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

Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on 22 September 2026.

MLA

Ms Diane Forsythe

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 5740369

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for that, but she is misinterpreting the point. We should look at it from the wider perspective of the PSNI's role and the other issues involved. There were some serious crimes committed in my constituency over the weekend, and I have just come from a meeting of the all-party group (APG) on domestic and sexual violence. When I then look at what is being expected of the PSNI in the Bill, I think that it needs a lot more work. We have talked at length about cost. Much like a lot of other private Members' Bills, the Bill is not fully costed, which is something that I have repeatedly raised at the Finance Committee. The procedures here differ from those in Westminster, whereby the full costing does not come through in such a way as to have been foreseen, outlined and tested. It is not just about the funding aspect of creating the new procedure in the Bill but about what the procedure would look like. My colleague Deborah Erskine talked at length about what the expectations are for the portal. It is built upon the code of practice in clause 4, but, taken together, clauses 3 and 4 read to me as though the portal would set up a mini Parades Commission but for flags. We all know what disasters we have had with the Parades Commission in the past, as well as the current disaster that is being ironed out. I am concerned about the huge process involved. The Bill sponsor talked about the number of complaints and their cost, but I can think only of how many things are not complained about in my area, because, as Deborah said, people work with the community. People do not complain, things go up and down and everyone works together, but what would happen if they were required to use the portal every single time? I do not even know what size of domain would be required, and that brings us back to the cost point, not to be always the accountant in the room.

Absolutely. I thank the Member for her intervention. It comes back to her earlier point that, when rival flags go up, what would happen if one were deemed to be offensive under the code and the other were not? What would the fallout be from that? I have talked about the procedures, which would be underpinned by the code of practice. In clause 4, we have another exercise in incoherence. Clause 4(2), as a mandatory obligation, requires the code of practice to be "issued within 12 months". Sequentially, clause 4(4) requires there to be consideration of FICT report before the code is issued. That report has not been approved for publication. If it is not so approved in the next 12 months, the duties in clause 4(2) and clause 4(4) will run into each other. I go back to my previous point. When I read the list of consultees in clause 4(3), I have to query it, because a lot of them feed into existing procedures. Where on the list is community engagement? Perhaps I am missing it, but I feel that it is a list of organisations that will get together and say, "Here are the reasons why you can't fly your flag here". As I said, with the proposed code underpinning the new portal, the provisions read as though they would establish a mini Parades Commission.

577 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:41 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