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 5739560

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I think so. The House has been criticised in the past for not writing good legislation. I have done that myself. I absolutely support the principle, but I do not support the vehicle. With reference to some of Mr Dickson's points, I fully expect, given that he has colleagues in the Executive, that he will use that leverage to encourage his colleagues to do something in that respect as part of a collective Government. I know that people will shake their head and say, "That is not realistic", but that is what you do when you agree to be in government. You try to make those changes from within, and, if you cannot, that is for you to answer. I cannot remember Stewart's other point, but I do not want to wax lyrical about why I do or do not agree with the Bill. I do not think that anyone in the House does not recognise that there is a problem. I hope that each of us will take that responsibility forward in the new mandate and say that we will tackle the issue head-on and use a vehicle that will look at it in a way that is sympathetic to all the concerns related to it. I do not think that that is what the Bill is. Stewart's point was that we can deal with such issues at Committee Stage, but I have an issue with the fundamental structure of the Bill, and I am not sure that amendments will fix that. If anything, any amendments that I would propose would probably not be within the Bill's scope and therefore would not be accepted. I am not sure that we can do what needs to be done in order for me to be content with our taking it forward. It is only for that reason that I will not support its progression to Committee Stage, but, again, I will abstain, because I am trying to be balanced about what we need to do. I will not continue for much longer, because I am starting to repeat myself. I commend the Member for what she is trying to do with the Bill. I do not think that it is the right vehicle. The Department for Infrastructure is there to do the things that we expect it to do, but the issue needs to be dealt with in a manner that is much more overarching and preferably by the Executive Office. I am mindful of the fact that the nature of many of the issues, particularly those concerning community relations, means that the Bill needs to be held by the Executive Office. I will put this back to all the people who are concerned: hold us, as politicians, to account on what needs to be done.

I was just wrapping up, but yes.

I agree, but, to be fair to the Bill sponsor, we are not doing that. The response is to recognise that we need to do something, but, equally, I agree with Mr Brooks that it is not the right thing just because it is the only thing. I certainly charge the —.

OK.

It is not the right vehicle, but it is the right principle, and for that reason —.

Yes. Go ahead.

545 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