Debate contribution: Display of Flags, Emblems and Banners

Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on 30 April 2024.

MLA

Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

30 April 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Display of Flags, Emblems and Banners

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4487498

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the motion. I feel that I should take the opportunity to say, "Here we are in 2024, talking about flags because of a motion from the Alliance Party". It is, of course, a challenging and difficult issue, as it has been here for some time. The debate demonstrates some of those strongly held views. As we have said in the Chamber many times, there are so many issues on which we have consensus, and we have so many things on that list that we need to tackle. We can tackle those issues together, and they include special educational needs, education, the needs of our schools, hospitals and roads and trying to make this place work while growing our economy and attracting good jobs and foreign direct investment. There are many things.

It is perhaps said too much now in politics that we have much more in common than we have that divides us, but I absolutely believe that to be true. I also believe that we have limited time and that that time can be entirely exceeded by the things that we need to do that we agree on. However, we should also acknowledge that, in Northern Ireland, in the context of our history and experience and in what we bring to the Executive and this place, there are things that we do not agree on. It is right at times that we talk about those things and try to find a way through them, but it is also right to acknowledge this absolute truth: you will not find consensus on every issue. That is the reality of life and of different political ideologies and identities. In Northern Ireland, we should not focus on the small number of issues on which we fundamentally disagree, as that wastes a huge amount of time. Having listened to people, I feel strongly that they are telling us that they want us to get on with the business of government, making this place work and focusing on what we can agree on, instead of tearing each other apart on what we do not agree on. When I look at the report from the FICT commission, I feel that it is important to acknowledge that the FICT commissioners were given an incredibly difficult task. It was probably the trickiest and most difficult task in the decades of our recent history to address the issues that the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, the St Andrews Agreement and many other agreements and negotiation processes could not resolve: identity; aspiration; emblems and flags; how we remember our dead; and how we respect each other in a very difficult space of tolerance and intolerance. Of course, it should come as no surprise to anyone to hear that the commission did not find consensus on every issue. Those who created the commission recognised that, in all likelihood, it would not do so. However, it was felt strongly by those in the then Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and agreed by the Executive that we should, at the least, try to find a way through and that there should be a mechanism and a forum — a commission — to focus on those tricky issues in order to see whether there was a way through and whether the debate could be moved forward. I am glad to say that, on many issues, it could. Recommendations were accepted, and they will move forward for implementation.

Again, it is no surprise that there are some issues on which there is not consensus. I will give way.

I thank the Member for her intervention. Yes, a range of proposals is moving forward, and we will continue to engage, with the Committee for the Executive Office in particular, on the best way forward. The trickiness and challenge in all this, of course, has been the focus on the areas where there is no consensus. Regardless of the fact that there may not have been an agreed recommendation, I suggest that everybody in the Chamber read the commission report. Mr Allister indicated that the commission produced nothing — not even a mouse. The report that I have does not squeak, but it certainly contains a huge amount of discussion and analysis, and it is absolutely worth reading to get a good sense of where we are and how it captures the complexities of and difficulties in the issues. I acknowledge that any discussion of the matter has been difficult and that it relates to contested issues. I genuinely hope — I think that I can say this on behalf of the entire Executive — that we do not spend too much of the next three years focusing on what we disagree with and that, instead, we get on with the work on areas on which we agree. We are committed to working towards a solution. Executive Office officials have met junior Ministers to discuss the issues in the FICT report. The motion refers to matters relating to the report and focuses on issues that the commissioners discussed that related to flags. In 2005, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister published the joint protocol on the display of flags in public areas, also known as the flags protocol. That protocol was developed in association with the PSNI, the then Department for Social Development, the then Department for Regional Development's Roads Service and the then Department of the Environment's Planning Service, along with the Housing Executive. Many Members in the House will have worked with elements of the protocol in their constituencies. We have seen examples of where that protocol worked well, but we have seen very clear examples of where the protocol failed. Undoubtedly, the protocol worked well in places where strong community organisations worked with political representatives and other agencies to find solutions to the issues through consensus and discussion. That is key to the way forward. The flags protocol aimed to advance a partnership approach to develop a strategic and graduated response. Yes, we need an analysis of why it fails, and, when it fails, we must do more to ensure that it works. One thing we know in Northern Ireland is that, if you move forward by imposing the will of some on others, that creates tension and community friction, and that is exactly why we need to keep the conversations going. We need to find the solutions and approach this with hope.

