Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Are members content that the evidence session be recorded by Hansard?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I welcome Paula to the Committee and invite her to present some of her consultation findings. After that, Paula, as you can imagine, there may be some questions from members.

Ms Paula Bradshaw (Northern Ireland Assembly): Good morning, Chair and members, and thank you for giving me some time to present my Display of Flags and Emblems Bill. I have been working on the Bill for nine years. In that time, we have had two prolonged periods of suspension of the Assembly, a global pandemic and the publication of the report of the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT). While the legal space around flags has not changed in that period, I would say that the public space has. We are seeing more and larger flags being erected in our increasingly integrated society. Our neighbourhoods are becoming more mixed, to use a local colloquialism, and more diverse than when the flags commission began its important work in June 2016. I am sponsoring a Bill to provide a clear, consistent and fair legal framework to govern the erection of flags and emblems on street furniture. When I refer to "street furniture", I am talking about not only lighting columns but railings and billboards on public land. I know that the Committee has spent time discussing that matter.

At present, there is no clear legal basis for regulating flags and emblems, nor is there a consistent enforcement mechanism for public authorities to act. The current legislation provides for a variety of offences around public order and prohibits certain displays on street furniture. However, we need clarity in law around statutory duties and responsibilities. As such, stand-alone legislation on solely this issue is needed. The Bill's purpose is to allow for respect of cultural celebration and commemoration, while preventing intimidation, territorial marking and the coercive use of symbols. Individuals and organisations will be able to display flags and emblems on street furniture, and I will come to that when I go into the specifics of the Bill. There will also be the ability for those who do not want to see flags and emblems in their neighbourhoods to give their views and for those to be recorded and considered by the Department in any potential enforcement action.

I understand how important it is that my Bill strikes a balance between article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is the right to freedom of expression, and article 8, which is the right to privacy and family life. I highlight the fact that article 10 states:

However, it goes on to state:

I appreciate that many people do not want to see a change in the current arrangements. However, many of those who contacted me do. I have received five emails in the past week alone from my constituents expressing their dismay that multiple huge flags have been erected in their areas without consultation or any consideration of the local demography or opinion, and they are asking why their views do not matter.

I want to give you a real-life scenario. I have all the emails to back it up and am prepared to provide them to the Committee. I want to give you an understanding of the type of issue that I have been dealing with. A couple of years ago, I was contacted by the parents of a pupil who attended Fleming Fulton School, which, as you will all be aware, is a special educational needs school. The girl also had major health complications. The family describe themselves as being from a Catholic background, and they were dismayed when two Union flags were erected, one on either side of the gates to the school. The family felt that, since those were the only flags on the Upper Malone Road, they were being erected to intimidate people from their background and deter them from attending the school. I contacted the Department for Infrastructure and asked that it work with the PSNI to have the flags removed. I was told that it would have to consult local community representatives, and, after a few days, the response was that the flags were not to come down and that, if they did, 15 more would go up. Does anyone in this room feel that that current approach is acceptable? Who are the community representatives whom the PSNI is consulting, and why does their right to the freedom of cultural expression trump the rights of a child to privacy, family life and, most importantly, their education?

I have nine years' worth of that type of example, but, in the interests of time, I will speak to the legislation and how it would operate in practice.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I was a bit worried that you were going to take us through those nine years —

Ms Bradshaw: No. Let me tell you —.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): — given that, as you may know, your colleague will want this room at 2.00 pm.

Ms Bradshaw: I keep receipts and have folders full of such examples. I could go through them, but I will move on.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is OK. Please continue.

Ms Bradshaw: The starting point is that the Department for Infrastructure applies the public interest test when it becomes aware or is notified through a submission on its online portal, as per clause 3. That means that, in circumstances where a flag or emblem is erected on street furniture, it must be removed if the Departments deems it to be intimidatory or threatening; if it could stir up hatred or arouse fear; or if is the flag or emblem of a proscribed organisation. Clauses 1(1) and 1(2) make that an absolute duty.

Clause 1(3) sets out that there is a presumption that the Department will remove a flag or emblem if it deems it to be offensive, abusive or insulting; if it is in the vicinity of a sensitive place; if it is antagonistic or not conducive to good community relations; if it demarcates that place as belonging exclusively to persons with a particular national or cultural identity; or if it is a public hazard.

