Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on 7 September 2026.

MLA

Ms Paula Bradshaw

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

7 September 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5670373

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been working on the Bill for nearly a decade. In that time, we have had two prolonged periods of suspension of the Assembly; a global pandemic that, rightly, skewed our focus here; and the publication of the report of the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT). While the legal space around flags has not changed in that period, it is clear that the public space has. We are seeing larger and more sinister flags being erected in our increasingly integrated society. Our neighbourhoods are becoming more mixed and more diverse than when FICT began its important work 10 years ago. I am sponsoring the Bill because we need a clear, consistent and fair legal framework to govern the erection of flags and emblems on street furniture. When I refer to "street furniture", I am not just talking about lighting columns; I am talking about railings and billboards on public land. In fact, a recent motion in the Assembly was concerned about and focused on the latter issue of billboards and called for departmental intervention. That is why I have included them. I should add that the many intimidating and sinister messages that now appear on posters placed on street furniture, several of which are overtly racist and xenophobic in nature, are included as well. As I will outline, at present there is no clear legal basis for regulating flags and emblems displayed on public property, nor is there a consistent enforcement mechanism for public authorities to act. The current legislation provides for a variety of offences around public order and prohibits certain displays on street furniture. However, what we need is clarity in law around statutory duties and responsibilities with specific regard to the display of flags and emblems on public property. That is why, as FICT and others have agreed, stand-alone legislation on the issue is needed. As I will also outline in more detail, the Bill's purpose is to allow for respect of cultural celebration and commemoration while preventing intimidation, territorial demarcation and the coercive use of symbols. I will also explain, for the avoidance of doubt, that individuals and organisations will be able to display flags and emblems on street furniture. Importantly, there will also be an opportunity that does not exist at present for those who do not want to see flags and emblems erected in their neighbourhood to give their views and for those to be recorded and considered by the Department in any potential enforcement action. As I will also outline, however, any such action will be dependent on a public interest test and not merely on the basis that someone does not like a particular flag or emblem. That is a key point, because shared space does not always mean neutral space. I understand how important it is that my Bill strikes a balance between article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is the right to freedom of expression, and article 8, which is the right to privacy and family life. At the outset, I highlight the fact that article 10 states:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression."

However, it goes on to state:

"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to ... formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties".

