UUP to oppose Flags and Emblems Bill as Stewart warns DfI would be drawn into cultural disputes

Inset: UUP Infrastructure spokesperson John Stewart MLA

The Ulster Unionist Party has confirmed it will oppose the proposed Display of Flags and Emblems Bill at Second Stage, arguing that responsibility for deciding which flags should be removed should not be placed on the Department for Infrastructure.

UUP Infrastructure spokesperson John Stewart MLA said his party supports the removal of paramilitary flags but believes the proposed legislation risks drawing civil servants into contentious decisions over identity, intimidation and territorial marking while the Department is already responsible for roads, street lighting, drainage and transport.

The intervention comes as the Assembly’s Committee for Infrastructure is inviting public evidence on the Bill ahead of its possible progression to detailed Committee scrutiny.

What would the proposed law do?

The Private Member’s Bill, introduced by Alliance Party MLA Paula Bradshaw, seeks to establish a legal framework governing the display of flags and emblems on public infrastructure.

Its stated objectives include addressing the misuse of public property for displays intended to exclude, intimidate or assert control, while balancing cultural expression against concerns about intimidation, territorial marking and the coercive use of symbols in shared public spaces.

Under Clause 1, the Department would be placed under a duty to remove a flag or emblem displayed in a public place where specified circumstances apply and removal is considered to be in the public interest.

In practical terms, the proposals could therefore require officials to make decisions about flags and emblems displayed on public infrastructure, including considering the circumstances and effects of a particular display.

‘The answer to a bad situation is not a bad law’

Mr Stewart said the UUP accepted there was a genuine problem surrounding paramilitary flags but rejected the proposed solution.

“Paramilitary flags have no legitimate place in our communities. They are not culture and they are not tradition. That problem is real and it needs addressed. But the answer to a bad situation is not a bad law.

“The Department for Infrastructure exists to fix roads, maintain street lighting and run our transport network. This Bill would require its officials to sit in judgement on intimidation, offensiveness, antagonism, cultural identity and territorial demarcation. Those are not infrastructure decisions, and DfI is not equipped to make them.”

Mr Stewart characterised the proposals as “distraction politics”, arguing that infrastructure resources should remain focused on existing services.

“The problem isn’t a flag on a lamppost, it’s whether the lamppost works,” he said.

“My constituents are contacting me about potholes, flooded drains and street lights that have been out for months. Not one of them has asked for an official to be taken off that work to assess whether a flag is ‘antagonistic’.”

Concern over how removals would work

The East Antrim MLA also questioned what would happen when a decision was made to remove a flag, particularly in areas where those carrying out the work could face intimidation.

“Somebody still has to go out and physically take the flag down. The easiest flags to remove will be the ones in law abiding areas where nobody threatens the contractor. The hardest will be the ones put up by the organisations most capable of intimidation.

“That would not confront intimidation. It would reward it.”

Mr Stewart also challenged provisions concerning whether displays could be considered to demarcate an area as belonging to a particular national or cultural identity.

“The Bill asks whether a display demarcates an area as belonging to a particular national or cultural identity. That is the sponsor’s own wording, not mine.

“The party now telling us that symbols mark out territory has been an enthusiastic advocate of dual language street signage. I am not equating the two. My point is that a test which can be argued in opposite directions depending on who is doing the arguing is not a test at all. It is an invitation to litigation.”

UUP says opposition does not mean defending all flag displays

Mr Stewart stressed that the party’s opposition to the legislation should not be interpreted as support for every use or display of the Union Flag.

“Opposing this Bill does not mean defending every display of the national flag. I have little time for the sight of the Union Flag left hanging in tatters from a lamppost, month after month.

“That is not patriotism. But you fix that with local agreement and community leadership, not a civil servant with a clipboard.”

Where is the Bill in the Assembly process?

The Display of Flags and Emblems Bill completed First Stage on 30 June 2026, meaning it has been formally introduced but has not yet been approved by MLAs.

Its next major hurdle is Second Stage, when MLAs debate the general principles of the legislation and vote on whether it should progress.

The UUP’s announcement means its MLAs intend to vote against the Bill at that stage.

If the Assembly supports the Bill at Second Stage, it would normally move to Committee Stage for detailed scrutiny by the Committee for Infrastructure. The Committee would examine its provisions, take evidence and report its findings and recommendations to the Assembly.

The Bill could subsequently be amended as it passes through Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage before MLAs eventually decide at Final Stage whether it should be passed.

Only after completing the Assembly process and receiving Royal Assent would a Bill become an Act.

Public consultation remains open

Ahead of the Second Stage decision, the Committee for Infrastructure is already seeking views from individuals and organisations on the Bill’s objectives, proposals and potential consequences.

People do not have to answer the entire consultation and can choose which sections or individual questions they wish to respond to.

The deadline is 16 September 2026.

Online submissions can be made through the Assembly’s Citizen Space consultation:

Consultation

Those unable to complete the online survey can make a written submission. The Committee asks for electronic submissions to be provided in Word format rather than PDF, structured around the relevant clauses and schedules where possible, and to include any proposed amendments respondents wish to suggest.

Written submissions can be emailed to:

committee.infrastructure@niassembly.gov.uk

Hard-copy submissions can be sent to:

Clerk to the Committee for Infrastructure

Room 416

Parliament Buildings

Ballymiscaw

Stormont

Belfast

BT4 3XX

Respondents should be aware that their evidence, either in whole or in part, may be published on the Committee’s webpage, quoted in its eventual report or referred to during public Committee meetings.

Anyone who wants their evidence treated confidentially or published anonymously should make that clear when submitting it.

For now, the key decision comes at Second Stage: MLAs will have to decide whether the principle of creating a statutory system for dealing with flags and emblems on public infrastructure should proceed to detailed scrutiny. The UUP has now made clear that its answer will be no.