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

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 14 September 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

14 September 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5686549

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Usually, at this stage of a Bill, I welcome the efforts of the Member in bringing forward a Member's Bill, because it is worth noting that it takes a lot of time to work on a Member's Bill. Anyone who has encountered the process will know the work that goes into a Bill: hours and hours engaging with officials and Assembly staff to produce a Bill — to get a drafter and engage with that drafter to get your thoughts on a piece of blue paper. That, however, is what scares me about this Bill. We have Ms Bradshaw's thoughts down on paper, and they are horrendous. We have a responsibility to make sure that we bring forward good law. In fact, I would go as far as saying that we have a responsibility to repeal law where we can and should do so. Those are my libertarian values. I see state overreach in every clause of the Bill. That scares me but also gives me insight into the Alliance Party. If they were on the ground, as a party or individually as MLAs, trying to grapple with some of the societal ills around flags and emblems and the harm that they can cause in either putting them up or getting them taken down, they would find that it is tremendously difficult to walk that tightrope. If you get it wrong, sometimes the flag stays up or the flag stays down, nothing happens and people remain frustrated, but, sometimes, it explodes into a plethora of additional flags. That is our experience when we try to deal with those issues in our society, which has been scarred and hurt by terrorist violence. Never forget about that when it comes to the display of emblems and flags. We have been through so much. What annoys me more than anything is that, when we go to the media with really good issues, such as ideas and amendments that we have used to change law on bread-and-butter issues, such as scooters or child protection, the first thing that the media usually says is, "No, that's not really newsworthy. We want something on flags and emblems. Why not talk about flags and emblems?". I am loath to talk about flags and emblems, yet here we are with a Member bringing a Member's Bill on what? Flags and emblems. We go round this circle over and over and over again. It would be admirable if there were hope in these pages, but I see no hope of rescuing or fixing the problems that we have out there in our interfaces. In fact, I think that this Bill will lead to an explosion of flags and emblems, and I will go into the detail of that in a minute.

The Alliance Party does not have a great track record on this. Stephen Farry attacked Linfield, a football club, because of the colours of its away kit, claiming that it was in some way connected to or associated with the colours used by the UVF. How dangerous and how reckless was that? It is incredible. I am no lover of Linfield, as Members will tell you. I am a sky blue fan; Ballymena United all the way. However, I also know the value of Linfield Football Club and its supporters from that area and, to be fair, right across the Province —

— because it has such a good support, even in my home town of Ballymena. Thanks for reminding me, Mr Brooks. That is the party that has introduced this legislation. Even when the Member was promoting her Member's Bill, she had the audacity to use a Linfield flag on material that referred to controversial flags. That is really awful, and that sets the trend for what the Bill sponsor wants to achieve. I think that it is dangerous. This is state overreach, and that is dangerous. It is placing a burden on a Department that should be interested in potholes, road resurfacing, safe footways and making sure that the street lights are working correctly and are adequately lighting up to create a safe place for elderly folk to walk. The Department should be packed with engineers, and this Bill will create circumstances where there is not only a street lighting division and a roads division but a flags division. A flags division in the Department for Infrastructure. What nonsense. The Bill does not say that the "Department may"; it says that the "Department must". Here we have intolerant liberalism, with its state overreach, reaching into the hearts of our communities and telling them what they should do, what they should display and what they should think. That is exactly the sort of thing that I have fought against all my political career, and I will continue to fight against it. The Department for Infrastructure, filled and packed with engineers, is going to be the police force for flags. The Department for Infrastructure is going to pick good flags and bad flags, and maybe that will change depending on the area that you are in. Maybe in North Antrim, bad flags will be different from bad flags in West Belfast. Who knows? It does not seem to be that the Bill sponsor knows. She cannot answer any of those questions. Maybe she will take note of my concerns as I go through them so that she will be able to respond to me in kind. The Bill states:

"The Department must remove a flag or emblem that is attached to public street furniture and displayed in a public place, if it is in the public interest to do so."

Who chooses what the public interest is here? A bunch of engineers? A bunch of road maintenance engineers? Do they decide what is in the public interest? It is nobody else, by the looks of things. It refers to:

"public street furniture and displayed in a public place".

Of course, the Bill sponsor is so kind as to tell us what public street furniture might be. There is not a definitive list, so it:

"includes lampposts, bus shelters, trees, rubbish and recycling bins, street signs, bollards, railings and fences."

It also talks about what is meant by a "public place".

Most of the things that I have read out will be in a public place. Clause 7(1), however, states:

"'public place' means any street, road or highway and any place to which at the material time the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission".

When the proposer talks about "public place", she is not talking about public places. She is talking about public places and private places that you can access. The proposer is shaking her head, but why has she placed shopping centres in her Bill? I will give way if the proposer of the Bill wants me to give way. She does not want me to give way at this time. I hope that she is taking notes. Here we have a public place that is not really a public place; it can be a private place to which a member of the public can gain access. That is really worrying, is it not? What happens if something is in a private place, such as on a mast, but the public can view it? What happens if you can view something that could cause distress or that you did not like the look of? Does the Bill cater for that? I do not know whether it does; it is not clear. Maybe the Bill's proposer will clarify that position. Even if it is a private place that the public cannot access but can see every day, does the Department have the power to go into that private place and take down that emblem or flag? If it has, it is not expressly written in the Bill. There are no powers, only burdens, for DFI in the Bill. We are burdening engineers. Clause 1(2) states:

"For the purposes of this Act, it is in the public interest to remove a flag or emblem if, in the opinion of the Department"

— that means the opinion of engineers who like to work on road maintenance, road structures, bridges, street lighting designs —

— and drainage — good man; thank you —

"the flag or emblem is intimidatory or threatening".

They have to make that assessment.

I will.

That is a very important point. I know that the Member jokes, but how often do we hear in our constituency offices about the state of our roads? However, here we have the proposer of the Bill burdening a Department — a Department that is not coping very well and is probably undermanned, under strength and under budget — placing a financial burden on it and having it create a portal and put resource, manpower and women power into taking the flags and emblems down. Those emblems could be any size of structure. I worry. I worry that those engineers will have to decide what is intimidatory or threatening and what is not.

Yes, I will.

1,532 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Uncertain: close call Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:17 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