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 5670510
Read the official Assembly record
Text
No. What I am saying is that, in those instances, the police have already done their own assessment. I have given examples of the types of banners, flags and posters that have gone up in public spaces on which we have seen no action taken. Let me get to the bones of the clauses. I will be able to respond to some of your commentary in my winding-up speech. The starting point is that the Department for Infrastructure would apply the public interest test when it becomes aware of an issue notified through the online portal. That would mean that, in circumstances in which a flag or emblem is erected on street furniture, it must be removed by the Department if it deems it to be intimidatory or threatening, if it could stir up hatred or arouse fear or if it is a flag or emblem of a proscribed organisation. Clause 1(1) and clause 1(2) make that an absolute duty. Clause 1(3) sets out that there is "a presumption" that the Department will remove a flag or emblem if it is deemed to be:
"offensive, abusive, or insulting, (b) the flag or emblem is displayed in the vicinity of a sensitive place and— (i) is antagonistic, or not conducive to good community relations, or (ii) demarcates that place as belonging exclusively to persons with a particular national or cultural identity, or (c) the flag or emblem is a public hazard."
Sorry, but I want to make a bit of progress. That presumption is not absolute, but all elements are important. For example, the other day, I drove past some flags near a railway. I think that there were four, all of which were hanging on by one cable tie. They were on a road over a railway line. What would happen if one of those flags were to come off? We do not want there to be a risk to public safety. Clause 1(4) states that the Department must take account of views and information provided through the online portal, as outlined in clause 3, including:
"(b) the views of those living in the vicinity of the flag or emblem, (c) the importance of being able to live free from harassment and intimidation, (d) whether the flag ... has been displayed for an excessive period of time, (e) whether the flag or emblem is displayed for the purposes of celebration or commemoration",
which, again, is information that could be relayed through the online portal, and:
"(g) whether the ... flag ... complies with the code of practice".
We will get on to the details of that under clause 4. Clause 1(5) provides the Department with the ability to assess whether its actions or inaction would pass the reasonable person test. Clause 1(6) places a duty on the Department, once it has made a determination, to:
"remove the flag or emblem as soon as is possible."
Again, I have not stipulated whether that is a week, two weeks or whatever. A bit of realism is in there, given the Department's resources, so I have chosen not to include a time frame. I would like to think that the Department will prioritise intervention or removal based on the views expressed through the online portal and all the other factors that I have listed.
551 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: 0.15 (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 (0.92).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.72).
- 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 | 0.13 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.18 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.16 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.15 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.24 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.72 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.92 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.08 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 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.