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 5670446

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The Bill supports people being able to have celebrations and commemorations, but they have to be time-bound. Do you know what I mean? If flags are up for too long, there is a demarcation. There has to be an expectation that greenways that have had significant public money spent on them should be open to everybody. They should not be demarcated as belonging to one principal national identity or the other. If the flags are up for the Twelfth and the marching season, we all have to be more tolerant. We all have to show respect for everybody's culture and traditions, but we cannot have a situation in which people are using flags in order to mark territory and claim it for one section of the community over the other.

I will give way briefly, but I want to get back to my speech.

There is.

There is. Clause 1(2) contains an absolute duty to remove a flag that:

"invites support for, or is the flag or emblem of, a proscribed organisation."

As you move into clause 1(3) —. Do you have a copy of the Bill in front of you?

OK. We then move into a presumption of removal in clause 1(3). I have given the top examples — I do not know whether you were in the Chamber when I gave them — of the types of posters, banners, flags, etc that would have to be removed. The Department would then have to engage in presumption.

I will, but this is the last one.

I disagree, and I have answered that question at length with your colleagues on the Benches. I will come back in towards the end on some of those issues. Let me just see where I had got to. Apologies, Deputy Speaker. The question before us is not whether we like flags but whether we think that public property should be governed by clear, fair and enforceable rules. To pick up on David Brooks's point, I want these rules to be fair to everyone in society. It is not just about one persuasion or the other. However, we need to eliminate excuses for inaction. Administrative excuses will no longer cut it. It is, in fact, the ambiguity of the status quo that breeds conflict. Statutory clarity will require a clear code by which everyone can live and a duty to act where it is breached. What are the challenges? Based on significant previous work, FICT identified some, such as the absence of lawful authority for citizens to attach flags to street furniture; the inadequacy of the existing voluntary framework; the legitimacy of cultural and commemorative expression; the problems caused by intimidation, territorial marking and prolonged displays; and the need for principles for a future framework. As I have said, all parties in the Chamber have made public statements agreeing with that and, to be clear, they have all agreed that, often, the issue is not the type of flag or emblem displayed as much as the purpose of it being displayed. Unionists certainly agree. In June 2019, the display of national flags — as it happens, the Irish tricolour — outside a new housing development before a football match was described by TUV leader Jim Allister MP as:

"a provocative display designed to claim territory".

He was quite right to challenge the purpose of the flag rather than the type of flag, adding that it was an attempt "to raise tensions". Of course, the display of some flags is always designed to raise tensions, a point accepted by his party colleague Councillor Ron McDowell only last year, when he congratulated the Metropolitan Police on charging someone with the display of a flag in support of a proscribed organisation. The organisation happened to be Hezbollah, but consistency dictates that we would say precisely the same were it the IRA, the UVF or any other proscribed organisation. As noted above, other unionist parties have not been quiet on these issues either. In August 2023, the Ulster Unionist MLA and peer Tom Elliott took almost exactly Jim Allister's line in opposition to national flags — again, in this case, Irish tricolours — appearing outside a new housing development in Dungannon. He claimed, with some justification, that they were designed to show that unionists were not welcome. The problem was not the flag itself but the purpose of its display. This is not restricted to flags. In 2017, then DUP MLA Gary Middleton stated that "sniper at work" signs were designed to stop people joining the police and thus constituted "incitement to hatred". I agree: the Bill includes flags and "emblems" are clearly defined to include posters for that reason. In fairness, parties across the divide were clear about their revulsion at flags stating "kill all cops" and "kill all huns" appearing during the summer in the Creggan area, as I have already referenced. That is an appalling and chilling example of the escalation of sinister messages on flags in recent years. Similar to the examples in which Irish tricolours were used, we have seen Union flags and Ulster banners abused, such as in June 2024, when their presence outside a new housing estate was described by local SDLP Councillor Roisin Lynch as "inflammatory". She quite rightly noted that the people who had erected them did not speak for the majority in Antrim.

