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

Debate contribution by Ms Claire Sugden on 22 September 2026.

MLA

Ms Claire Sugden

Party at the time

Independent

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 5739513

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the sponsor for making that point. That is fair, but, given the limited scope of what the Bill can achieve, it has to be put into a much wider context. I do not necessarily agree that the Department for Infrastructure should do that. It should be done at a much more senior, overarching level, given the nature of the issues that it raises, such as intimidation or distress and community issues. We are asking DFI to make profoundly difficult judgements, involving law, policing, equality, human rights, culture and community relations. Do we really want the Department that is responsible for fixing potholes on our roads to be responsible for that? I would be the first to say that this is one Government and that you should all be working together, but the reality is that you do not. Certainly, if someone is going to take the lead on this, if anything, it has to come from the Executive Office. Indeed, when the Bill was first tabled, my assumption was that that was where it would have gone. That summarises my concern about where the Bill sits. I just do not think that DFI is the appropriate body. As well as that, we would be putting civil servants into an extraordinarily difficult position. When we contact them about issues to do with the roads, we receive a fairly processed response. This issue, however, comes down to people's opinions and community relations, which goes outside what we should expect DFI to do. I take the Bill sponsor's point; I am not sure that that was the right approach. It is what it is, but I am not sure that I want to move forward with it. If they remove a flag, one part of the community may accuse them of suppressing legitimate cultural expression. If they leave it in place, someone else will say that the Department has tolerated intimidation. That is already a concern. More often than not, I have contacted DFI locally in relation to removing not just flags but political placards on roundabouts and things, and it is reluctant to do any of that because of the community pushback that it will get.

Yes, go ahead.

I agree, and that is why I pre-empted my contribution by saying that there is an issue. Something needs to be done, but this is not the right vehicle to do it. The responsibility should not sit solely with the Department for Infrastructure, whose remit is considerably different from what we are trying to do here. The Member has approached it from a practical perspective, because this is essentially about street furniture that belongs to DFI. To me, however, this is much wider than that, in terms of community relations and intimidatory behaviour. Ultimately, what happens now are the issues that I am outlining. It just does not happen, because DFI does not have the confidence to do that and it does not fall within its remit. All of this needs to happen at a much more holistic level. We will end up in a situation where we do nothing, and that makes me conflicted about the Bill. I absolutely agree that something needs to be done, but I do not agree with how we are doing it. Therefore, I will not support the Bill, but nor will I suppress it; I will probably abstain. If anything, there is a good conversation to have about what the Government are failing to do. I commend Ms Bradshaw for being the one to bring the matter to the House, but, unfortunately, this is not the right practical thing to do. I am also concerned about the language in clause 1. There is a significant difference between "intimidatory or threatening" and something being "offensive". People are entitled to be offended, but that does not automatically mean that the state should remove the thing that offends them. Indeed, there are flags, posters, political messages and symbols that I personally dislike, but that cannot be the test. Terms such as "offensive", "antagonistic" or:

"not conducive to good community relations"

need considerably more examination. The debate over recent days and weeks has demonstrated why that should be. Members across the House have produced examples and have asked, "Will this or that be caught? What about a national flag, a sporting emblem, a political solidarity flag or something associated with a particular commemoration?". If reasonable people across the House are asking those questions, can we say that the Bill can confidently be interpreted and implemented to address those concerns?

761 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:27 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