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

Debate contribution by Mr Gareth Wilson on 22 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Gareth Wilson
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 22 September 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5739482

Text

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill, but, first, I will address a comment that I heard last week from the Alliance Benches. It was, in my view, a typical Alliance response to what were well-articulated comments on the unworkability of the Bill, and my colleague has ably made more such comments in his contribution. Sadly, however, that critique was conflated with somehow being an attack on the Bill Office staff. I am by no means alone in believing that the legislation is vastly unworkable. Many other Members have raised similar concerns, but that is not a reflection on the hard-working Bill Office staff. Rather, it is a reflection on the Bill sponsor and supporters of her Member's Bill, which must be able to stand up to scrutiny. The process of scrutiny inevitably involves criticism of the Bill and the dissecting of its components to determine what it would mean in reality. It would be unwise of the Assembly simply to rely on the arguments of the sponsor of any Bill alone. We all play a part in what is an important process, ably facilitated by the Bill Office. I record my gratitude to the Bill Office staff, who have an ever-expanding workload. The Bill sponsor knows what she wants to see in her vision for Northern Ireland, and there is nothing wrong with that vision. Indeed, I do not think that any of us would disagree with Northern Ireland's reaching its fullest potential, but, much like what the Bill tries to do, glossing over the hard practicalities and deep complexity of life in Northern Ireland will not create meaningful change or make a difference. It could literally make things worse. The first few lines of the Bill demand an action by saying that the Department "must", but it then relinquishes any authority at all by referring to the broad parameters of "public interest". Then, unhelpfully, it hands the Department for Infrastructure a very big ball of tangled string by relying solely on the Department's opinion. Is the opinion of the Department reliable, unchanging or even realistic? Would that opinion change depending on who ultimately was leading the Department or on the internal unit that would be given the monumental task of enforcing the legislation in its current form on our streets?
I will, surely.
Thank you. I would make a further point: I have not been here overly long, but one thing that I have noticed is that, on these Benches, we are quite willing to give way. In the past few days, I have seen real reluctance from your party members to give way. It was quite evident in recent times, perhaps because the tone of the debate or certain criticisms from these Benches were not particularly welcome. I put on record that I am proud of my party for its willingness to give way and allow debate to take place. The Speaker is also keen to see that happen. Would the "opinion" that is referred to in the Bill change depending on what party held the Ministry? That is one of several important questions. I cannot resist the urge to refer to my constituency and, of course, the infamous Sinn Féin billboard at the Egyptian Arch. The Bill covers that very subject, as I note that, under "Interpretation" at clause 7, billboards are mentioned specifically. When I look at the facts of that particular billboard case and apply the rules, I wonder genuinely what the outcome would be. Of course, I am speaking about something that I have already dealt with: I tabled a motion back in January, which was backed by the majority in the House; I contacted Newry, Mourne and Down District Council's planning division to request enforcement action; and I contacted historic environment division, given that the Egyptian Arch is a listed structure and therefore planning permission for such a billboard to be installed so close to it would be refused. Those combined actions resulted in the billboard's coming down, and rightly so. I wonder whether, if the provisions in the Bill were in operation, those actions would be taken by the Department under the leadership of a Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister. There is no doubt that there would be public interest in doing so, but whose "opinion" would count? Would the Minister be consulted? I assume so. Therein lies my scepticism about the effectiveness of the Bill in its current form. In the billboard case, the Infrastructure Minister was largely indifferent to an illegally erected structure, bearing her party logo and located on DFI property beside a listed structure, namely the Egyptian Arch. What faith can we therefore have if the Member's Bill should pass and become law?
Yes. I agree. It has been said repeatedly that the Department for Infrastructure has enough to be getting on with fixing our roads, replacing our footpaths and ensuring that our motorways are up to spec.

825 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