Debate contribution: Display of Flags, Emblems and Banners

Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on 30 April 2024.

MLA

Ms Paula Bradshaw

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

30 April 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Display of Flags, Emblems and Banners

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4487303

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Although we recognise that the amendment is well intended, we have some concerns that it rather misses the point of the motion, which is about what to do where local accommodation is not reached or where local accommodation is enforced rather than genuinely agreed. There are good examples, but there is no redress for bad examples. That is the key issue. With regard to the motion, some will start, no doubt, by pointing out that the report of the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) did not include agreement on all issues relating to the display of flags and emblems from public property. The essential point here, however, is that there is no agreement for the status quo. Indeed, the commission agreed that the status quo is not an option. It is a favoured strategy for some in the House to say, "There's no consensus, so we cannot change anything". On the contrary, the lack of consensus means that we must change things. The status quo has been decisively rejected by the FICT process, as well as by other surveys and polls. It is, of course, also a favoured strategy to make false claims about what others are proposing. Let us be clear: FICT and, indeed, my Alliance Party colleagues and I are, today, specifically proposing a means of providing lawful authority for the display of flags, emblems and banners from public property for the purposes of commemoration and celebration. There is currently no lawful authority, and we wish to see it provided for two prime reasons. First, we recognise that "shared space" does not mean "neutral space". Flags and emblems are a legitimate means of demonstrating allegiance and participating in commemoration, and, done right, they can enhance cohesion and mutual understanding. Secondly, such lawful authority is necessary to ensure that protocols already successful in some locations may be meaningfully enforced. We want to get to a place, therefore, where flags and emblems are displayed for identifiable reasons, with those responsible for their erection and subsequent removal clearly identified. No one who is interested in the legitimate display of flags and emblems for the purposes of cohesion, commemoration or celebration can have any objection to that.

No, I have a lot to get through here. Thank you. The commission agreed that flags should not be flown in a way that could be considered threatening or antagonistic and that they should not be placed near places of worship or where public services are delivered, including schools. There was clear consensus there, and so there should be. There was one obvious example in my constituency a couple of years ago, when a solitary flag was placed just outside the entrance of Fleming Fulton School, which is a special educational needs school. That flag was clearly designed to intimidate pupils from a particular background. Yet, when I sought its removal through the Department for Infrastructure and the PSNI, I was told that that could be done, frankly, only through negotiation with local so-called community leaders, and, of course, they said no. The public authorities charged with managing law and order and our public property had no powers to act on that occasion or any other. Members in the Chamber have a choice to make today. Whose interests do we value more: those of vulnerable children or those of local thugs? Notably, the commission also agreed that people who live in areas where flags appear on public property have a right to know why those flags are there and who put them up. Having established where we want to go, that gives us an idea of how to get there. The commission outlined a notification process that would see the purpose for the display of flags established, as well as clear accountability for their erection and removal. That process would provide lawful authority for the display of flags in much the same way as current legislation allows, in certain circumstances, for election posters or council banners. Such a process would be regulated along the lines outlined in sections 11.41 to 11.48 of the FICT report. There is one particular advantage to providing lawful authority for the display of flags and emblems, which is that it would establish plainly and without doubt where such lawful authority does not exist. The most obvious examples of that are flags and emblems flown in contravention of the Terrorism Act 2000. Plainly, that currently occurs, and I hope and trust that every Member in the House would wish to see it ended. Were we to provide lawful authority for the display of flags and emblems in public spaces, enhancing the mutual respect to which we are supposed to be committed, we could enforce the very reasonable code of conduct that is published in the FICT report. I would challenge anyone to explain why they would not wish to do that, particularly when one clear prize would be the end of the display of flags promoting and glorifying proscribed organisations. Inaction is not a strategy. Leaving things as they are and hoping for the best is not good government. Continuing to allow people to head out under cover of darkness or, sometimes, frankly, in broad daylight to deface public property with flags and emblems designed to instil fear and reinforce control of communities, while the police and public bodies turn a blind eye, is not an option. Let us be clear that it is, first and foremost, the people who live in those communities who pay the penalty. Prosperous communities are, invariably, diverse communities. Communities that recognise that shared space is not necessarily neutral space but see the display of flags and emblems as something to be done respectfully for the purpose of commemoration and celebration are those that thrive and where opportunities are created for all.

I am sorry: I still have a bit to get through. Thank you. Communities that are open to people from different backgrounds but are positive about their own identity are those that enjoy the highest well-being scores. Fundamentally, therefore, this is about the type of society in which we wish to live. Do we value respect, openness and displays that are focused on commemoration and celebration, rather than intimidation and antagonism? That is where the challenge to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister lies. Being in office is the easy bit; getting things done is the tougher challenge. The FICT report gives us clear guidance on the direction of travel. Our clear preference is for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to take this forward via a formal consultation process on a legal framework for a notification process. We need to move on from endless inaction. Certainly, I intend to do so. Therefore, should no progress be evident in the coming months, I will seek permission from the Speaker's Office to take forward my own consultation on a private Member's Bill in line with what was agreed in the FICT report.

1,167 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:02 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