Sorry, I want to make some progress, but, if I can, I will give way in due course. The most recent step in the dialogue was the creation of that commission arising from the protocol. There have been some successes and some failures from that. The work of the commission included the aim of developing an open, tolerant and mutually respectful society; and the development of shared identity, relying on mutual interdependencies and areas of common value. A lot of this work, including the analysis and the many, many hours of positive work that the commission engaged in, informed the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy and will inform the review of that strategy. Ultimately, I believe that all of us around this place want to avoid community tensions. We want everybody in Northern Ireland to be able to live free from intimidation. The T:BUC strategy focuses on fostering those relationships, addressing the root causes of intolerance, bigotry or sectarianism and trying to ensure that there is greater respect in all those things. Yes, we need to be realistic, but we are absolutely ambitious about what we can achieve. The Executive's Together: Building a United Community programme — the first T:BUC strategy — sought to create such a society. I have talked about these figures before in this place, but it is worth reiterating the positive progress that has been made, because, on many occasions, we pull each other apart and pull each other's communities apart in respect of the very notable failures, but there have been significant successes. More than 30,000 young people have taken part in nearly 900 T:BUC camps, and the vast majority of those who take part indicate that they have forged friendships across the community and will continue with those friendships beyond the end of those camps. Our five Urban Villages have been established, and the target of building 10 shared neighbourhoods has been met. There are absolutely some challenges with shared neighbourhoods, but not only did we meet the target of 10 shared neighbourhoods but we exceeded it significantly, with many of those rolled out successfully throughout Northern Ireland. More than 27,000 participants took part in the Uniting Communities programme, and 7,800 young people participated in the United Youth programme. There is an incredible shared education campus in Limavady, and it is such a joy to see that respect for each other's identities. I will turn to Members' contributions. The debate has undoubtedly reflected some of our personal political views, but there was also a lot of commonality, and I think that we can take that forward. First, Paula Bradshaw acknowledged some of the difficulties in the report and that there was not consensus on that. Doug Beattie picked up on the point about pushing some of these issues back. Very often — too often, in my view — we look at these very difficult issues and see the lack of consensus on them as political failure, but the reality is that we need to acknowledge that some issues are not stuck and that issues are not the product of political failure. There is simply not a political consensus around some issues, and that is perfectly understandable. You get that in every place. The idea that we should simply push forward with something, regardless of the content, will not work, because we need to look at what we are actually moving forward with and consider whether we can find that consensus. I will be very much upfront, in the role that I play, in putting my hand up to say, "In my view, we will not get consensus on that issue", or, "We will strive to get a way through this". However, if we are going to take risks and try to push that forward in a difficult space, we must acknowledge that, at times, you will not necessarily find a solution that everybody is content with.

I thank the Member for his contribution. It is an important point, and it is one on which, I think, there has been commonality across many of the contributions. A number of key points came out from many of the contributions, including an absolutely shared opposition to paramilitary flags and paramilitary flags that are designed to intimidate. I do not believe that any of us in this space would support, or do support, that. It is a difficulty and a challenge; it is something that has no space or place within the society of today, nor did it ever have. It is a challenge that needs to be addressed. Some of the difficulties in this debate generally, including in the specific debate, related to the conflation of some of those issues with the flags of somebody's identity and nationality. I speak personally when I speak here. The Union flag is something that I am deeply proud of. It is something that represents my identity and my nationality. It is the flag of my country. As has been said in many of the contributions, I hate to see those flags flying in tatters. That is deeply disrespectful. I see disrespect to my flag all the time. I also find it deeply hurtful when I hear people say that the flying of my flag — the flag that represents my identity — is offensive. We need to be careful about the dialogue and differentiation around all of this. There has clearly been a strong cross-community focus in this space around an opposition to paramilitary flags and flags being tattered, but key in relation to that is the message that has been sent out too many times — time and time again — that people need to ask permission for the flying of the official flag of this country — the flag that they are very proud of, and which should not be seen as being offensive. However, I am not naive. We live in a space that, at times, can be contentious, and we need to work through those contentious issues, but it is important that we differentiate between the flying of a flag that is the flag of the country — a legitimate flag of identity — and some of the other flags that have caused contention.

I am going to run out of time, I am afraid, so I do not have time to give way. I want to touch on a number of other references. Throughout my comments, I have referenced the paramilitary flags and the flying of tattered flags. Reference was made to handing this over to the PSNI or to the councils. Again, we need to find realistic solutions to these issues. At this stage, we are working through some of the details in relation to what the FICT report produced and where some of the work that had been led by previous junior Ministers had got to — up until this point — to find out whether we can find a way forward on some of the recommendations where there is hope of consensus. However, to be clear, at this time, there is no consensus around the particular paragraphs that have been drawn out by the motion. I am thankful for the opportunity to respond to the debate and to outline our position. Issues around flags are demanding and difficult, and we all must be realistic about the challenge involved. I finish by saying that we have the best chance of making progress on these issues if people feel more confident in their relationships with each other, tolerant of difference and have respect for all cultures and traditions. That is something about which the First Minister and I are determined to set a positive tone: one of respect and moving forward in celebration of our identities here in Northern Ireland.

2,381 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