Clause 1(4) provides that the Department must take account of views and information provided on the online portal, as outlined in clause 3, including the views of those living in the vicinity of a flag or emblem; the importance of being able to live free from harassment and intimidation; whether the flag has been displayed for an excessive period; whether the flag or emblem has been displayed for the purposes of celebration or commemoration, which, again, is information can be relayed through the online portal; and whether the flag complies with the code of practice. We will get on to that in clause 4.

Clause 1(5) provides the Department with the ability to assess whether its actions or inaction would pass the reasonable person test.

Clause 1(6) places a duty on the Department to remove a flag or emblem as soon as possible.

I chose not to provide a specific time frame for that as I am conscious that the Department will have limited resources and will have to prioritise intervention and removal based on the views that are expressed in the online portal and all the other factors that I have already listed.

Clause 2(1) sets out definitions and examples of "Sensitive places", such as places of worship or interface areas. Clause 2(2) provides examples of places where public services are provided, such as schools. Clause 2(3) provides examples of shared communal places, such as public parks.

Chairman, I have a few more pages, so just raise your hand when you want me to stop talking.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): No, you are OK.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you.

Clause 3 provides for the Department's establishment of a procedure, or adaptation of an existing procedure, such as an online portal, whereby a person can, as I mentioned earlier, notify voluntarily — nobody would be mandated to do so — if they wish to display a flag or emblem, or have done so, and their reasons for doing so; for example, for a certain cultural celebration. I imagine that it would also relate to sporting events or community festivals. It would also provide, via the online portal, the ability for residents and other stakeholders to give their views on the flags in a particular location at a particular time.

Importantly, underpinning all those considerations, I have included, in clause 4, a duty on the Department to consult on and produce a code of practice on the display of flags and emblems within 12 months of the Act's coming into operation, and that must be reviewed every five years. The clause lists the main bodies that must be consulted, including the Human Rights Commission and the PSNI. That code of practice draws on the work of the flags commission, which produced its own possible code relating to the respectful display of flags. The word "respect" is used throughout the code: "Respect for the flag", "Respect for the community" and "Respect for the event".

Clause 5 stipulates that anyone who obstructs the removal of a flag or emblem is guilty of an offence and would be liable on a summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which, currently, would be a maximum of £1,000. Clause 6 provides that the Department may request assistance from the PSNI where there is concern that the removal of a flag or emblem may result in a breach of the peace or an obstruction, as per clause 5.

On those last two clauses, I have tried not to turn up the temperature on the removal of flags in my Bill. However, an issue that you may, as a Committee, wish to consider is what would happen in the scenario where DFI has gone through its own due process and removed some flags, and new flags go up in the exact same place. What would happen in that place within a certain period, for example?

The issue of flags has been a contentious one for decades now. We have seen multiple attempts to grapple with it. I am referring not just to the flags commission but to the flags protocol of 2005, for example. Nothing has worked. It is almost 30 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, when citizens of this country signed up to the principles of partnership and equality in terms of mutual respect, and reconciliation in terms of respect for all traditions. The agreement explicitly demands full respect for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities, meaning that neither culture, history nor political identity is superior to the other. I believe that my Bill provides a robust legal framework by which we can take contention out of the issue by taking account of the many competing views on the display of flags and emblems in our shared public space.

I am happy to take any questions. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Thank you very much, Paula, for giving us that summary. I will start off with a few questions. They will focus mainly on the consultation rather than on the Bill itself.

I read through the consultation summary, which was very interesting. Thank you for bringing it to the Committee. At paragraph 1.5, you stated that:

Can you tell us a wee bit more about that?

Ms Bradshaw: Yes. The Orange Order, those types of institutions and political parties, including the TUV, used their social media to encourage people to respond to the consultation. I believe that there was a degree of orchestration to it. If you look at the responses to question 2, you see that the highest percentage of respondents "Strongly disagree" with the removal of flags that relate to proscribed organisations. I do not think that anybody in this room, as a cross-section of society, would agree that that should be the most prevalent response. I said that, when I went out to consultation, I wanted to hear all views. The FICT recommended that we have a mandatory system of notification. I stopped short of that. I think that a voluntary system is a better balance of human rights. I have taken on board the consultation responses. When I looked through all the comments, it was clear that a large section of society took the opportunity to respond. I appreciate everybody's efforts.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is fine. I understand. You have explained that. You have been an MLA for a lot longer than I have. We often get email campaigns, and, regardless of what the issue is, we get emails all the time that are exactly the same, sometimes from our constituents and sometimes not. I felt that maybe the way in which you phrased that skewed the consultation in some way, regardless of what it is. Do you accept the validity that some people will reply, especially to consultations, and may —? If a consultation is about something connected to sport, for example, a football club will send something out to all its members and say, "If you agree with our position on this, you can send this in". Do you accept the validity of each of those individual responses, even though they are very similar in nature?

Ms Bradshaw: There is no question that I really appreciate it. We had over 8,000 responses. There is no question about the validity of those responses. All I am saying is that I want to reflect and continue to pursue my Bill. If I had stopped at question 2 and said, "OK, a number of responses have said, 'Let's allow flags for proscribed terrorist organisations to continue to fly'" —. As you say, I have been in my constituency for 10 years, and I am very much described as being a community-based legislator, so I know the feeling on the ground. I will be out tonight, tomorrow night and Saturday night, knocking on doors in my constituency. I know that, in the areas that I represent, there is a strong sense that people feel frustrated and do not want to see those flags up.

What I am proposing today is not necessarily a reflection of the feedback that I have received, because a lot of people who support me and engage with me do not want to see any flags at all. I feel that I have struck a balance that allows flags to fly and allows people to celebrate their cultural heritage, sporting background, etc while putting in place a framework that means that flags are not flying in perpetuity, turning to rags and almost disrespecting the cause that they were erected to commemorate.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): The next sentence of paragraph 1.5 says:

I had a look at the consultation. How did you know that it was skewing it towards a unionist perspective?

Ms Bradshaw: OK. We received responses from Moneyslane Flute Band, the Chosen Few Royal Black Preceptory, the Upper Crossgar Loyal Orange Order, the Ballylisk —. I have a full list. Under each question, respondents were given an option to comment, so that statement was based on those comments.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is fine.

Ms Bradshaw: It is there. I feel that it is robust enough, and I stand over my commentary.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I will go on. Paragraph 1.7 of your consultation is about the costings. It states:

Then, further on, paragraph 8.1 states:

Have you considered — you touched on it in your evidence, Paula, but did not really go into it — what happens in cases in which a Union flag — or an Irish tricolour for that matter — is flying and people want it down. If the Bill is passed and the flag is reported, someone, maybe from DFI or the police, will be sent to take the flag down. Do you have any quantifiables for how much it will cost to take a flag down?

Ms Bradshaw: Yes. A paper produced by the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) was supplied to the Committee and stated that it would cost in the region of £143 per removal and that the overall cost would be just shy of £29,000. That has been worked out independently. I appreciate that, if there is a specific portal for this issue, more people will report, so I am not saying that that is exactly what the cost will be, but it will be in that ballpark — not millions of pounds but tens of thousands of pounds. There are businesses in my constituency that would feel that that was money well spent: they are trying to attract customers from all sides of the community to the area and feel unable to do so because there are so many flags in it. They also have staff members of different religious and cultural backgrounds and just want to operate and do business in an area that is free from demarcation by one side of the community.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): The flags that we are talking about that have gone up in this example are not proscribed; they might be national flags. There may be a couple of flags in an area, and then, when this all happens, DFI will go, along with the police, and take those flags down. That costs whatever it was — it may be £300 for a couple of flags. An additional 10 flags might then go up because people might feel really frustrated and decide, "This is our flag, and we want it to fly here". DFI and the police would then have to go back and take those flags down. Do you accept that going back and forward like that could get incredibly expensive?

Ms Bradshaw: In my opening remarks, I said that you could consider an amendment to include an additional offence in the Bill so that there is transparency as to why departmental officials have determined that they will go in and remove flags in a certain area, with that determination being published and publicly available so that, if people decided to put them up again, there would be the potential for another fine or something like that. At the end of the day, as a society, we should not be dictated to by mob rule. If this Bill becomes law, we will have to provide resources to the Department to create shared spaces where flags can be respected and flown in a way that is not excessive and does not offend or intimidate some people from using that shared space.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): This is my final question, and then I will pass to some other colleagues to ask questions — Andrew is up next.

You said that, in developing the consultation, it ought to be recognised that the Bill permits the Department to consult "such other person ... as appropriate". There is no specific requirement for the Department to consult or seek the views of local community groups. In developing the Bill, what was the rationale for not making it an explicit requirement for DFI to consult community groups?

Ms Bradshaw: The consultation that I was referring to was on the code of practice.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Yeah.

Ms Bradshaw: In clause 1(4), I have included:

so there is a consultative role for the Department, which is explicit in clause 1(4)(b).

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): So that would be people —. Read that clause out again, Paula. Sorry.

Ms Bradshaw: Clause 1(4) states:

It would also have to refer to any views that are expressed on the portal. There is, therefore, a clause on consulting local people on their views.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): OK. That is based on those in the vicinity of the flag rather than on the wider community, so not if it is not a community group that was "in the vicinity". Is that correct?

Ms Bradshaw: I suppose that I have not gone so far as to put a definition on that. There will be secondary legislation and a code of practice for those finer details. All that I have put in the Bill is the principles and how it would operate. I am sure that there is a definition of "in the vicinity" somewhere in the Department for Infrastructure. There is, however, a clause specifically on consulting.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is fine. Thank you, Paula. I may come back in at the end.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Ms Bradshaw. You made the point that, in nine years, there have been two suspensions and a pandemic. That puts it into context, but it is a story as old as time in this corner of the country. You talked about the evidence for the Bill. Do you agree that the evidence is all around us when we see paramilitary flags and the use of flags to mark territory and cause intimidation across the board?

Ms Bradshaw: In the last few days, we have seen a number of press articles on the issue, and we have seen a banner go up on public land. Whilst we in the room view a lot of this in the realm of flags of a particular nationality, we have also seen a lot of billboards and posters that are racist in nature. We should allow our public space to be freely used by everybody. It is really about the public space. I went for a drive up the coast on Sunday. I went through Glenarm, which is a lovely village, and there were Union flags and Ulster banners everywhere. You go to the next town, Carnlough, and there are tricolours and other flags. Those places are for tourists and local residents. They should be for everyone. I do not think that we should allow a very small minority in those communities to almost say, "There's a domination of national identity in this community over that community". As you say, 28 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, we should be long past such examples of demarcation.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Paula. You mentioned the Fleming Fulton example. I see a similar example as I drive to work. There is a new housing development, and as soon as the lights went up, there were two flags either side of the entrance. Ultimately, much of this is about making our streets and public spaces as welcoming as possible for everybody. How does the Bill advance that?

Ms Bradshaw: I specifically included new housing developments in the list of sensitive places, because we have all seen examples of that. I have a pile of press statements, from political parties and representatives from across the Chamber and beyond, about people expressing deep concern about the fact that flags have been put up just outside new housing developments to try to show dominance and imply that only people from a certain background should buy a house there.
In the last couple of weeks, I spoke to a constituent who had persuaded her husband, who is from west Belfast — they are a cross-community couple — to buy a house in south Belfast. She said that, as soon as they put the deposit down on the house, flags went up. I know the area. I am sure that the people who put up those flags will have travelled at least half a mile to that location. It is very frustrating for people who work hard, pay their rates and their taxes and want to live in a shared neighbourhood to find that somebody has taken it upon themselves to try to demarcate territory and mark one community's dominance over the other. Society has moved way past that now, in my opinion.

Mr McMurray: You referenced your drive up the country. I reference my cycle along the border. On that cycle, I kept a rough tally, and I found two examples of overt political expression from one side, and I lost count of the other examples. As you said, every party across the board has, at various times, challenged the presence of flags, billboards and political slogans. Do you agree that your Bill will help solve instances of flags or suchlike being put up for the purposes of intimidation and exclusion?

Ms Bradshaw: I will start by going back a wee bit. To reiterate, I want to see the use of flags for celebration and commemoration. Parts of my constituency such as the Lisburn Road are traditional marching routes, and local people have said, "As long as the flags come down at the end of the summer". There are people who fully respect the unionist tradition to put up flags in such areas. However, we know that there are other flags. Recently, we saw the headline:

That was done purely for intimidation purposes. What I have tried to do is strike a balance. If members of the Orange Order want to put flags around their lodge and have a bit of a celebration around the Twelfth etc, that is totally different, in my opinion. I worked in the Village, which is a loyalist community, for 13 years. There were celebrations for coronations and royal weddings when bunting was erected, and there was a wonderful community atmosphere. I stand over what I did at that time to support the community to celebrate those wonderful events, but we need a framework to strike a balance on the occasions where flags go up, and DFI have to take them down with the support of the police. When people are trying to move on and live in mixed communities, such as Craigavon, we must allow them to live and raise their children without the green and orange segregated communities that we grew up with. Society has moved on, and we need a regulatory framework around the issue.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Chair.

Mr McHugh: Tá fáilte romhaibh, Paula.

You mentioned nine years, but I have been dealing with the flags issue for a lifetime. It is a perennial issue in my community, which is almost 70% nationalist. Every year, at the beginning of June, the area is decorated with Union flags. I respect the special occasions that you mentioned. When the Orange Order decorates the area for 12 July, the flags are usually put up on a specific date and taken down after the parades, and that is grand. Another small group of people, who are not representative of the community in Castlederg, have the ability to put up flags all over the place, because no one will interfere with what they are doing.

No one wants politics in their face for 365 days of the year. It does not matter what flag we are talking about; nobody needs that. It is a difficult problem to deal with, especially when the people who create the angst in a community bury their head in the sand, pretend that it has nothing to do with them, take no responsibility and do not engage. I engaged with the PSNI just last week about flags in my town, and the PSNI does attempt to communicate with some of the groups. How do we get to the stage where there is political buy-in? We need the political buy-in from all parties, and then we can, perhaps, isolate the small, unrepresentative groups who create angst in communities.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for the question. The 2005 flags protocol was almost a voluntary arrangement, but it did not work. I have a copy of it with me. The authorities will get to the point of consultation, but the flags are not removed. I will not rehearse the years of disputes, but we ended up with the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition. Some £800,000 was spent, and many people spent their time and energy responding to consultations and attending events. Whilst there was no firm recommendation, there was a consensus that a code of practice was needed and an agreement that the status quo does not work. I have tried to take the principles of that work and reflect them in a Bill.

On your point about flags being put up in an area by a minority of the residents, we are all minorities in Northern Ireland. If we are going to move forward under the principles of the Good Friday Agreement with mutual respect, we have to provide space and time for people from an Orange Order or a GAA background. I am happy to give a recent example from my constituency. Shared space does not mean neutral space, but any displays must be done in a way that is respectful, not excessively long and with transparency around who put the flags up and clarity about when they are coming down, and that is the purpose of the online portal.

Mr McHugh: When I refer to a minority, I am not talking about a minority community per se. I am talking about a small group within a community, and the people taking responsibility for putting up those flags are probably creating much dissension within their own community, which would resent that type of approach to the flags issue. I am sure that you will agree that, until we get to the stage of having political buy-in by all parties, rather than some burying their heads in the sand and pretending that it is not an issue, we will not get to a point where we have progress on the whole flags issue.

Ms Bradshaw: I am very frustrated, and I do agree with you. I have examples of all political parties expressing concern. The issue of the billboard, which I mentioned in my opening remarks, would be covered by the Bill, as well, with a presumption that the Department must act.

We have to move on from that, and I hope that I have struck a balance so that members see that it is not about trying to neutralise public space but about providing a legal framework through which everyone can express their cultural identity but have transparency around that.

Mr McHugh: When you talk about public space, we may be referring to shared space that is often in town centres and was developed as a result of, say, a council providing the funds to ensure that it is shared space. That is one area that should be addressed. This year, in particular, I have never seen as many flags as have appeared in a whole lot of towns. I keep asking where all the money is coming from to put up those flags because it is not done for nothing. It is a perennial issue that I have been involved in for a long number of years — a much greater number than nine years with all respect — and I am sure that it will be there for many more years until parties grasp the nettle and say, "A better future is there for all of us. We should take this on board and recognise and respect each other".

Ms Bradshaw: I should have clarified that I started working on the Bill nine years ago. I have been an elected representative since 2014, so it has been an issue in my inbox since then.

You are right that parts of the Bill specify one site or location over another as communal spaces. However, there are other areas. I have an estate in my area in Belvoir where there are mixed marriages. One woman from a Catholic background has a flag outside her house but says that she does not want it taken down because people would then identify that she lives there. That is why I included, in clause 1, "excessive period of time" so that flags are not up all year round. People can say, "Yes, I understand that they are up for cultural expression — the Twelfth, the marching season — but I don't want it there in the midst of winter when it is tattered and torn and hanging by maybe only one clip". That is why the Bill is, in my opinion, balanced; it takes account of different scenarios where people may be frustrated when flags are up for an excessive period of time.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, Paula, for coming today. Is it now the case that you are not proposing to have what has been referred to as a Parades Commission-type body?

Ms Bradshaw: Yes. I met the Parades Commission on a couple of occasions. As I said in response to the Chairman's questions, I do not want this to be incredibly bureaucratic and time-consuming for individuals. That is why the online portal would be a voluntary way by which people could say that they are putting up flags. In other words, "They're going up the length of the Ormeau Road. This is why we're putting them up, and this is what we're celebrating". That would not be mandatory. We do not want to set up another body. Legislation relating to the Parades Commission was passed at Westminster, so we would have to get an amendment to that, and I certainly do not want to go down that route. All that I am trying to achieve is something that is practical and workable but is also clear and transparent so that everybody understands what is involved.

Mr Dunne: You will be aware of updates to the Terrorism Act 2000, and the PSNI's new service instruction that was announced earlier this year, which refers to responding to complaints about public displays. What are your thoughts on those developments, and do they in any way negate the need for your Bill?

Ms Bradshaw: You will see that very little of my Bill is linked to flags of proscribed organisations, although we have put that front and centre in clause 1(2). The new section in the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which will come into force here, updating the Terrorism Act, is a welcome development. Up until now, the police, in practice, have been able to take down flags from a proscribed organisation only for the purposes of evidence. Now, they will be able to take them down on the basis that they feel that they are intimidating, antagonistic, illegal and so on. In many ways, that legislation rows in behind, complements and sits alongside what we are doing here. My Bill is really about shared space, and it is about all flags in any other walk of life, including national flags, Pride flags and sporting organisations' flags, that in themselves are perfectly legitimate and are respected by everybody or by certain sections of society. It is really about how those flags are able to be displayed in a way that is sensitive to the need to reflect everybody's rights.

Mr Dunne: For clarity, you envisage that it covers all flags, as you have mentioned, including sports. You gave quite a range of examples. That is very much your view and vision on that.

Ms Bradshaw: Yes.

Mr Dunne: What about emblems? Is that included where billboards are mentioned? How far does it go?

Ms Bradshaw: It is, primarily, about the space that is owned and managed by the Department for Infrastructure. That includes the railings. In the instructions to the drafter, I said that it was to include posters, bunting, big banners across a road on a railing, billboards and so on. It is about where people put those up and can voluntarily notify, for example where there is a community festival. I always give the example that Bredagh GAC put flags up when there was an All-Ireland final and then they came down again after two weeks. People were asking, "What are those flags? Where are they from?". Once people heard why the flags were up, they said that that was fair enough because they knew that they were coming down. It will govern all aspects of communal life, whether that is a royal wedding, a sporting event or even Pride or some other event, for example an environmental project. It is to allow a framework through which people can fly their flags and erect stuff in a public space.

Mr Dunne: The phrase "unintended consequences" is often used with Bills. Do you feel that there are any with this Bill? Could it potentially distract from where the focus should be, on tackling the root of the problem, particularly where paramilitary flags are in place, and ensuring that paramilitaries, ultimately, do not exist anymore?

Ms Bradshaw: I do not think that it detracts from that at all. My Bill, in many ways, tries to redress the balance that a lot of residents, business owners and so on feel. They see flags going up and feel very frustrated. They say, "Who put them up? This is a mixed area". I will not repeat what I said about that. In some ways, this is about, as I said, a reasonable person test. That involves asking whether a reasonable person would say that it is fine to put certain flags up over the summer and setting out, if the answer is yes, why. It is about trying to take ownership and agency back for the people who live and work in those communities as opposed to having a situation where, as was outlined in the previous question, a very small minority of people go into an area, put flags up and move along to the next area, not necessarily having a connection to that community.

Mr Dunne: Finally, you touched on the consultation. Do you feel that you maybe were dismissive of some of the consultation replies because you may not have liked what they were saying?

Ms Bradshaw: No. As I said, when I set out, I was very much looking at the suggestion from the FICT commission for a notification system where every flag had to be notified and all the details had to be provided. I have said that I will take account of that suggestion through establishing an online portal. Some of the other questions related to the duration, and people said that their marching season is far longer than what had been set out. In response to that, I have not included any stipulation that flags can fly for only one month. I have to respect and want the Department to respect the fact that some communities may say that the marching season is from June until September. I have listened to the consultation feedback.

Mr Dunne: OK. Thank you, Paula.

Mr McReynolds: I have two quick questions, Paula. I got to grips with FICT a couple of years ago, when there was an Assembly debate on it. The FICT report mentions respect a lot. I was sitting in a coffee shop in east Belfast last year watching flags being removed. The individuals who were doing it and, clearly, had put them up were ripping them from lamp posts and shoving them in a plastic bag. How is respect reflected in your Bill? How were you mindful of it in the context of the FICT report?

Ms Bradshaw: As I said, the Bill includes a duty on the Department to consult on a code of practice. I will pick up on the Chair's previous question. I have stated which government bodies and statutory agencies would have to be consulted, but I imagine that it would be put out to public consultation as well. The respect piece would sit in the code of practice, which would be very much a guiding principle for the Department's decision-making. That flows from the respect piece in the Good Friday Agreement that set up this place. We need to start from the premise of respect for the flag, so that it is not up for a long time and allowed to become tattered; respect for the community in which it is displayed, so that it is not up for an excessive time; and respect for the occasion, so that it is done respectfully — I keep using that word — meaning that it is done in such a way that people understand that it is for celebration, not for demarcation.

Mr McReynolds: My second question touches on Stephen's point. As a sitting member of the Policing Board who has spoken to the Deputy Chief Constable about the service instruction, I think that bringing that out was well intended on his part. However, at the previous Policing Board meeting, we heard that, although officers have that service instruction, DFI needs to play ball with the police. That has not taken place. Initially, we saw good work on the removal of clearly contentious paraphernalia in, I think, Rathcoole that was at shoulder height. When ladders and cherry pickers are involved, you need DFI. Have you had any engagement with DFI on whether there is an appetite for something more, such as your Bill?

Ms Bradshaw: I have met DFI officials and Ministers in the past. The reason for the Bill is to give absolute clarity on whose responsibility it is. I am placing the responsibility with the Department and saying, in clause 6, that, if it needs assistance from the PSNI, it should seek it and it will be available. The more that we can make it look like a Roads issue, the better. Flags, emblems and banners are sometimes hung in a way that makes you think, "Gosh, that is so hazardous". The online portal will allow people to say, "Look, I have no problem with the flag, but it is hanging off". The way that flags are hung on the Westlink sometimes makes you think, "If they come off and land on a lorry, someone will get killed". The Bill is to give full clarity that the responsibility lies with DFI, with support from the police. If the Bill passes Second Stage and the Committee shapes it, the issues that are raised can be dealt with and the duties can be tightened up to give even more clarity.

Mr McReynolds: Flags are a bigger issue than ever, specifically in my constituency of East Belfast. A constituent sent me the response to an FOI request about flags that had appeared in East Belfast where they had never appeared before. The response to the FOI stated that DFI had not removed any flags in 2024, 2025 or the duration of 2026. None had been removed from its street furniture across Northern Ireland. For that reason, clarity is really important. I am minded of another area in East Belfast, where flags are erected by people who are not from that street or even that part of East Belfast. Residents conducted their own survey, and 87% of residents said that they did not want the flags on their street. There has been engagement with those who put up the flags. I will not get into the stories that I have heard about that and the engagement that I have had, but we need clarity so that people know who is putting them up and for how long. I am not against cultural celebrations, but people need to know who is putting them up, how long for and why they are going up. Clarity is all that people want, and your Bill seeks to achieve that.

I have just gone through what you have just gone through in presenting to the Committee. Unfortunately, we are not proceeding to a call for evidence, which, I am sure, you hope to achieve. That will go to a vote after you have finished. What do you say to the Committee about the importance of having a call for evidence, as happened, for example, with the Autism (Amendment) Bill and the Regional Balance Bill?

Ms Bradshaw: You have given examples. As I said in my opening remarks, we have had two prolonged periods of suspension, one of which was at the start of this mandate, so we have had a shortened mandate of three years. Were it not for that, I do not think that the Committee or I would have been worrying about the remaining weeks. I think that there are 13 meetings of the Committee for the Executive Office once we get back. That is not a long time if you have a call for evidence for eight weeks and then you start to do your Committee scrutiny stage, so there is a practicality issue in that regard. As you said, there is the fairness issue, because other Bills have gone out to consultation.

Obviously, I would say this, but there is balance in the Bill. I do not think that the proposals are as contentious as those that people probably thought that I would bring forward. If people genuinely look at how it would flow, I think that they will see that there is merit in allowing it to be further scrutinised after Second Stage.

