Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Pam Cameron on .
- 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 5740183
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank my colleague for that intervention and agree completely on that. It is also important to correct claims about the FICT report. The report did not agree or recommend a statutory code of practice that would restrict the right to fly a flag through an online notification system with imposed time limits. Its commentary was intended to inform further discussions, recognising that any lasting solution must command cross-community support. We can safely say that the Bill does not. It attempts to bypass that requirement for political and community agreement, which is majoritarianism rather than consensus. A code of practice would not be subject to the same Assembly approval process as regulations. It could be reviewed and changed under successive Ministers. One Minister might decide that a flag could remain for a particular period, while a future Minister could adopt a substantially different approach. That is too much discretion to place in the hands of one Department and one Minister on an issue as sensitive as cultural and national identity. There are no adequate safeguards against political interference, nor does the Bill establish a clear and accessible appeal mechanism for individuals or organisations that believe that a removal decision was wrong. Would a community group have to pursue a costly judicial review to challenge DFI? The Bill does not tell us. The reporting mechanism proposed in clause 3 is equally problematic. The Department would be required to:
"establish a procedure (or adapt an existing procedure)"
— potentially through an "online portal" — allowing people to notify the Department that they had displayed or wished to display a flag. Other members of the public would be invited to submit their views. The sponsor may describe that as a voluntary notification procedure, but it risks becoming a de facto authorisation system. If notifying the Department or complying with the code become important considerations in whether a flag is allowed to remain, people will reasonably conclude that they are expected to register and provide reasons before displaying their national flag. We absolutely oppose any requirement, whether explicit or implied, that people must notify the state or seek its approval before engaging in a legitimate expression of British identity. The Bill does not require an objector to live in the area concerned. It provides no threshold for the number of objections needed and no proper safeguard against coordinated complaints from people with no connection to the local community. How will DFI distinguish genuine, local concerns from an organised political campaign? Will anonymous complaints be accepted? How will repeated or automated submissions be identified?
The online portal could quickly become a grievance factory for those who wish to suppress or undermine expressions of British culture and identity.
One of the central weaknesses of the Bill is that it appears to give primacy to those who object. We have heard repeatedly that it will give people a voice, but what about the voice of residents who support the respectful display of their national flag? What about those who value an established community tradition? The vast majority of flags are displayed without acrimony or opposition, yet the Bill imposes a disproportionate burden on legitimate community organisations because of a smaller number of genuinely problematic displays. Those who are responsible for displaying the symbols of proscribed organisations are hardly likely to complete an online notification process to provide their details and comply with a departmental code. The people who are most likely to comply are those from responsible organisations that are not causing the problem in the first place. The Bill may therefore regulate legitimate cultural expression while failing to deal effectively with the very displays that cause the greatest concern. There are also substantial questions about enforcement. Clause 5 creates an offence where a person:
"obstructs the Department, or a person acting on behalf of the Department, in the removal of a flag or emblem".
Before creating a new criminal offence, the Assembly should be satisfied that the original removal decision will be transparent and consistent and that those who make it are properly accountable. The Bill does not define obstruction or expressly provide for a defence of reasonable excuse. It places departmental employees or contractors at the centre of situations in which opposition to a controversial removal could become a criminal matter. Clause 6 permits DFI to:
"request assistance from the Police Service of Northern Ireland",
if it believes that:
"there may arise— (a) a breach of the peace, or (b) an offence under section 5."
That wording is important. The Department "may request assistance", but the Bill does not require the PSNI to provide it. The police must remain operationally independent in deciding how they deploy their resources. Therefore, DFI could have a legal duty to remove a display without a guarantee that police support would be available to enable its staff to do so safely. Who would carry out the removal in those circumstances? Will DFI Roads employees be sent to potentially volatile situations, or will specialist contractors be appointed? What security arrangements will be needed, and at what cost? The explanatory and financial memorandum acknowledges concerns about enforcement, staff safety, external contractors, financial implications and the risk of reprisals. The Bill does not resolve those issues. It merely allows the Department for Infrastructure to ask the police for help. There is also no certainty that removing a flag will resolve the matter. A flag that is taken down without local consent may be replaced within hours, potentially with several more. Legislation cannot manufacture community consent. In some circumstances, blunt enforcement could escalate the very tensions that the Bill claims to address. The financial consequences are also very unclear. The costs of the Bill are, by the Bill sponsor's admission, not presently quantifiable. The number of complaints that are received by public bodies about flags and emblems is not known. Neither the scale of the problem nor the cost of the proposed solution have been properly established. Nevertheless, DFI will be expected to establish an online portal, develop and review a code of practice, process complaints, assess community opinion, make legal and cultural judgements, organise removals and potentially employ specialist contractors. Those resources will have to come from somewhere. Every Member knows the pressures facing DFI. Every day, constituents contact our offices about potholes, deteriorating roads, blocked gullies, flooding, defective street lights and road safety concerns. It demonstrates a remarkable lack of awareness to place a new, costly and disproportionate duty on that Department while our roads network is in such poor condition and our waste water system remains in crisis. Residents will rightly ask why DFI is being instructed to police cultural expression when it is struggling to deliver its core responsibilities. The Bill's interpretation provisions also demonstrate its potentially extensive reach. It says that:
"“flag or emblem” includes bunting, poster, banner, billboard or similar medium of display".
Therefore, the Bill is not limited to flags. Could it capture political posters, commemorative banners, protest materials or displays that are associated with international events? What constitutes a "similar medium of display"? What about "Happy 50th Birthday" or "Happy 60th Birthday" on a sheet stuck up at a roundabout? Some people might find that offensive.
Such questions matter, because the legislation creates duties of removal and an offence connected to obstruction. We accept that there may be a need to clarify the responsibilities of DFI, councils and the PSNI, which could help secure timely intervention where action is genuinely necessary, lawful and proportionate. Moving from existing permissive powers to prescriptive duties will not necessarily achieve that, however. It may instead create further confusion, bureaucracy and confrontation. The DUP believes that concerns should be addressed primarily through voluntary action and local agreement, not through a draconian set of laws that runs contrary to mutual respect and cultural accommodation.
I will indeed.
I thank my colleague for that comment. I wholeheartedly agree. He has not, I think, been in the Chamber for the entire debate, but we have heard much today about community cohesion and the good community work that goes on around the country, where agreement is often reached and people respect one another's wishes and cultural identities. The most effective progress has come through patient, and it is patient, community engagement that involves residents, local representatives, Churches, community organisations and statutory agencies. That work is not always easy or immediately successful, but it can recognise local circumstances, and it seeks consent rather than confrontation. That is to be welcomed. The Bill risks undermining arrangements that have already been established to deal with disputes in communities across Northern Ireland. It would create a centralised reporting system, empower DFI to adjudicate on highly subjective matters and leave essential conditions to a future code that Members have not seen. We all agree that flags associated with terrorist organisations should not be displayed. We also agree that national flags should be treated with dignity and be removed before they become damaged and tattered. Recognising those principles does not require us to support the Bill, however. The Assembly should not pass legislation simply because Members believe that something must be done. We must be satisfied that the proposed solution is necessary, proportionate, enforceable and capable of operating fairly. The Bill does not meet that test. It risks regulating legitimate cultural expression while failing to deal with those who already ignore the law. It places inappropriate and potentially dangerous responsibilities on DFI. It creates insufficiently defined powers, inadequate safeguards and uncertain financial consequences. Above all, it would proceed without the cross-community engagement that any sustainable approach to flags, identity and cultural expression requires. For that reason, I cannot support the Bill at Second Stage.
1,613 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.