Debate contribution: Display of Flags, Emblems and Banners

Debate contribution by Ms Kate Nicholl on 30 April 2024.

MLA

Ms Kate Nicholl

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 4487548

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It has been a really respectful debate, and I was expecting it not to be.

It is OK. If you want to intervene, feel free to do so. On a school trip recently, I made pupils stand up and repeat what they had been saying, but I will not do that to the Minister for Communities. When I got involved in politics, I actually worked for Anna Lo but had not joined the Alliance Party. Then, the Alliance Party voted, in accordance with its party policy, on the flying of the Union flag at City Hall on designated days. The response to that was extreme. My colleague Stewart Dickson's office was burnt down. Councillors had their houses paint bombed. Many of my party's representatives were living in fear. The fact that, today, so far on, we are able to have the discussion — yes, everyone has strong views on the issue — in a respectful way is really positive. My colleague Paula Bradshaw outlined that there is no agreement on the status quo; there is a lack of consensus, which means that we need to do something. Inaction, she says, is not a strategy. My party's proposal is for lawful authority for display, celebration and commemoration, and to do that in a way that is open and respectful. The motion calls for consultation. There is nothing contentious there; it is about how we find a way forward. As an elected representative in South Belfast, I am contacted frequently by constituents about the flying of flags. I remember that a family in Finaghy contacted me to say that flags had gone up in the middle of the night. They were a mixed-marriage family, with different identities in the household, but they found the erection of flags during the night to be intimidating and a form of demarcation. They did not know who had put up those flags or when they were coming down, and that made them fearful. They felt as though they were being marked out. It was a couple of years ago. I remember ringing the police. They said, "We cannot do anything now that they are up, but let us know the next time that flags are going up, and we can do something". The next year, the same constituent contacted me. I phoned the police and said, "You told me to call you while the flags are going up. They are going up. Can you do something about it?", and they said, "No".

Absolutely. Thank you for that point. That constituent actually said to me, "I have no problem with the flag being flown, and I understand how important it is, especially at certain periods, but it needs to be time-bound and we need to know when it is coming down and who is putting it up". Our choice is between respect and openness or demarcation and antagonism. It is the people in communities who are living with it. Doug Beattie talked about how the FICT report is about more than just flags; there is also the impact of symbols on victims. We have to be consistent on this. In Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council, there was a proposal for a working group to look at how to work with statutory groups to remove paramilitary murals. The UUP voted that down. There is a way in which to do both those things. It is not just a case of doing it top-down or bottom-up; we can do both. There are examples of really good work that is happening in communities, but there are still problems that we need to address. That is why consultation is needed.

I want to get through this, then I will bring you in at the end. The proposed code of practice is included. We think that it is a good place to start. We are not saying that it is a case of bypassing what communities are doing. We acknowledge that civic groups are doing really good work, but let us have a consultation process and let the public have their say. Declan Kearney, who indicated an interest in sponsoring a private Member's Bill, as Paula did, if the consultation is not brought forward, said that how we handle this is so important. It is a symptom of sectarian segregation and we need a plan. The deputy First Minister is right: the public want to see us getting on with business and doing things, but they want to see us dealing with difficult conversations and issues that come up time and again. I do not want the next generation of politicians to be standing here talking about how to deal with flags. Let us work out how we deal with the issue now. Brian Kingston said that no legislation is needed. Well, why is it not working? It is not working, so we need something. It is not about having a blanket ban. I do not agree, actually, that the motion's approach is detrimental to good relations; the current situation is detrimental to good relations, and we need to do something about it. It impacts on constituents, too. Connie Egan made such a good point when she asked how people can have confidence that we can tackle paramilitarism if we cannot even tackle those symbols that are put up. I really appreciated her points on the Marrinan review. Matthew O'Toole said that we live in a plural, contested and diverse space and that the motion is about allowing us to find a structure for a way forward. David Brooks made an intervention on the Irish language. That is a very different point in that 228,000 people in Northern Ireland have knowledge of the Irish language, so likening that language to the illegal demarcation of territory is not right. However, the point of process does stand. There is a process for street signage, but there is not for flags, so let us fix that. The deputy First Minister said that it is not about tearing shreds off each other. I do not think that that has happened today. Some people's blood pressure rose a little, but that often happens. Actually, we have had a useful discussion. I do not think that it is about pushing something on to people; it is about having a public consultation. Please, if you take only one thing from what we have said today, let it be that no one is saying that national flags are offensive. We are saying that we need to have a means of dealing with the issue. Alliance, Mr Allister said, are "partisans" on the matter. I will clarify the position in Ards and North Down because it has been massively misrepresented. It is not about removing flags from war memorials. We recognise those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. We are concerned that increasing the flying of the flags to 365 days is an attempt to politicise shared, inclusive places of solemn remembrance. It is in line with the —.

I would have if the Member had given way in the debate on the RSE motion. If you give way to me, I will let you in next time.

Yes, go ahead.

There is nothing to fear from an equality impact assessment. Much like on the motion in Belfast City Council around the flying of the flag on designated days, we took our advice from the Royal British Legion, which recommended designated days. That time being much like it is now, I tend to suspect that, for those opposed to it, it has more to do with elections than the matter at hand.

No. The point is that flags, banners and emblems are not important to some people and are incredibly important to others. We live in a shared place where we will always have to share. We will always have to share this place and live together, and I think that we have made great strides in how we deal with these things. These are contentious issues, but let us have a consultation on the way forward and on a sensible approach that has a spirit of respect, mutual understanding and celebration. We will not be supporting the amendment, albeit we recognise that it comes with good intent. Our concerns are about what we do in a situation where local accommodation is not reached. That is our main opposition to the amendment, but it is not more than that. We have made great ground, and I hope that Members are mindful to support the motion and its call for consultation on a lawful approach to the issue.

1,442 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:03 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