Let us also be clear that there is an appetite for change. Every week, I receive emails, as, I am sure, every Member in the Chamber does, from constituents expressing their dismay that multiple large flags have been erected in their area without consultation or any consideration of local opinion. They ask why their views do not matter. We can look at the statistics. The Department for Infrastructure asked the police for advice on complaints about unauthorised attachments to its properties 68 times in 2022, 115 times in 2023, 157 times in 2024 and 264 times in 2025. That points to a problem that, far from being resolved, is growing. In June this year, a flag was erected in a prominent position in Antrim, seemingly as part of a turf war between paramilitary organisations. Are we in the Chamber happy to let such things go on? Before that, people had to flee their houses after masked men descended on a Craigavon housing estate to erect flags. Why the masks? As I have said, every Member knows that it is an issue brought to them in correspondence from constituents. In fact, as I will show, every Member in the Chamber who belongs to a political party has, at one stage or another, justifiably complained about flags or emblems, including the display of billboards and posters in a manner that is intimidatory, designed to antagonise or marks territory. Every Member knows that a basic question lies at the heart of the issue: who controls what is displayed in our public spaces? For years, debates around flags and emblems have been treated as a cultural battleground. That may be convenient for some, but it misses the point of the Bill. We are not looking at the conflict around culture; we are looking at a failure of governance. During the debate, I will set out how the governance failure affects all of us, regardless of background, because, as every Member also knows, where there should be clear guidance on the issue, there is a vacuum. Where it should be clear where responsibility lies to act in such cases, there is, in fact, operational paralysis. Departments and agencies pass around the hot potato while public street furniture is routinely claimed, marked and controlled with neither consent nor justification. If we want a clear example of that, we can reflect on the events of two summers ago when UDA flags erected outside the PSNI station on the Garnerville Road were not removed. The Bill is not designed to suppress legitimate, time-bound cultural expression; if anything, it is designed to enhance it. The Bill is designed, however, to ensure that no single faction gets to determine who does or does not feel welcome in a street, a new housing development, around a school, near a library or close to a place of worship. For decades, we have known that the status quo is not neutral, It does not have consent and is not sustainable. We now have the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the past and replace deadlock with clarity by establishing in law a transparent and fair framework that will balance legitimate cultural expression with the need to respect all citizens and protect shared spaces. In other words, the Bill is fundamentally about proving that the Assembly can make progress on the basis of consensus, that we are a legislature that can legislate and that the rule of law matters. I was heartened recently when the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party talked about antisocial behaviour on the Stewartstown Road on 'The Nolan Show' and said that we must get back to the rule of law. I want to see that attitude applied consistently when people breach existing laws. Let us consider what we all agreed to during the process led by the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition. All parties in the Chamber agreed that the status quo was not an option, and that should be no surprise. Later, I will clarify in detail that every party has justifiably expressed frustration at the abuse of flags and emblems that have been placed for intimidatory or exclusionary purposes. The Assembly needs to agree on how we move forward so that such complaints do not need to be endlessly repeated. The task before us is not to complain about something and then apologise for not being able to find a way forward. We must agree that way forward through the Bill. We should also agree that it is fundamentally harmful to the institutions and our Administration generally when we simply pass the buck in response to an obvious question, such as flags that commemorate a paramilitary commander being placed on public lamp posts.

I note that there is a new Infrastructure Committee Chair, and I wish him well in his new post. He was clear on 'The Nolan Show' last week that such flags should be removed, and I am sure that he agrees that threatening anyone trying to replace them should be deemed as acting outside the law.

I thank the Member, and I look forward to working with him and his Committee colleagues. The issue, as he well knows, is that, as I have already outlined, there is piecemeal legislation in that area, but it is not acted on. My Bill will place a specific duty and statutory obligation on the Department to remove flags and emblems in the specific circumstances set out in the Bill to remove any shadow of doubt around responsibilities. As I said, I look forward to working with the Committee so that it can scrutinise the Bill. It should not be Paula Bradshaw's Bill or the Alliance Party's Bill. It has to be the Assembly's Bill, and it should reflect what all parties want to see. I will go into further detail on their utterances around how and when we should deal with those issues. I suspect that some Members in the Chamber would be happy if they never saw another flag attached to a lamp post, and there are probably others who would regard the flying of a particular flag as an important expression of who they are. The Bill is not asking either group to change that view. What is at issue here is not so much the flag or the emblem but the way in which it is used or, too often, abused. Let us consider in more detail what FICT agreed. It agreed that the flying of flags or emblems to mark events is common across the world; that it was more common in Northern Ireland for it to be done on houses rather than on public property until this century; that the nature of the flags that are displayed and how they are flown is changing; and that new flags are being designed. That challenges the idea that flying flags on public property is an established cultural tradition in Northern Ireland, though, in general, flying them for the purposes of commemoration clearly is. I acknowledge that protocols operate effectively in towns and villages across Northern Ireland. My Bill is not intended to interfere with those local agreements; it is intended to deal with displays where that is not the case. FICT noted that commemoration in Northern Ireland is inherently political; that there was popular support specifically for time restrictions on flag flying; and, unfortunately, that, often, the operation of those local protocols and such time-bound displays were impeded by paramilitary threats. Historically, authorities have liked to quote community tensions as a reason not to remove a flag or emblem, but community tensions are not taken into consideration when it is displayed in the first place. In public correspondence, the Department for Infrastructure has quoted community tensions as a reason not to act. We should also not be fooled by the response from the police that the issue should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The issue is that it is never dealt with; sorry, I should say that there has been one instance in the past two years when a UDA flag was removed in the Cregagh area. That happened only after a journalist began to embarrass the authorities about it. Nevertheless, all that should be read alongside clear polling that shows overwhelming public support by almost two to one for the immediate removal of specific paramilitary flags in all circumstances, regardless of any claims of heightened community tensions. Fundamentally, if we cannot remove flags placed on lamp posts by paramilitary organisations, we are not a truly democratic society. Perhaps most notably, it was agreed by FICT and has been argued by others, such as the Equality Commission, that the change required to provide clarity around all that would require a regulatory framework and, therefore, legislation. That is why we are here today.

