not be so easily persuaded to pay for us.

Members may have heard the Confederation of British Industry's economic expectations for UK regions in this morning's news. Northern Ireland was excluded, and I am worried about that. Could this be connected with the serious leak that occurred prior to the Chancellor's announcement last Thursday, particularly as the focus of the leak appeared to be on a doubling of rates, even though that has proven to be wildly inaccurate? Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister concur with that viewpoint?

I thank the Member for his observations on the package that we negotiated. It is important to set the matter in context. The First Minister, the Minister of Finance and Personnel and I have listened repeatedly to people saying that more money and more borrowing power were needed to ensure that spending outside the departmental expenditure limit could be made. That is precisely what we have negotiated. Most people encouraged us towards bonds, but we have negotiated a spending power with a better interest rate than we would have been able to achieve by using bonds. I hope that everybody - and many Members asked us to use bonds to secure a borrowing power - would have the same honesty as the Member in congratulating us.

We are trying to create, in the strategic investment body, a central driver to improve the quality and rate of investment. The Committee for Finance and Personnel touched on that point in its excellent report on public-private partnerships and alternative sources of financing. The Committee identified such a need precisely, and that need is being made good. I hope that the people who were ready to talk about that need will welcome the fact that we have acted on it.

Unfortunately, much public understanding and perception about the initiative was marred by many false conclusions and misinterpretations about the rates. In so far as that information came from leaks, we must try to correct those wrong impressions, while finding out exactly how the leaks occurred. The Executive have already asked the head of the Civil Service to make enquiries about that. It is most important that people are assured that we have a borrowing power that will be used wisely, not wildly. The arrangements in the Chamber mean that there will be no massive hiking of the rates while the rating system remains unreformed and while its anomalies and inequities are in place. People will not vote for significant rate increases without knowing what the significant additional benefits will be.

I welcome this morning's statement and the initiative announced last week. The Deputy First Minister talked about the strategic investment body. The important discussions on the functions of that body will take place not once my Colleague Mr Close has managed to read this morning's statement but when Ministers come to the House with a detailed package and say exactly how the body will operate and what its role and functions will be. Ministers should not use the generalities that we have had so far. The Deputy First Minister said that parties in the Executive would be invited to make nominations to a working group. That seems to be a new constitutional arrangement. Did he mean that Ministers will make nominations, or do the Executive plan to be inclusive and suggest that parties that participate in the Assembly will get such an opportunity?

I welcome the fact that the First Minister went some distance in his response to Mr Close's question on the unfairness of the rates. In recognising that that is a legitimate concern, the First Minister went considerably further than his Colleague Sir Reg Empey did in discussions with me last week. Are there plans for the rates review to be extended into a review of the raising of public finance, or will it merely pretend that tinkering with the existing system is all that is required?

The consultation paper on the rates review will be published shortly. It will concentrate on a review of rating policy because, in revising the existing system, we must begin by considering that system. The current system contains inequities and anomalies. The big problem with rates is that it is a tax that is not related to people's ability to pay; it is superficially attractive, therefore, to create a system that is. Mr Close mentioned a local income tax. We look forward with interest to the proposals for such a tax. I hope that they will be properly developed and carefully considered.

It is not surprising that the Scottish Parliament has not used its power to vary income tax rates. That shows what those who have the capacity to consider the matter think about it. There is the possibility, as I have already said, of replacing the rates with a different form of local taxation. I do not imagine that anyone will suggest that we introduce a poll tax, although someone could, and, under the terms of the rates review, it is theoretically possible that that could happen. If that is what the Member has in mind, we look forward to it. The other possibility is a tax similar to the council tax that exists across the water. Other taxes may be introduced, but all possibilities must be considered within the limits of what the Assembly can do. We may consider the introduction of new local taxes, but income tax is a reserved matter, and the Member's party's suggestion of changing it would have to be dealt with elsewhere.

The strategic investment body is intended to centralise expertise and the capacity for managing assets, raising funds and dealing with infrastructure investment matters. The Deputy First Minister said that limited capacity for those matters, and a certain degree of expertise, is currently scattered across 10 or 11 Departments. It is more efficient to centralise and develop the capacity and expertise through a single body that can coherently study the whole range of public sector investment and the management of public assets. That will be done within the Administration, and it will be appropriate, therefore, to bring together people from within it who represent it as a whole.

