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

Debate contribution by Mr Harry Harvey on 7 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Harry Harvey
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 5670917

Text

I join colleagues in speaking about the Bill. In so doing, I will say that, regrettably, the Bill represents a missed opportunity to work collaboratively across the Chamber to further tackle paramilitarism and displays of support for paramilitary organisations, which continue to blight many of our communities. There was an opportunity to seek to address the symbols of proscribed organisations that are evident in public places, including paramilitary flags and the many shrines to terrorism that blight towns across Northern Ireland. Instead, the Bill seeks to attack legitimate, community-led expressions of cultural tradition and national identity with regulation and prohibition and to place them on a par with support for illegal groups. That is disappointing and hinders attempts to move this place forward. The Bill presents more questions than answers. The lack of detail creates significant ambiguity in key areas of policy and procedure regarding how such legislation would be enacted. As an example, the process to be followed by the Department is fraught with operational ambiguity and therefore presents serious concern. The views of communities are to be sought, but there is no indication of the weight that the Department would place on representations or, indeed, any aspect of the considerations that the Bill's provisions would require it to take into account.
The burden of proof is placed on communities to demonstrate the legitimacy and proportionality of a display. Therefore, the presumptive position is that all displays are prohibited unless otherwise permitted, which presents an outrageous situation with immense financial and legal implications for the governing authority. Indeed, the governing authority for such a process is also unclear. The Bill refers to "the Department", raising serious concerns about the transparency, integrity and neutrality of the proposed decision-making process. Are we, therefore, to assume that the process will be by way of a ministerial decision? Given the lack of safeguards or direction provided in the Bill, that seems to be highly likely. Again, that would be a totally unworkable position. It is worth asking whether the Alliance Party wants the Bill to benefit community relations or to hinder them. The reference in the Bill to a future code of practice, with the House not having had sight of it, is totally unacceptable. The Alliance Party needs to present how, it believes, communities would engage with the legislation, as opposed to an attempt to create a further suite of conditions over and above the Bill at a later date. I could go on, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I shall leave any critique of individual clauses to the further stages of the Bill.

431 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