Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- 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 5670442
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will just finish my point. In that instance, people could express their concerns about flags going up in the area. It would be up to the Department, then, to apply the public interest test. As is outlined specifically in the Bill, the Department would have to take the views of people who live in the vicinity and would also have to reflect on the code of practice. There will be a duty on the Department to do that so that there is a clear protocol around flags where public services are provided and in shared communal spaces etc. There will be transparency and a very clear outline of the circumstances in which the Department will make its decisions around where to apply resources. Flags will go up in some communities where people will not have an issue with them at all. I do not believe that the Department will be overburdened in that regard. This is about giving a voice to people who have not been heard before and whose frustrations have not been listened to. Where the Department for Infrastructure has done its due diligence, applied the public interest test and decided to remove flags, the Bill does not make it an offence to put flags up again within a certain period of time. That is something for the Committee to consider. Go ahead and make your intervention, but I then want to make progress.
237 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
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: 0.17 (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 (0.87).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.86).
- Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.15 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.53 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.17 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.86 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.06 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.06 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
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.