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

Debate contribution by Mr Stephen Dunne on 7 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Stephen Dunne
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist 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 5670869

Text

Let me be absolutely clear from the outset that the flying of flags is a legitimate expression of cultural identity, national identity and community tradition. The DUP will always defend that right. Let me be equally clear that there should be no place in Northern Ireland — none whatever — for the flag or emblem of a proscribed terrorist organisation. The question is not whether we should tackle paramilitarism or the glorification of terrorism, because of course we should; the question is whether the Bill will help us do that. I did not believe that it would before we had the debate, and, having heard the debate, I certainly do not believe that it will. The confusion around some aspects of the Bill has only been added to over the past hours, including, to name but one, by the contribution from the Infrastructure Minister on the lack of clarity on the matter of responsibility. I fear that this divisive Bill could make matters worse. I firmly believe that we should be fully focused on tackling the causes of division and paramilitarism, but the Bill instead risks creating yet another regulatory framework around cultural expression that could end up generating even more grievance, resentment and community tension. It is another regulatory structure, another layer of bureaucracy and yet another attempt to manage cultural expression from the top down, which, as has been seen over many years, is the wrong way around. The Alliance Party has not exactly covered itself in glory when it comes to cultural expression and fairness. Take Belfast City Council's approach to street signage. Fully backed by the Alliance Party, Irish language street signs can be approved with the backing of just 15% of local residents, yet Alliance Members now lecture communities about consent when it comes to flags. There is an obvious but perhaps unsurprising inconsistency there.
You cannot demand one standard of consent from one community and a completely different standard from another. As has been mentioned, a short number of months ago, a post from the official Alliance Party social media account described the Bill as being aimed at tackling "abusive flags". Those words were in a post in which the Alliance Party published a photograph of a Linfield flag. Following legitimate concern and its being called out and criticised by the club and others, the image was deleted. The Bill sponsor offered a somewhat half-hearted apology. Nonetheless, I think that that was welcome. However, where was the full apology from the Alliance Party? Where was the apology from the party leader, for example? It was nowhere to be seen, and perhaps we should not be surprised. The Alliance Party has form when it comes to taking aim at football clubs such as Linfield: its former North Down MP, Stephen Farry, did not like the colour of a new shirt released by the club. The party that likes to pride itself on being a party of respect and tolerance showed —
— its true colours in a divisive and regrettable way.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was important to link in the context, given that that was an official post by the party that is proposing a Bill that mentions the issues that I have just covered. That should concern the House. It seems that tolerance of British identity has clear limits among some sections of the House. Legislation to deal with identity and cultural expression must be even-handed and command real and genuine confidence across our communities. I am concerned about the powers being proposed for the Department for Infrastructure. The confusion was acknowledged even by the Infrastructure Minister earlier in the debate. Will individuals or organisations have to notify the Department before displaying a flag? Will they have to seek approval? Will they have to comply with a code of practice that contains a series of conditions? Who will decide what is acceptable? That gets to the crux of the concerns and the issues of subjectivity. Will it be a Minister, a civil servant, a Department, the Alliance Party, Sinn Féin? Where are the safeguards against political interference? Where is the independent oversight? Where is the efficiency and effectiveness in dealing with these problems across Northern Ireland? What happens when the Department gets it wrong? Does an individual have to spend thousands going to court to defend what should have been regarded in the first place as a perfectly legitimate expression of identity? As has been said by colleagues and others around the House, there are genuine concerns around the subjectivity and confusion in clause 1. The presumption that a display deemed to be offensive should be removed represents significant overreach. There is no right not be offended. It is important to acknowledge that when considering how the Bill has been drafted. Being offended is not the same as being harmed. We should be extremely careful before giving the state powers to decide which expressions of identity are acceptable and which are not. The Bill would place new and potentially costly responsibilities on the Department for Infrastructure to police cultural expression. As has been said and as I am sure will be said again, that is the same Department, led by the current Infrastructure Minister, that cannot properly maintain our roads network and footpaths; that is failing to tackle the waste water crisis; that pumps pollution into Belfast lough daily; and that is failing to deliver key projects such as the A5, on which over £150 million and counting has been spent without an inch of tarmac to show for it. We have also seen significant funding threats to public transport. Are we now being asked to trust that Department to police flags? Frankly, the priorities are badly misplaced. There is also the very important issue of the financial implications. The costs are unclear and unquantifiable. That is concerning, particularly given the pressures on our public purse. We do not have a clear picture of the scale of the problem that the draft legislation is supposedly designed to solve. There are sensible principles that should apply: everyone in the House can agree on that. Flags or emblems should not promote proscribed organisations, glorify terrorism or violence or be displayed with malicious intent, and, wherever possible, communities should seek local agreement. However, we do not need to criminalise legitimate cultural expression to achieve those objectives. We need common sense, dialogue and local engagement and agreement, and we need political leadership that promotes respect rather than creates another battleground over identity. We will always defend the dignified display of the flag of our nation, and we will defend legitimate cultural expression, but we will never make excuses for paramilitarism, terrorism or the glorification of violence.
I welcome the progress of the Crime and Policing Bill, which amended section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The Bill received Royal Assent in April. That means that articles such as flags, banners and signs that contain emblems belonging to proscribed terrorist organisations can be unconditionally confiscated. Those positions are not contradictory: they are perfectly compatible. The answer to disagreements over flags is not yet another layer of regulation and bureaucracy. If we are not careful, the Bill will only increase division. I do not believe that it will build community relations. Rather, it will damage them. In attempting to manage identity, it could end up entrenching the divisions that it claims to address. It is time that Alliance recognised that British identity is part of our diversity too. The Bill, in its current form, is deeply flawed, unnecessary and counterproductive. That is why I cannot and will not support its passage at Second Stage.

1,277 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification