Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 7 September 2026.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

7 September 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5670803

Read the official Assembly record

Text

There clearly are examples of that happening, but it is also clear that that is entirely inconsistent and not universal. If those who oppose the Second Reading of the Bill believe that that kind of voluntary and entirely, as it were, laissez-faire approach to regulating such matters is the way to go, perhaps they should be arguing for the Executive Office to respond properly to the FICT inquiry, to bring forward, perhaps, a voluntary code of practice or a set of advisory regulations or a structured approach to engagement. They have not done any of that. It is one thing for people to say, "We do not want this". I will come on to the legitimate points that have been made. To be fair to the Bill's sponsor, she has acknowledged them. We have some real questions about the outworkings of the Bill. We will, of course, support it at the Second Reading, but we also think that there are practical questions to be asked for us to pass good legislation. Those who are rejecting the Bill at Second Reading are saying, "We do not need hard and fast legislation because of resource implications, unintended consequences or imprecision in definitions" or for whatever multitude of reasons they have given. You can acknowledge, as John Stewart reasonably enough did, that there is an issue at the hardest end, right up to the proliferation of illegal flags of proscribed organisations in shared areas or along major thoroughfares, as there is, by the way, on the A55 leading up to Stormont — the Belfast outer ring road — which for months on end, yards from the headquarters of the PSNI, had UDA flags. Last week, in the constituency that I, Ms Hargey, Ms Bradshaw and Ms Nicholl represent, there was graffiti again on the memorial to the victims of the Sean Graham bookies massacre. That massacre was done by the UDA, and the man who is believed to have been involved in it was buried a couple of days before the graffiti appeared. Those are real, live things. Victims of those organisations have to drive on a major arterial route past a UDA flag yards from the PSNI headquarters and half or a quarter of a mile from this legislature. If we do not think that that is an issue to deal with, we are kidding ourselves.

I will give way in a second. That is at the hardest edge, right down to the issue of flags of whatever nationality or organisation simply being up and turning into rags and creating an unsightly environment. That is also a problem not just for local communities and for people living in those streets but for local businesses. We have established that there is a real problem. It may not be the biggest problem in terms of our public services, but it is a real problem around how we share this space. It is important that we look at it and deal with it. I will come to briefly talking about the specific clauses in the Bill, but I wanted to set out that broad picture. Mr Burrows wanted an intervention.

It is for us to debate and interrogate the law. It is for the Committee to interrogate the potential downsides and discuss amendments. That is why we have legislative stages. It is open to all parties and MLAs to vote for a Bill at Second Stage while reserving the ability to amend it or, indeed, vote against it at Final Stage. That is the purpose of scrutiny. If you vote against something at Second Stage, you are saying, "I disagree with the principles, and I do not even want to interrogate how it could be improved or adjusted." To answer your question, yes, it is totally reasonable and important that we draw distinctions when it comes to illegal flags. There was a bit of a debate earlier about the UVF 1912 flags. I ask people to genuinely think hard about whether somebody whose family were victims of the UVF is really supposed to draw —. I understand that Carson's UVF is a different historical thing, and I am not disputing that, but are we honestly asking absolutely everybody who has been a victim of the UVF to engage with that historical distinction? I do not really want to get —.

In a little while, perhaps. I do not want to get completely distracted by that distinction. I go back to Mr Burrows's point. He talked about the paramilitary flags. Clearly, there is a distinction when it comes to flags of proscribed organisations. I had written down the name of the new legislation that was passed at Westminster, but I have lost it. I have engaged with the PSNI to press it to use those powers to take certain flags down. By the way, it has not been happening, or it has not happened quickly. It happened in one instance. There is a question about who has power. Such things are related, because often it is the same people, related to the same organisations, who put up the Union flag, the Ulster banner and the UDA flag. That is not to say that the UDA flag is legally the same as the Union flag, but it is to say that it was the same fella who showed up in a van with a cherry picker to put it up.

Hang on for one second. That is the distinction. That is why people might feel that those things are being conflated. I say this to Members from the parties opposite: engage seriously with the pernicious coercive control that goes on in communities. By the way, it makes no difference to me whether it is the INLA, the Provisional IRA, as it was in the past, dissident republican organisations or whatever. Those things are precisely as pernicious and wrong, but there is clearly a significant problem with loyalist paramilitaries. The fact that it is the same people putting those flags up means that, in reality, when we as elected representatives go to DFI, the PSNI, both of them or one and then the other, the point that it is the same people will often be made. There is a community issue, and we have to engage with that fog. It is a moral and legal fog, and it has gone on for long enough. I urge people who are opposed to the Bill to help us. If you do not think that this is the right way, help us to get out of that fog, because we cannot stay in it. I give way to Mr Burrows.

1,109 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:15 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