Sinn Féin has also described national flags — in this case, Union flags — as sectarian intimidation, most recently in Castlederg last year. It is worth noting that, as long ago as 2018, the current Economy Minister called for an end to the use of flags to mark out territory. In 2022, her Sinn Féin colleague and my South Belfast colleague, the then Communities Minister Deirdre Hargey, called for the PSNI to take action on flags on Finaghy Road South, claiming that the police had a responsibility to act. I share that view. I also feel, however, that the police need a clear regulatory framework within which they can support DFI to take action and meet any of its responsibilities. That is what the Bill is designed to achieve; in other words, it will require the Minister for Infrastructure to act. In fact, most recently, the current Infrastructure Minister noted last year that:

"Finding a sustainable solution to the ongoing problem of illegally erected flags and emblems requires leadership and a united approach."

Therefore, I look forward to hearing from the Minister about any engagement that she has had with her Executive colleagues and the actions that she proposes to take to secure agreement. For some, of course, FICT did not give us full agreement on the precise nature of the solution that we should take forward, but neither did it give us a mandate for indefinite inaction. In fact, the strongest argument against my Bill — at least in the sense of arguing about it — is contained in it, rather than in the mischievous suggestion that it is trying to do something that it is not. That argument is that it should not be necessary, because placing a flag on someone else's property is already illegal. That is what the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee referred to. The issue is that the authorities are not dealing with those flags. I have a lot of sympathy with that argument. The fact remains, however, that, for decades, the authorities have not dealt with the issue, and my Bill makes it clear where a flag or emblem must be removed and creates a statutory duty to remove it or, at least, investigate it. It is worth reading into the record the fundamental FICT principles that lay behind its recommendations. Those principles, as I understand it, were accepted unanimously. For a display to constitute a legitimate cultural expression, it must meet a respect threshold for the flag, the community and the event. That means that the expression must have value; it must be for a celebration or commemoration with a clear beginning and end; and its display must respect the fact that public space belongs to us all. It further emphasises that respect for the flag means that cultural symbols, including national flags, should not be degraded or used as instruments of intimidation. Respect for the community means that one community's expression should not tell another community that it does not belong. Respect for the event means that a legitimate commemoration does not automatically justify an indefinite display. Those who have responded to surveys and consultations on the topic share those priorities. Broadly, most people are tolerant of displays, even celebrations or commemorations that mean nothing to them, provided that they are respectful and time-bound. Nevertheless, there are those who like to talk about change but are less keen on delivering it when the moment comes. That is a natural aspect of human psychology, and it is called "loss aversion". Loss aversion makes change difficult to deliver. Imagine, however, if we had thought during the Troubles that there was no way that we could build the more peaceful, stable and more prosperous Northern Ireland that we all now enjoy. It bears repeating that we are Members of a legislature, and we are supposed to serve our constituents. That means that we should deliver the change that they want to see. Of course, I would prefer it if the Executive Office or the Department for Infrastructure were taking the Bill forward. I am doing it out of frustration and on behalf not only of constituents in South Belfast but of those across Northern Ireland who rightly demand change. A total of £800,000 was spent on the flags commission. It did a lot of really good work, engaged extensively around the issues and provided us with a good blueprint. I have not lifted everything that it suggested in its report. It is also worth noting that I reflected very much on the 8,000 responses to my consultation last year. I had made some suggestions, and, rightly, there was pushback. I have not included those in the Bill, and I am happy to talk about them with the Infrastructure Committee in greater detail as we go through the scrutiny of my Bill, because I want it to work. I want the legislation that flows from it to meet the needs of our constituents.

The starting point is that the Department for Infrastructure will apply a public interest test, as I said, when it becomes aware of an issue with a flag or emblem. That will most obviously happen through a notification from a submission made on its online portal, as per clause 3.

1,772 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