That is why it was an obvious first step to turn to the parties that participate in the Administration. To go beyond that and look to other Assembly parties that do not participate in the Administration would run counter to the thrust of the initiative, which is that the body will operate within the Administration to enable the most efficient asset management.

We have taken a decision in principle to establish a strategic investment body, and we will work out the detail as quickly as we can. We will be happy to share our decisions with the Assembly as we go through the process. It is a new concept, although the idea has surfaced in other jurisdictions. Quite a few people in government are moving towards it because of the desirability of ensuring that the public administration's assets and capacity to raise finance are used in an efficient and effective way.

I will make my question brief. The Deputy First Minister intimated that there might be other sites, referring to security bases that are going to be closed down, and said that when other sites became available, they would utilise those also. Does he have any particular sites in mind that he would like to tell the Assembly about?

I did not say that as other sites became available, we would utilise them also. What I did say was that as other sites became available, it would fall to the Executive to consider whether we wanted to intervene on the strategic use of those sites. In saying that, I was not implying that additional sites would come free of charge. Many Members anticipated that we were going to have to pay for the Ebrington site, for example. They said that it would be a good site to buy, and a good use of our budget. We have got it free of charge. In relation to other sites, we might have to decide whether to purchase them - that is the arrangement and the understanding that existed prior to this package.

We have done well to get these sites free, and we must make the best use of them. We must all consider responsibly what to do in relation to future sites. I would like to think that we could persuade the Treasury to give us future sites free of charge, and our ability to do that might be related to whether we do anything with the rest of this package - that is, the strategic reforms that we are talking about and our approach to revenue issues.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill: 
First Stage

TOP

The Minister of the Environment (Mr Nesbitt):

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 7/01] to make new provision for the payment of general and other grants to district councils; to confer new powers on district councils in relation to economic development and community safety; and for connected purposes.

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage is determined.

Children Leaving Care Bill: 
Committee Stage (Period Extension)

TOP

The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr Gallagher):

I beg to move

The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety is examining the Children Leaving Care Bill, which overlaps the Committee's ongoing consideration of the Health and Personal Social Services Bill. Although the Children Leaving Care Bill is relatively short, it contains important provisions for this vulnerable group of young people. It will establish a basis for new and improved leaving care and aftercare services, including pathway plans and personal advisors for these young people. The Committee warmly welcomes this Bill in the light of its recent inquiry into residential and secure accommodation for children.

It is important for the Committee to devote sufficient time to scrutinising the provisions of the Bill, especially in relation to the ability of trusts to provide assessments and meet identified needs in a uniform and consistent manner, with proper accountability. In order to be satisfied that the Bill can deliver fully on its intent and provide safeguards for vulnerable young people once they leave care, the Committee asks that the Committee Stage of the Bill be extended to 26 June 2002. I ask Members to support the motion.

Draft Amendments to the
 Flags Regulations (NI) 2000

TOP

I beg to move:

The Secretary of State wrote to the Speaker on 26 April 2002 formally referring draft amendment Regulations to the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000, as required under the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000. Article 4(2) of the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 says that

On this occasion, the Secretary of State has specified the period until 8 May for a response.

Normally, a business motion would be tabled by a member of the Business Committee requesting that an Ad Hoc Committee be set up to consider the matter and report to the Assembly. Given the extremely tight deadline set by the Secretary of State, the Business Committee agreed on 29 April that the only viable way of getting the Assembly's view on the proposed amendments was by way of a debate, and this motion fulfils that purpose. The Speaker will write to the Secretary of State, attaching a copy of Hansard, to inform him of the Assembly's views.

The Secretary of State has advised that the amendments are minor and bring about no change in the principle that underlies the legislation. The amendments have two main purposes. First, following the deaths of The Princess Margaret and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, it is sadly necessary to make an amendment to remove the requirement to fly the flag on official buildings to celebrate their birthdays in the future.

