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 5686591

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for his intervention, but, oh man, he has got me on page 2 of the Bill already. I have much more to talk about on page 1. Clause 1(2) continues with paragraph (b):

"the flag or emblem is likely to stir up hatred, or arouse fear".

A roads engineer is going to decide what scares people. Clause 1(2)(c) states that the flag or emblem might be removed if:

"the flag or emblem invites support for, or is the flag or emblem of, a proscribed organisation".

I was an electrician by trade, and I pulled many an engineer out of a hole, and I am sure that an engineer will be able to define what a proscribed organisation is. This is a no-brainer. That should not be included in the Bill. We already have legislation to deal with this. It is terrorist legislation from Westminster. That should be dealing with this, but it cannot; it is not. Why is it not? It is not dealing with the issues because they are so difficult to grapple with. However, here we are, and the promoter of the Bill is going to throw a load of engineers at it. Forget about law enforcement and the people who are trained in law enforcement and public protection. We are going to throw engineers at it now, and is it not a burden too far for those engineers? I worry about those engineers.

Yes, I will.

That is the thing, too, because let us remember that there have been flags on street furniture belonging to DFI for years, and it probably could have — should have — taken some of that down, but it did not because it knew what the consequences could be. The simple point is this: even if there is not a fear factor or a threat or safety factor, the fact is that, if you take a flag down without having community consent, you will have 10 put up in its place. That is what the Bill will achieve, nothing else. Clause 1(3) states that:

"For the purposes of this Act, there is a presumption that it is in the public interest to remove a flag or emblem if, in the opinion of the Department, one or more of the following apply—".

There is nothing in the Bill about supporting flags.

Yes, I will.

Yes, I agree with the Member entirely. He has put something into my head. A street lighting design was done in the village of Broughshane, and, at the time, there were brackets on lamp posts for flag holders. Three flags could be attached to one lamp post in a decorative and respectful way. To be fair to the street lighting division, whose personnel have worked well with me over the years, one of its staff contacted me to say, "We've taken down 10 lamp posts and on each one there was a bracket. I have the brackets all safe in the back of my van, and I will return to your office so that you can return them to the community, and they can be put up again whenever the new street lights go back up". That is the way that the Department has been working with individual MLAs for years. The Bill will jeopardise that relationship. Clause 1(3) states that:

"For the purposes of this Act, there is a presumption that it is in the public interest to remove a flag"

— why not protect a flag; why not promote a flag? —

"or emblem if, in the opinion of the Department, one or more of the following apply— (a) the flag or emblem is offensive, abusive, or insulting,"

— no engineer is going to make that judgement call — or if

"(b) the flag or emblem is displayed in the vicinity of a sensitive place".

That takes me to clause 2, "Sensitive places", which states:

"(1) The Department may regard the following as a sensitive place— (a) a place where public services are provided,"

— that is defined —

"(b) a shared communal place".

That is defined, but that shared communal place includes a "shopping centre", which is a private business and is on private land. Even the car parks are usually private land, and parking is not enforced by the Department. You could have a scenario in which you have departmental officials going into a car park that the Department does not control or run to take down flags from a lamp post. It is a bit perverse, and think of that shopping centre and what it thinks of any stir or hurt caused in the community. Of course, "shared communal place" is caveated with:

"any other place that persons of all national and cultural identities could reasonably be expected to have access to."

That is really worrying. The Bill refers to a sensitive place also being "an interface area". That is really interesting, because I look to my colleagues left and right — Brian Kingston and Phillip Brett — who work in north Belfast where there are interfaces all over the show. It is like a patchwork for them.

They have to work day in, day out with those communities. I maintain that the Bill would make it much harder for them to do so.

What is an "interface area"? Is it defined in the Bill? No. I looked at the interpretation clause, which is clause 7, but there is no definition in there that I can see. Perhaps I am wrong to say — I will give way to the Bill sponsor if I am — that there is no definition of an "interface area" in the Bill. What is an interface area? How big is an interface area? Does it extend for a mile, 2 miles or 10 miles? Is it a town? Is it a street? Is it an avenue? Is it a cul-de-sac? Those questions need to be answered before we can support anything that takes on what is a controversial and sensitive matter.

I will, yes.

I thank the Member for his intervention. He adds that concern, about which I am also concerned. Imagine what an interface looks like. Imagine the trouble that people who live on either side of that interface go through in their daily lives. What would happen if DFI were to move into one side but not the other? Imagine the concern in the community there. Imagine Members having to deal with the fallout from that. Imagine that that is because some areas are deemed to be no-go areas. Let us face it: we have people who do not even pay their TV licence fee because of the area that they are from, and the TV licence man does not go into such areas to get the money. This is the same issue — we are talking about the nitty-gritty — yet I do not think that the Bill sponsor has thought it through at all. Of course we would love to reduce the number of interface areas. Of course we would love to reduce concern and tension in such areas. This Bill would explode that concern and that tension, however. This Bill would take everything out of the hands of public representatives, not just the elected ones but the community ones, who, even to this day, are trying to keep a lid on some of those areas. Still on the subject of sensitive places, clause 2(2) provides:

"The Department may regard the following as a place where public services are provided— (a) school, (b) medical facility, (c) leisure centre, (d) library".

A library is a place from which one can borrow a book on flags and educate young people on flags of the countries of the world. In a school, classrooms will be bedecked with flags, especially around the time of a football tournament or the Olympic Games, yet flags would not be allowed to be put up outside or anywhere near that school. The Bill does not tell us how far away from a school they must be. Is it 1 mile from the school? On the route to school? Perhaps the school is at the end of a housing estate, which is the case for many schools in my constituency. How far, then? Where are the limits? Is it to be decided by engineers from the Department? There are massive issues with where this might go. In clause 1(7), there is the following disclaimer:

"This section does not apply in respect of a flag or emblem that is displayed by a public authority."

There you go. The state gets off scot-free. The state can do whatever it wants. What happens if the state were to make a bad decision and put up something that annoyed folk? The state would not have to abide by this law. It is only the common people for whom it really matters. It is only the common people for whom we should legislate. It is another instance of state overreach. Why should the state get off scot-free? For that matter, why should the Department get off scot-free? There are massive holes in the Bill.

1,530 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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