Skip to content

📄 FOI Request – Entry #002: Flag Removal at County Hall

Date Submitted: May 2025 Subject: Removal of Pride and Ukrainian flags Council: Durham County Council Majority Party: Reform UK

đź“ź Background

In May 2025, shortly after taking control of the council, the Reform UK administration removed both the LGBTQ+ Pride flag and the Ukrainian flag from outside County Hall. The justification given was a new protocol to fly only “national and local flags.” No consultation was held, and this contradicted the council’s Equality Policy 2024–28 requiring stakeholder involvement in changes affecting protected groups.

This move appeared to contradict the council’s own Equality Policy (2024–2028), which includes a specific commitment to stakeholder consultation when changes to services or policies could affect protected groups. Under Consultation and involvement, the policy states:

“To ensure our services and decisions are inclusive and responsive we involve and consult with people who use our services, employees, elected members, trade unions and partners on service changes, new approaches, refreshed strategies and policy changes. Stakeholders include communities and organisations who represent protected groups, e.g. Disability Partnership, Youth Council, North East England Rainbow Alliance and staff networks. Engaging with communities of interest allows us to gain equality focussed customer and employee insight and, where required, seek external validation for schemes such as our Disability Confident Leader application.”

âť“ Questions That Prompted the Request

  1. Was the flag removal planned in advance or made ad hoc?
  2. Was the decision guided by an existing written policy or protocol?
  3. Were any Equality Impact Assessments or risk assessments carried out?
  4. Were local stakeholders consulted, as per the council’s own equality commitments?
  5. Did any councillors or officers raise objections internally?

đź“„ Full FOI Request Text

Dear Durham County Council FOI Officer,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I am requesting access to the following information:

All records, meeting minutes, correspondence, and internal communications related to the decision to remove the Pride and Ukrainian flags from outside County Hall, including any policies or guidelines that informed this decision.

Please provide the information in electronic format where possible.

If this request exceeds the cost limit, please advise me as soon as possible so that I may refine it accordingly.

Yours faithfully,

Neil

⏳ Status and Initial Response

Response received.

Durham County Council responded that the flag protocol was changed “at the request of the Leader of the Council” and that it “did not require a formal decision.” As a result, they stated that "no records, meeting minutes, correspondence, and internal communications are held."

This response was unexpected and concerning. The Equality Policy 2024–28 remains in force (as confirmed on the council’s website in June 2025), and its commitments require consultation with relevant stakeholders before implementing service or policy changes that affect protected groups.

📢 Formal Complaint and Council’s Reply

Following the council’s FOI response, I submitted a formal complaint arguing that:

  • The response was inadequate given the policy implications and public interest in the decision.
  • It was implausible that absolutely no records existed for such a significant change, especially in light of the Equality Policy.
  • The lack of consultation could constitute a breach of the Equality Policy, particularly concerning the potential impact on protected groups.

The Council formally replied in a letter from Helen Bradley, Director of Legal & Democratic Services. In summary, they stated:

  • The flag matter is governed by a protocol, not a formal council policy.
  • The protocol is an internal guide for officers and was not formally adopted as policy by the Council.
  • Therefore, changes to the protocol did not trigger the consultation requirements under the Equality Policy.
  • As a result, the Council would not uphold my complaint.

They advised that I could escalate my complaint to the Corporate Complaints Team if I remained dissatisfied.

📨 Evidence from Cllr Andrew Husband

In parallel, I contacted Cllr Andrew Husband, Leader of Durham County Council, asking several specific questions. In his email dated 25 June 2025, Cllr Husband stated:

“Before and during the election our policy was to fly the union, st. george’s cross and county flag across ANY council we would win. Military flags also to coincide with military events.”

This directly contradicts the council’s claim that there was no policy change. It confirms the flag decision was indeed a policy decision tied to political commitments and not merely a minor operational adjustment.

Cllr Husband’s response also compared removing the Pride and Ukrainian flags to removing a hypothetical Newcastle United flag, stating:

“Even if it was a Newcastle United flag we were flying [...] it would have been replaced.”

This comparison is deeply problematic. The Pride flag symbolises inclusion and safety for marginalised communities, particularly LGBTQ+ residents and staff. The Ukrainian flag expresses solidarity with a nation under attack and with Ukrainian residents in County Durham. Equating these with a football club flag trivialises the significance of such symbols and sidesteps the core issue of removing symbols of inclusion without consultation.

đź«Ł Escalation of Complaint

On the basis of Cllr Husband’s statements, I escalated my complaint, arguing:

  • The council’s own leader described this as a policy, not merely a protocol.
  • Under the Equality Policy 2024–28, consultation and involvement must occur for service changes, new approaches, refreshed strategies, or policy changes.
  • Even if labelled a protocol, changing which flags are flown is a visible and symbolic act with significant impact on communities with protected characteristics, particularly the LGBTQ+ community.
  • The claim that no records exist is implausible and raises governance concerns.

I have requested that the council:

  • Acknowledge that the flag change constituted a policy change or new approach subject to the Equality Policy.
  • Confirm whether any Equality Impact Assessment or consultation was undertaken, and if not, why.
  • Reconsider its position that no records exist in relation to the decision.
  • Set out how it intends to ensure similar decisions in future comply with the Equality Policy and consultation requirements.

As of this writing, I await a response to my escalation.

⚖️ Next Steps

  • Await the outcome of the internal FOI review and the escalated complaint.
  • Consider escalation to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if the internal review remains unsatisfactory.
  • Explore potential legal avenues regarding compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED).
  • Contact local press to raise public awareness and encourage scrutiny.

The Equality Policy remains in force. The FOI response, the council’s dismissal of the issue as merely a “protocol,” and Cllr Husband’s statements raise significant concerns about governance, transparency, and the treatment of policies designed to protect marginalised communities.

Further updates will follow.