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 5670828

Read the official Assembly record

Text

OK, you will come to that. I look forward to hearing that, because I want a solution, as do my constituents. I say this from the perspective of genuinely wanting people to —. If we have a new Ireland, there will still be Union flags flying in the North. If we stay in the UK, which is the preference of the Members opposite, there will still be people who fly the tricolour, and the tricolour will remain, as it is now, the national flag of a huge number of people in this society. I want to have a serious conversation about how we regulate. If we cannot do it legally, someone should come up with a more voluntary system. There is a distinction, and it is not just in relation to the Union flag. People whom I know and grew up with will draw a distinction between a tattered tricolour on a lamp post next to offensive graffiti and the tricolour flying at a GAA ground when 'Amhrán na bhFiann' is playing, there is a major GAA match and people feel pride in their community and national identity. In the same way, there is a distinction between a tattered Union flag that has been stuck up without any consultation by some fella who has driven in from up the road in the middle of the night and the Union flag flying at a Remembrance Day service. Those are different things. We need to be honest about them being different things, and, as elected representatives, we need to be willing to confront them, talk about them and find solutions. I am not sure that precisely everything in the Bill as introduced will be perfect — I do not say that it is — but at least it is a try, so we are willing to debate it. I will go through some of the provisions, because I want us all to get away tonight, and I want others to be able to come in. Where Mr Burrows has a point, believe it or not — others made the same point — is that there is a question about all the responsibility going on to DFI. It is not primarily DFI's responsibility to deal with community relations issues and, indeed, criminal justice matters. However, DFI is critical to it, so it has some responsibility. It clearly has responsibility for large street furniture and the public highways, but community relations are the responsibility of the Executive Office. There has been an utter failure at TEO level to agree any meaningful progress on the FICT report. To the parties that are represented in TEO, I say this: if it ain't this Bill, what are you and the people who lead you doing to bring forward changes there? If it is not this Bill and if the responsibility should not be with DFI — there is a legitimate question about the resourcing of DFI — I am happy to take an intervention.

I am happy for that to be on the record. It is clear that your party supports the Bill's progressing. That is fair enough, but other parties that think that the responsibility on the DFI in the Bill is not proportionate, as it were, or not realistic should explain why TEO cannot bring it forward. There is also the question of the Justice Department. That is important, given the work that Justice is supposed to do on tackling paramilitarism and, as I have mentioned, the clear and substantial intersection between paramilitarism — not exclusively but significantly loyalist paramilitarism — and how the flags go up, not just the proscribed flags. As I said, it is not just the proscribed flags; it is the fact that some of the national flags and the Ulster banners are put up by people who are in or are allied to illegal organisations, which creates a concern and a nervousness around people reporting them or other statutory organisations taking the flags down.

I am happy that that has gone on the record. I will quickly go through the Bill's provisions, which have been mentioned. Clause 1 gives the Department the power — in fact, it compels the Department — to remove a flag or emblem that is attached to public street furniture. As I said, there are descriptions of when that should happen. To some extent, that is contextualised by the creation of an online portal, at clause 3, and the production of a code of practice at clause 4. Having read the Bill and the EFM, I draw a slight distinction between clauses 3 and 4 or, perhaps, a slight difference in how convinced I am at this stage of how fully thought through each provision is.

That is not to say that neither provision has merit. There needs to be a code of practice. In fact, the FICT report very clearly calls for one. Indeed, the logical outworking of some of what was talked about by Members opposite around protocols and informal agreements is that there needs to be some kind of code of practice. Why could it not be set out by a statutory body?

An online portal would at least address the idea that members of the public have no opportunity at all to either raise a concern about a particular flag or notify the Department, should they wish to, about a flag's going up. It would be voluntary; clause 3(a) states:

"a person may notify the Department".

Precisely what weight will be given to compliance with the voluntary need to apply via the portal is not yet clear. That goes to the heart of whether that is a Parades Commission-style provision. The Bill sponsor is very clear that, in organisational terms, it would not be a Parades Commission-style organisation, but a notification process is mooted in the Bill. As the Committee scrutinises it, it will be worth interrogating how precisely that is envisaged. Those are important questions to ask. There is a lot of demonisation of the Parades Commission, but, in the past quarter of a century, in which the Parades Commission has existed, there has been a massive improvement in the community acceptance of Orange marches. I say this to people who do not like the idea of the scrutiny of, or questions being asked about, flags going up: it is often the case that, if people feel that their consent is being asked for, they are much more likely to give it.

I will in one second. I think that, if people feel as though they have some ownership or authorship of a decision, or there is some process by which they can say to an elected representative or someone else, "Look, there's an Ulster banner up there. No harm to the people who put it up, but can we bring it down now? It looks awful in our street, and local businesses don't like it. I don't mind its going up around the Twelfth, but can it come down now? It's Halloween", they are more likely to volunteer a bit of consent, just as more communities, including people from a nationalist background, have been more willing to accommodate Orangeism, the loyal orders and marches, which is a huge part of a tradition on this island. By the way, that tradition is represented in the tricolour, which is one of the national flags that we are talking about. I genuinely treasure esteem, but it is not straightforward and easy. It is a difficult and conflicted thing, including in the Member's constituency, which he talked about. If you ask people for their consent and treat them with a degree of seriousness, they are more likely to give it and to accommodate and respect the thing that is being asked of them. Sometimes, showing respect is the best way of getting respect in return. That is the approach that we will be taking as we scrutinise the Bill. It is really important that it has been brought to the Assembly. I thank the Bill sponsor for doing so.

I am not the Bill sponsor. As I said, I support the principles of the Bill, but it will have to be interrogated in the Committee. I expect that the code of practice will have to be an exhaustive document that sets out the meanings of some of the provisions in clause 1. That will be important. The question that he asked is not an unreasonable one. Clearly, it is the case that, in matters relating to cultural expression and all sorts of not quite civil law but civil matters that involve cultural expression in the public space, there is a degree of subjectivity. There is no perfect objective truth about or interpretation of a national flag. As I said earlier, a tricolour flying at an inter-county GAA match while people are standing to 'Amhrán na bhFiann' is a fundamentally different thing from a tattered tricolour or one placed on a bonfire, just as a Union flag at a remembrance service is categorically different. Those things are, to an extent, subjective.

I look forward to a code of practice being published should the Bill be passed. There is lots in the Bill to unpack. We will support it at Second Stage, and I look forward to seeing it go to the Committee.

1,557 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