Secondly, the legislation was originally drafted to ensure that flag flying in Northern Ireland replicated the policy on flags elsewhere in the United Kingdom. To celebrate the Golden Jubilee of Her Majesty, it has recently been decided that flags will be widely flown from official buildings. Consistent with the original approach, the Secretary of State intends to add the Jubilee weekend at the beginning of June to the list contained in part II of the schedule to the Regulations for this year only, so that flags will be flown in Northern Ireland from the official buildings covered by the Regulations. The Secretary of State has apologised for the short notice, but the proximity of the Jubilee weekend makes the matter quite pressing. After consideration by the Assembly today, the Regulations will go to Parliament.

Wearing my party hat, the DUP's position on flag flying is well known - flags should fly when the Assembly is sitting. The DUP will try to find days to compensate for the loss of these two days.

I support what Mr Morrow has said. It is unfortunate that we have to deal with this because of the deaths of The Princess Margaret and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. However, in contrast to those sad occasions, we are also celebrating the year of the Golden Jubilee, in which we can look back and be grateful for the reign of Her Majesty The Queen. It is important that we in Northern Ireland are consistent with the rest of the United Kingdom in flying the flag of our country throughout the Queen's Golden Jubilee celebrations.

I hope that we will not see the controversy which usually follows the flags issue, but rather that people will have respect for those who hold the monarchy dear to their hearts. Parity of esteem does not impact on just one community in Northern Ireland; it should apply equally to all communities.

The Union flag represents the broad and natural constituency of the British Isles. It is not - or should not be - a flag of hate for some people, used for sectarian or tribal purposes. It should be a flag for all people, symbolic of the importance of democracy and the fact that we live in a multicultural British society. The sooner that opponents of Britain and all things British realise that, the sooner we will begin to achieve a mature and stable society in Northern Ireland.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mr Morrow outlined why it is necessary to have a debate, rather than an Ad Hoc Committee, on these amendments. A debate on the amendments to the Flags Regulations is a side issue. The real issue is that the Secretary of State continues to abuse a power that was originally devolved to the Assembly and that was seized from it by his predecessor, Peter Mandelson, at the behest of the Ulster Unionist Party.

The negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement recognised that the issue of flags and emblems was sensitive and problematic, and needed to be dealt with in a way that reflected the new political dispensation, rather than the dominance of one community over the other, which was the hallmark of previous Administrations here.

The guidelines for dealing with flags and emblems are set out in the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity section of the agreement:

The task of agreeing a policy on flags and emblems was rightly given to the Executive, who duly set up a subcommittee to consider the issue. However, unknown to the other parties in the Executive, the Ulster Unionist Party had already reached a private agreement with Peter Mandelson that its position on flags would be enforced in the event that no agreement was concluded by the Executive.

The existence of that private deal was not only a disincentive for the Executive to reach agreement on the issue, but an incentive for the Ulster Unionist Party not to reach an agreement with its Executive Colleagues, as its position was already guaranteed by the Secretary of State. It is not surprising that the Executive subcommittee did not agree a policy.

However, despite the fact that the Executive did not come to a conclusion on the issue, as correspondence from the then Deputy First Minister revealed, the Secretary of State acted on his private commitment to the Ulster Unionist Party and unilaterally removed the power to decide on this issue from the Assembly. In doing so he usurped the power of locally elected Ministers over their own departmental headquarters on what are termed "designated flying days" and produced a set of Regulations that flew in the face of the agreement that his Government had signed up to. Arguably, his Regulations also contravened the Fair Employment Code of Practice, which states that

Sinn Féin and other parties objected to the Regulations when they were submitted to the Assembly. The former went on to challenge the authority of the Secretary of State to arbitrarily remove powers from the Assembly at the whim of a single political party.

The current Secretary of State should recognise that the power to set policy on this issue should rest with the democratically elected representatives of the Assembly. Rather than giving us minimal notice on the proposed removal or addition of a couple of "designated flying days", he should legislate for the return of those powers, so that a policy for the use of flags and emblems for public purposes can be agreed by ourselves in a manner consistent with the agreement that the vast majority of Members have signed up to. Go raibh maith agat.