We may then wish to look at the political commentary around that. I quote:

"I concur with the Member in calling out those people who are responsible for intimidating communities and trying to claim space within communities by erecting flags, symbols and emblems. That is not acceptable. I am determined to build a better future for everybody, and that includes tackling some of those issues that have not been tackled to date. There is a difference in approach from what has been done before with the Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition report." — [Official Report (Hansard), 28 April 2025, p15, col 1].

I also quote:

"That this Assembly condemns the unlawful erection of ... billboards ... notes with concern that those structures constitute a risk to public safety and were erected without the necessary permissions; believes that the Department for Infrastructure's failure to remove those displays stands in marked contrast to the approach by statutory agencies to businesses or individuals that erect signage without lawful authority or planning permission". — [Official Report (Hansard), 20 January 2026, p46, col 1].

I wonder whether anyone in the Chamber can really dispute either of those statements. The first, as it happens, was from the Sinn Féin First Minister and the second was from the DUP's new MLA for Newry and Armagh. As I say, I hope that we can build consensus on that. Northern Ireland is changing. When we try to bring in things such as this legislation, it can provoke scepticism, and never more so than when it involves symbols. That, however, is why Members need to look at what the Bill actually does and says, rather than for them engage in myth-making, scaremongering or assumption. On that note, let me clear, and it should be noted, given some interesting social media commentary this morning, that the Bill does not criminalise anyone, other than by imposing a fine on those who would seek to interfere with or threaten public servants who are doing their work. Who could disagree with the need to protect our hard-working public servants? Nor does the Bill ban any national or cultural flag. The Union flag, the Ulster banner, the tricolour and any other flag that is used in traditional, time-bound celebrations would continue to appear as a form of legitimate cultural expression where that is done with respect, not least with respect for the flag itself. What will not be permitted are abusive flags, the practice of leaving torn, faded or tatty symbols flying indefinitely and the abuse of any flag as a territorial marker. Respect means treating flags and emblems with dignity and not abusing them for the purposes of antagonism or intimidation.

This is probably an opportune time for me to read into the record clear examples of those definitions from recent years. Clause 1 places an absolute duty on the Department to remove a flag or emblem that is "intimidatory". Let me give an example. In Belvoir estate, in my constituency, we saw posters going up that read, "local homes for local people". In my colleague Nuala McAllister's constituency of North Belfast, we saw banners going up that read, "housing for locals first", alongside paramilitary flags. I think that we can agree that it is a form of intimidation to say that only certain people are allowed homes. The next area is "threatening". In the summer, in the Creggan area, we saw a flag that read, "kill all cops" and "kill all Huns". Does anybody in the Chamber think that we should not remove such flags on the grounds that they are threatening? Clause 1(2)(b) refers to flags and emblems that:

"stir up hatred, or arouse fear".

We have the "Billy was Wright" flags in Dungannon, Portadown and Lurgan. We have also seen the "revolution is unfinished" New IRA banners that were displayed during Easter Rising parades. Then, of course, we have flags of proscribed organisations. There is nothing in the Bill about national flags. The only area in which I think that you may feel that the Bill could possibly have an impact on national flags is where they have been up for an excessive period.

2,727 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:13 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