Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- 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 5686647
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for that intervention. She is absolutely right. I have talked thus far about the engineers who work in the Department. What happens if it is the Minister? The Member is quite right: the Bill refers to "the Department". If that reads across as the Minister, one person would be dictating policy on flags and emblems: what a recipe for disaster — what a cocktail of woe — we would be wedding our people to. That is the dangerous bit. The Bill states:
"For the purposes of this Act, there is a presumption that it is in the public interest to remove a flag"
— not "support" it, not "embrace", not "respect" it —
"if, in the opinion of the Department— (b) the flag or emblem is displayed in the vicinity of a sensitive place" —
which we have covered —
"and— (i) is antagonistic, or not conducive to good community relations".
If there were a celebration of only one culture, would that be conducive to good community relations? Gerry Carroll is not his place, but imagine a strike involving public workers during which union flags — I mean trade union flags — had been displayed at a certain workplace, such as a depot, and the public turned against that strike, which sometimes happens. Who would make the decision as to whether those flags are "conducive to good community relations"? What would happen if there is a strike that is not popular in the community, with people having eggs thrown at them and all sorts of stuff, and the street that that depot or hospital is on is bedecked with trade union flags? Who would deal with that?
Yes.
Exactly. That is just one of the issues. If the Bill were to pass, it could explode community relations and flags would go up everywhere. Remember: there is a two-year lead-in period for a lot of this, which would give groups plenty of time to bedeck the place with flags of one type or another. There would also be all the situations in which the Department's employees refuse to go in and take flags down. The Department, which has a duty of care for its employees, would run to the police, and the police would turn the other way, as they have done in some of these instances for years because they have a bit of wit. It is massive. Clause 1(4) gives a whole range — the subclauses go right down to (g) — of what should happen and what "the Department must consider". One of those factors, at subclause (d), is:
"whether the flag or emblem has been displayed for an excessive period of time".
How long is "excessive"? Who would make that call? Would it be the engineers in a certain depot, or would it be the Minister? It goes on. Most of these are negative:
"(b) the views of those living in the vicinity of the flag or emblem, (c) the importance of being able to live free from harassment and intimidation, (d) whether the flag or emblem has been displayed for an excessive period of time".
Again, negative:
"(f) whether the flag or emblem is displayed in a disrespectful manner".
Clause 1(4)(e) states:
"(e) whether the flag or emblem is displayed for the purposes of celebration or commemoration".
Is that meant to be a negative or a positive? I do not know. Is the sponsor saying:
"for the purposes of celebration or commemoration"
is a bad thing or a good thing? Surely, she would have to have a view on that if she has included it in her criteria. Is commemorating with flags a good thing or a bad thing? I suggest that it would depend on the subject matter. If we were commemorating a battle from World War I or II, or any other scenario for that matter, where people have given their lives in sacrifice for the good of our freedom and our country, that would be really good, but what if it were a terrorist commemoration? What does the sponsor say about that? What does she expect the engineers in the Department to do? What does she expect a Minister of the Department to do in that scenario?
Yes.
709 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.48 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.78).
- The text reports, quotes or asks about the framing rather than adopting it (0.56).
- Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.28 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.09 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.49 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.42 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.37 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.78 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.48 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.25 |
| Reports or questions it (chosen) | 0.56 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.08 |
| Adopts it | 0.11 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.96 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.04 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
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.