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 5740159

Text

I thank the Member for his intervention. I was speaking about the presumption in clause 1 that it is in the public interest to remove a display that the Department considers "offensive, abusive or insulting". We have to point out that there is no general right to be offended. In a free and democratic society, freedom of expression necessarily protects views and symbols that some people may dislike or disagree with. The Union flag may represent national pride, constitutional identity, remembrance and sacrifice to one person, such as me, while another person may claim to find it offensive. That objection alone cannot be sufficient reason for the state to remove our national flag. The framework that is proposed in the Bill would effectively place the onus on communities that have engaged in legitimate cultural expression for many years to rebut a presumption against their display. The explanatory and financial memorandum acknowledges the relevance of freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 9 also protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion, while article 11 protects freedom of assembly. However, no full human rights and equality impact assessment has been published alongside the Bill. That is a serious omission, given that the legislation would create a presumption in favour of removing displays that are associated with national, cultural, political or religious identity.
I will give way to the Bill sponsor.
I appreciate that clarity from the Bill sponsor. The presumption in clause 1(3) also applies where a flag demarcates a place:
"as belonging exclusively to persons with a particular national or cultural identity".
The dignified display of the Union flag in a neighbourhood does not automatically mean that those responsible are claiming exclusive ownership of that area. Flags are flown for many legitimate reasons, including celebration, commemoration, remembrance, cultural expression and pride in our national identity. Communities and neighbourhoods have the right to display their national flag in a dignified way. That right to cultural expression should not end at the entrance to a public building. The Bill also expects DFI to decide whether a flag is being displayed for an excessive period or in a disrespectful manner, and neither expression is adequately defined in the legislation. I agree that anyone who takes responsibility for erecting a national flag should take equal responsibility for removing it before it becomes faded, torn or tattered. Leaving a damaged flag hanging from a lamppost is not a demonstration of respect, and we have heard that from across the Chamber today. However, what else might the Department consider to be disrespectful? Would it relate to the condition of the flag, its location, the manner in which it is attached or the period for which it has been displayed? What is an excessive period? Is it a week, a month or the duration of the traditional season of celebration and commemoration? Those are not, for many of us, minor details. They will determine when a community may display its national flag and when DFI may remove it, yet the answers are not contained in the Bill. They are left to the future code of practice required by clause 4. Members are therefore being asked to approve the legislative framework without seeing the rules that will govern its practical operation.
Go ahead.
I thank the Member for that intervention. Previous proposals for codes governing flags suggested narrow periods or specific exemptions around Easter and the summer months. We do not know whether a code produced under the Bill would take a similar approach. Any outcome that restricts legitimate cultural expression to narrow, centrally determined windows would damage rather than improve community relations. Clause 4 requires the Department to consult various organisations and:
"consider the Final Report of the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition."
However, consultation does not amount to consent. The Department could consult all the bodies listed in the Bill and, ultimately, disregard much of the advice that it receives.

662 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