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

Debate contribution by Mrs Deborah Erskine on 22 September 2026.

MLA

Mrs Deborah Erskine

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 5739813

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for his intervention. He makes an important point. Every year, my local newspaper carries stories about how Union flags will go up in towns and villages in my constituency for the Twelfth or for Ulster Day to celebrate and commemorate events that are important to our cultural identity. Flags and emblems that go up when organisations are being celebrated for incidents in which people were killed are not the same, however. They are very hurtful for people in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, who, day and daily, have to drive past such flags in their communities. I do not see attention being paid to republican flags and emblems in the same way as attention is being paid to loyalist and unionist culture, which is vilified and demonised.

I thank the Bill sponsor for her intervention. However, I would argue back that I have said that the unionist and loyalist community is often vilified and can often feel that it bears the brunt of the media commentary around flags and emblems rather than the republican and nationalist flags and emblems; there does not seem to be the same attention given to them. That is why, under the Bill, I am concerned that we would see an influx for one community of their identity and cultural expression. There are times when people put up flags because they are proud of who they are and where they come from. That should not automatically be treated with suspicion, particularly when we look at the Union flag around the Twelfth celebrations. The Bill says:

"the Department must consider— ... whether the flag or emblem is displayed for the purposes of celebration or commemoration".

However, that is only one factor in a much wider, public interest assessment. The problem that I have with that is that some communities cannot even bear the sight of a Union flag, the flag of this country, for literally a couple of weeks in the summer. Those flags are flown for a celebration and commemoration, but I agree with Members on these Benches and across the House that we do not want to see the Union flag flown to the extent that it is in tatters. Putting that expression across takes working with the community as well. There are communities in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone where towns are mixed or are nationalist or where unionists are a minority. They still live in that community and they still want to celebrate their cultural expression, but they may fall victim to the legislation simply for wanting to express that cultural identity. The Department must also consider whether the display is "disrespectful", whether it has been displayed for "an excessive period" and whether it complies with a future code of practice. That means that significant aspects will ultimately depend on guidance and the interpretation of officials rather than being clearly established in primary legislation. That brings me to one of my biggest concerns: that the Bill places considerable decision-making power in the hands of the Department for Infrastructure. The Department will effectively determine whether a particular display is sufficiently "offensive, abusive, or insulting", "antagonistic", "intimidatory" or otherwise contrary to public interest to justify removal. However, there is no guarantee, as my colleague Mr Frew pointed out, that every official will interpret those terms in precisely the same way. There is a real danger that communities could look at essentially similar circumstances and receive completely different treatment. If we are going to pass legislation dealing with cultural expression, consistency must be at the heart of it. The Bill's sponsor has said that, but I have concerns around how that will be enacted when you look at the different divisions within the Department for Infrastructure. Before the sitting was suspended, Ms Sugden spoke about perhaps even having to create another division in the Department for Infrastructure to deal with the issue. That would add another layer of costs that the Department might incur. People need to know what the rules are before enforcement takes place. The definition of the word "vicinity" is important when it comes to clause 2. Clause 2 outlines the "Sensitive places" where a flag flown nearby may be deemed for consideration by the Department. Earlier, I said that I struggled with that, and I still do.

Is the Bill sponsor trying to ban flags outright? As I said in my intervention to Mr Frew, if you look at the list in clause 2, you will see that there are very few places in which a flag can be flown. The term "vicinity" could mean anything. It could mean 1 metre, 5 metres or even a complete exclusion zone. The Bill sponsor will remember that the House passed legislation on safe access zones, and we looked in detail at what exclusion zones would look like and what they might mean. Clause 2 is extremely broad when it comes to the different places that may be deemed "a sensitive place".

I thank the Bill sponsor for that intervention, but there is still a long list of places where people can use the portal to speak against a flag being flown by a particular community.

Yes, I am happy to give way.

I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, there are such places — I have some in my constituency — where there is local agreement on what happens with the flying of flags. Again, that points to the fact that good community relations have enabled that to happen in those communities. That points to my concern that imposing things on communities has the opposite effect; it has a chilling effect.

That is a very good point. My contribution focused on people who act unlawfully, but, when we look at it from that perspective, we see that people might question whether they should use the portal at all. That goes to the question of whether the Bill is workable or enforceable by any stretch of the imagination.

1,002 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Uncertain: close call Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:35 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