The Alliance Party supports the amendment of the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000. I hope that the amendment will rationalise the situation, so that during the Jubilee weekend this year the Union flag will be flown with dignity and as a sign of respect to The Queen, and not be left to fly until it is in tatters, with neither respect nor dignity. I also hope - perhaps in vain - that local politics will not besmirch that event.

It is encouraging that other organisations have advised the flying of the Union flag only on a time-restricted basis. I hope that the whole question of flags and emblems can be agreed as quickly and as sensitively as possible, although again I suppose that that hope is in vain.

Once again, we extend our sympathy to the Royal Family on the deaths of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and The Princess Margaret. However, we support the amendment.

This is a take-note motion, because, at the time of devolution, that settlement provided that matters relating to the Crown, including the flying of the national flag - the Union flag - would remain at Westminster. On that basis, I disagree with Conor Murphy. The powers to regulate the flying of the national flag never properly lay with the Assembly in the first place. Therefore, there was no surreptitious snatching-away of that power through a back-door deal.

Will the Member explain why it was necessary for the previous Secretary of State, by Order in Council, to take back from the Assembly the power to regulate the flying of flags, if that power never rested with the Assembly in the first place?

The point is that there was no previous legislation; that is why it had to be established. It is clearly set out in the devolution settlement that matters relating to the Crown, including the flying of the Union flag, would not be devolved and would rest with Westminster.

Furthermore, Conor Murphy misinterprets page 20, paragraph 5 of the Belfast Agreement where it refers to symbols and emblems. The national flag, according to good legal interpretation, does not fall into those categories. The Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 were subject to consultation by the Secretary of State with the Ad Hoc Committee of the Assembly. At that time and since, the Ulster Unionist Party has welcomed those Regulations, because, for the first time in the existence of the Northern Ireland state, they put the official flying of the national flag on a legislative footing, which it never had throughout the previous period of devolution between 1922 and 1972. It also establishes a degree of comparability between official practice by Departments here and their counterparts elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

The draft amendments, with which the motion is most directly concerned, have been made necessary by the recent sad deaths in the Royal Family, and on a more positive note, by this year's Golden Jubilee. I support the motion, as it continues the practice established by the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 of properly regulated and, therefore, dignified flying of the national flag. That contrasts markedly with the mass of varied flags put up on all too many lamp posts.

I support the motion. I am not a flag flaunter. Flaunting demeans the flag; it belittles its dignity and what it stands for. Those who wave the flag in a taunting and provocative fashion are often the first to waive what it stands for.

Having said that, I find it most provocative and offensive that this state's flag is not allowed to be flown from council buildings where Sinn Féin are in control. That is happening in Fermanagh District Council, where an attempt has been made to remove any hue of Britishness from the council buildings. Even a plaque in honour of Captain Oates of the famed Antarctic expedition has been removed. Sinn Féin says that it is "a neutral environment". I say that such actions do not create a neutral environment. Rather, for thousands of others and myself, they create an environment which is hostile, highly insulting and grossly offensive.

The national flag - in this instance, the Union flag - should be flown from all Government and local government buildings in Northern Ireland on, at least, designated days. If we have all acknowledged the Belfast Agreement, which states that we are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so long as the majority of the electorate indicate that that is their wish, there should be no problem with the flying of the national flag.

The issue must be resolved soon, because we cannot remain in limbo, demeaning this state's flag of sovereignty and almost apologising for flying it. Any objection to the sovereignty of Her Majesty and her flag is inconsistent with the fact that everyone accepts coins that bear an image of the Queen's head.

The Belfast Agreement confirms that there is only one sovereignty here, and those who wish to cherry-pick cannot ignore that point. I support the motion.

The SDLP recognises that this take-note debate relates to the broad issue of flags and emblems, not just the specific recommendations of the motion. The SDLP wishes to be careful when debating the matter, and point scoring has been taking place, so we waited until the end of the debate to comment.

