Member's statement: Good Relations

Member's statement by Mr Stewart Dickson on .

MLA
Mr Stewart Dickson
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
4 February 2025
Type
Member's statement
Business
Members' Statements
Heading
Good Relations
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4778915

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I raise an issue that is central to our commitments under section 75(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, specifically the concept of "good relations", which is a term that, despite its frequent use, lacks a statutory definition. The omission has created ambiguity over and practical implications for policy development and community cohesion in Northern Ireland. Section 75(2) mandates that public authorities must promote good relations amongst people of:

"different religious belief, political opinion or racial group."

Despite nearly 30 years of policy development in the area, however, the term remains undefined, and, frankly, its interpretation is woolly and varied. That has led to concerns and given opportunity for misuse by sidestepping equality obligations under the guise of fostering good relations, especially in situations involving racial violence against our black and minority ethnic communities. In 2014, the Equality Coalition stated in a report that Northern Ireland's framework for good relations, at best, diverges from the principles of human rights and equality and, at worst, runs counter to them. Unlike those areas, good relations lacks any minimum standard or benchmark, which leaves its implementation ambiguous and subjective to interpretation. Failure to provide a definition has allowed section 75 duties that were intended to promote equality and non-discrimination to be turned into what the Equality Coalition has termed a "subjective political veto" over contentious policy. That is a far cry from their original intent, which ultimately undermines their effectiveness. In 2017, the Council of Europe's Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities recommended:

"the Northern Ireland Executive should endeavour to implement the 'good relations' duty as provided under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in a manner that does not run counter to the equality duty and that does not prevent access to rights of persons belonging to all national and ethnic minorities".

It is now 2025, and Northern Ireland remains without such legislation. The Executive Office's handling of the good relations strategy has been, at best, slow and ineffective.

Necessary updates to strategies and policies like Together: Building a United Community have been criticised for being lacklustre, and any pressing of the clear need for a legal definition of good relations continues to be ignored. The Equality Commission, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition have acknowledged those issues. Alliance supports calls to deliver a statutory definition of good relations, including amendments to the Northern Ireland Act. A statutory definition of good relations would align us with best practice in other jurisdictions across the United Kingdom, but also deliver the promises of the Good Friday Agreement. In conclusion, defining good relations is not merely about addressing a legislative gap. It is about clearly stating our values and ensuring that our commitments to peace and prosperity are comprehensive and actionable. Let us give good relations a legal definition and a genuine meaning to deliver a more inclusive Northern Ireland.

489 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.09 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.93).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.56).
  • Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.08No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.05No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.06No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.93Yes
Overall judgement0.09At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.56
Reports or questions it0.01
Criticises or condemns it0.43
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.87
Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers0.13
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:51 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification