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

Debate contribution by Mrs Pam Cameron on 22 September 2026.

MLA: Mrs Pam Cameron
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 5740108

Text

At the outset, I acknowledge the serious amount of work that the Member for South Belfast has put into her Member's Bill. It is not an easy task to undertake. I had a very uncontroversial Member's Bill go through successfully in the previous term, and I know what that meant to me as an individual. I therefore sincerely appreciate the work that Paula has put into the Bill. I know that it is well-intentioned, but it is very contentious. That is why we continue to debate the Bill at length. The debate has been extensive, but that reflects the sensitivity of the subject and the very serious practical questions that the Bill raises. The flying of flags is a visible and practical demonstration of the esteem in which communities hold their cultural traditions and value their national and religious identities. The Democratic Unionist Party is committed to supporting that legitimate form of expression, not undermining it. We will always defend the dignified display of the Union flag, the national flag of our country. Equally, we will never make excuses for the display of flags or emblems connected to proscribed organisations or anything that glorifies terrorism and violence. There are principles on which the House should be able to agree. Flags should not endanger road users. National flags should not be defiled or burned. Displays should not promote proscribed organisations, glorify violence or be erected with malicious and illegal intent. They should not be left lying in a damaged or tattered condition, and, where possible, they should be displayed with local agreement. None of those principles requires the extensive regulatory system proposed in the Bill. We believe that the focus should remain on voluntary action, about which we have heard so much this afternoon, and on local engagement and agreement, rather than on a top-down legislative regime. Northern Ireland already has experience of regulatory structures governing cultural expression. My party opposed the establishment of the Parades Commission, which has, too often, imposed illogical and disproportionate restrictions and heightened tensions rather than reduce them. The system now being proposed by the Alliance Party risks repeating those mistakes rather than learning from them.
Clause 1 lies at the centre of our concerns. It places a statutory duty on the Department for Infrastructure to remove a flag or emblem from public street furniture where the Department decides that removal is "in the public interest". The use of the word "must" is significant. That is not simply an additional discretionary power that the Department may use when it is safe and proportionate to do so. Once the Department reaches the relevant opinion, it is placed under an obligation to act. Clause 1 states that a display must be removed where the Department considers it to be:
"intimidatory or threatening ... likely to stir up hatred, or arouse fear",
or connected to "a proscribed organisation." If a display amounts to criminal intimidation, stirs up hatred or invites support for a terrorist organisation, that should be dealt with using existing criminal, terrorism and public order legislation. Those are, properly, matters for law enforcement. Instead, the Bill asks officials in the Department for Infrastructure to make those highly sensitive legal, political and community relations judgements. Those officials are employed to maintain our roads, bridges, street lights and drainage infrastructure. They are not police officers, lawyers or community relations adjudicators. What training will enable a DFI official to determine whether a particular flag is likely to arouse fear? What evidence will be required? Will the decision be made by a local roads engineer, a new central departmental unit or, ultimately, the Minister? The Bill does not provide adequate answers. Even more concerning is the presumption in clause 1 that it will be in the public interest to remove a display that the Department considers to be "offensive, abusive, or insulting".
I thank the Member for North Antrim for posing some very legitimate questions. They need to be answered by the Bill sponsor.
I will, indeed.

666 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