Debate contribution: Display of Flags, Emblems and Banners
Debate contribution by Mr Peter McReynolds on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter McReynolds
- 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 4487449
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the motion. I thank Ms Bradshaw for her work on the issue to date. I welcome it as a member of the Infrastructure Committee — the Infrastructure Department is the one that has the most crossover with the motion — as an East Belfast MLA and as a former east Belfast councillor, so I know a thing or two about the display of flags, emblems and banners on public property. I have dealt with the messages, notifications and phone calls over the past 10 years in politics, and I have the bags to show that. The motion is a reasonable request of our First Minister and deputy First Minister. Last night, I reacquainted myself with chapter 11 of the FICT report. It has some good ideas regarding the perceptions of the public and the hurdles to be overcome. The code of conduct that is detailed in paragraph 11.48 is a reasonable approach that provides lawful authority for the display of flags and emblems in public spaces. That is important, because what we currently have is a confused and disrespected public and public bodies that are concerned for the safety of their staff. In that vacuum, individuals and groups are able to take advantage of the lack of clarity, appearing in the early evening and erecting unwanted flags in areas that many of them do not even not live in. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the respect for the views of residents who have made that area their home and who invest in their local community and economy? No one is saying that events and celebrations and flags flying on lamp posts have to stop. On the contrary, we seek a way to enable and encourage celebration and commemoration. What we want to stop is the abuse of symbols for undetermined periods and for the purposes of intimidation and antagonism.
Absolutely. Consultation is essential when it comes to such things, rather than just assuming that we know what the public want. Surely no one could disagree with that.
I remind the Member that we are not in Belfast City Council. Currently —
Currently, we have a system that flies in the face of residents and communities. I speak from the experience of having people say to me, "Now, Peter, this isn't a threat, but, if we don't put the flags up, someone else will". That scenario is even more ridiculous, given that, a few weeks ago, I met residents of a nearby area who, due to the high number of children who play in that area, wanted to erect road safety signs on a street that holds an annual street party for local children. They were told by the DFI official who was there that day that anything that was not contained in the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 would have to be removed promptly and that such signs would lead to liability issues due to their obstruction of sight lines. All through the meeting, I was thinking in the back of my head about how ridiculous a position that was to put to residents who were proactively engaging on something as important as road safety in their area when, at other times, we simply ignore the issues for months on end. Transparency forms a key part of the possible code of practice. I have another anecdote. I was phoned a number of years ago, before I was elected, by an army veteran. He told me that he had woken up that morning, opened his curtains and seen that a Union flag had been erected outside his house in the middle of the night. He rang me and said that he respected the flag but wanted it down because he did not know who had put it up, why it had been put up, how quickly it would be coming down or whether DFI and the PSNI even knew about it. Those reasonable and fair questions deserved reasonable and fair answers, but he did not get them. That is the situation for all residents across Northern Ireland, and the Alliance Party is today calling for it to be addressed. Flags, banners and emblems on public property are not really for me, although I respect that they are for other people. That does not mean, however, that we should throw out the rules or leave many constituents confused at actions that are taking place in their area. The motion and the code of practice outlined in the report are fair and reasonable, and I look forward to working on the matter over the course of the mandate to increase understanding across all parts of our society and bring communities together in the spirit of respect at key times of the year.
794 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.12 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.85).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.77).
- Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.14 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.16 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.11 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.15 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.23 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.77 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.98 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
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.