Although the Ad Hoc Committee failed, after considerable work, to reach consensus on the flags issue, it produced a report. If the Secretary of State requires information on, and evidence of, the SDLP's position, I refer him to the party's lengthy submission in that report, in which the SDLP advocates that the issue of the display of flags should be kept under periodic review. That is consistent with, and a requirement of, the Good Friday Agreement. A more consensual approach to the display of flags on Government buildings may emerge in time, and a periodic review of the matter may create some impetus. I hope that everyone aspires to that position. In addition, the SDLP submitted that the application of the proposed Regulations should be time-limited to one year only in the first instance. We look forward to development that creates progress for everyone without resulting in confrontation. Each time the issue is considered, party political point scoring takes place.

I have listened carefully to all the contributions, and, although most Members grasped the spirit of the motion, we heard the usual rant from Sinn Féin, a party which sees merit in nothing. It is sad that Sinn Féin should use the opportunity to carry out a divisive political stunt - that will not go unnoticed. I take the point that when Sinn Féin has been in control, it has quickly demonstrated its intolerance for anyone with a differing opinion, which is regrettable. I wish to say nothing more, because I recognise that most of the comments were constructive and were made in the spirit of the motion.

Good Friday Agreement

TOP

I wish to advise Members how I propose to conduct the debate, which has been allocated one hour by the Business Committee. One amendment has been selected and has been published on the Marshalled List. Speaking times will be as follows: the proposer of the substantive motion will have 10 minutes for proposing the motion and five minutes for his winding-up speech. The proposer of the amendment will have seven minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes for his winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes each.

I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this fundamental motion. No one in the House or outside could argue that we in the Assembly have not created many opportunities to debate the Good Friday Agreement. It was in that spirit that I introduced the motion.

It is sad that the UUP has had to put forward an amendment. I have no problem in talking about policing, if that is what it wants to debate. However, the purpose of the motion is to focus on the fundamental principles of the Good Friday Agreement and to bring forward and query the reasons why we are not using the Chamber to debate and exchange views on that subject.

Our society has emerged from conflict lasting more than 30 years, against the background of a previous 50 years of division. We must find ways, means, mechanisms and debates for resolving that conflict. We only have to look at the Middle East to see how conflict returns when a peace process goes wrong. There is a huge onus on all of us to never allow that to happen.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it permissible for a person who is closely identified with IRA/Sinn Féin to use the Assembly to issue threats of a return to violence if they do not get their way?

That is not a point of order. Next time, I would ask the Member to state the Standing Order to which he refers.

One of the fundamental principles underlining the Good Friday Agreement is that of inclusion and equality - [Interruption]. There are some smart alecs over there. [Interruption].

Order.

If we are to follow through on inclusion and equality, there should be no reason why we cannot have thoroughgoing debate on the concepts contained in the Good Friday Agreement. At Weston Park we were promised an implementation group, which would allow that debate, yet it has met only once. No one can deny that, and we have had no regular exchange of views. Unionists must ask themselves why they do not want to debate those issues in the Chamber.

DUP Members are afraid of their shadows, but what are the Ulster Unionist Members afraid of?Surely nothing in the Good Friday Agreement would cause them concern. Plenty in it would concern the DUP, because it favours inequality and the divisions that caused mayhem for previous generations. Why is the UUP so reluctant to debate the fundamental elements of the Good Friday Agreement? Let us debate the issue.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Did Pat Doherty not request that only 60 minutes be allocated to the debate?

The Business Committee allocates the time for each debate, and it agreed that this one should last for 60 minutes.

At the request of Sinn Féin.

That is not true. Dr Paisley would be better off attending his other duties today, rather than raising false points in the House.

Sinn Féin is committed to the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, to equality, inclusion and dialogue with Unionists to find ways to overcome any outstanding issues that they feel must be addressed. If Unionists want to address policing, let us consider that although the Good Friday Agreement promised a new beginning for policing, we have not had that. The Patten Commission's recommendations were decimated by Peter Mandelson's Bill in Westminster. The British Government promised that they would introduce new legislation, but we have seen no sign of that. Sinn Féin is not afraid to debate policing, but I am concerned by the Unionists' reluctance to debate the fundamental components of the Good Friday Agreement. What aspects of equality and inclusiveness are they afraid of?

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>