I come back to your previous point about the FOI request. I saw one about the preceding number of years from the Department. I think that it has removed maybe one or two because they were hazardous, but there is also information about how many times it consulted the police. There was no action off the back of that. That is an indictment, and another reason why we need the Bill. When people bring forward legitimate concerns about flags going up but there is no action, there is an imbalance. It never goes in favour of the people who do not want them up; it always goes in favour of the people who do. I think that the Bill will helpfully balance that out.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Paula, I have just one more thing to ask. It is about clause 1(3)(a). As I said, this is the first sight that we have had of the Bill. It has not reached Second Stage, so it has not been debated, and so on. My understanding is that it would put a fair amount of onus on the Department for Infrastructure. I suspect that that is why you are here, rather than with the Executive Office Committee. Clause 1(3) states:

I want to focus on the phrase:

and clause 1(3)(a), which states:

That is about whether a flag or emblem is offensive, abusive or insulting in the opinion of the Department. Am I right so far?

Ms Bradshaw: Yes, but clause 1(4) states:

That is when that comes in.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I see that. Ultimately, it is the decision of the Department for Infrastructure as to whether, bearing in mind —. Is it clause 4?

Ms Bradshaw: It is clause 1(4).

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Yes. It is about whether a flag or emblem is offensive, abusive or insulting in the opinion of the Department. Will those terms be defined? I suspect that, if you were to go around the Committee, you would hear a range of views on whether flags were offensive in one way or another. How are you planning to deal with that? It is not my job to stand up for the Infrastructure Minister — it is my job to scrutinise her — but, if this Bill were to become law tomorrow, the Minister would have to look at clause 1(4) and say, "Well, this flag is offensive, but that flag's not".

Ms Bradshaw: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is quite a vires to put on the Minister.

Ms Bradshaw: I do not imagine that that clause will relate directly to national flags, for example. As I said, we should all respect everybody's national flag. That clause is probably more for the billboards or posters that we have seen going up that are very racist in nature or very much against one political party. I think that there has been something in that regard in the past 24 hours. Again, similar to the Parades Commission, the code of practice will be the guiding principles when it comes to looking at such things. The consultation will tease out what that means.

The Executive Office has a good relations duty, but I have kept this within the Department for Infrastructure because I want to move it away from the binary approach that we take to so many things. I want it to be about the public interest and what should happen with our street furniture to keep it safe and to keep our public spaces free for everybody to enjoy and visit. The best people to have responsibility for managing that should be the Department that owns and manages those structures.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Paula, thank you so much for presenting —. Apologies, Justin, your name is not on my list. Away you go.

Mr McNulty: Paula, thanks for coming in, and thanks for your evidence and the intent of your Bill.

What data do you possess on the status quo? Flags and emblems are located in particular areas. What is the status quo? Which areas have a prevalence of particular flags, emblems and memorials? Do you have data to show where they are erected, where they are legally erected and the implications that they have for house prices, for example?

Ms Bradshaw: First, none of the flags is up legally, at the minute. As I said earlier, there is a grey area in that space. Academic studies show that there is a correlation between house prices and areas that see a lot of flags and those that do not. However, that is not necessarily what I am trying to achieve, per se. To pick up on another point, my Bill is certainly not about memorials. I have purposely avoided that issue, because that would need a stand-alone Bill. I do not have the data, but, obviously, the life and times survey, which goes out frequently, asks questions about the issue, and there is a leaning towards people saying that they would like their public spaces to be free from flags. My Bill is not about that. It is about trying to strike a balance between those people who want to put them up and those who do not.

Mr McNulty: You mentioned billboards. What billboard were you referencing?

Ms Bradshaw: The billboard that the Committee has considered. There were contests over whether it was a Sinn Féin billboard. If people want to erect such billboards in land that is owned or managed by the Department for Infrastructure, they could, but, if, based on the clauses and the code of practice, the Department felt that they were creating tensions within a community or were not good for community relations, they could be removed.

Mr McNulty: Does the Bill include posters, for example, that are up 24/7, 365 days a year? In south Armagh, there is a Sinn Féin poster at every junction on the road and gap in the hedge, 365 days of the year, marking Sinn Féin's territory, saying, "This is ours. This is our space". Does the Bill cover things such as that?

Ms Bradshaw: Yes, absolutely. The Bill is about flags and emblems. That is why I have not gone for just the display of flags. There is a list, but I thought that "flags" and "emblems" were the neatest two terms. The online portal is not just for people voluntarily notifying that they are putting them up or have put them up; it would also allow people the opportunity to express views on them. That would trigger the Department's looking at them, with the presumption that it would remove them unless the local view was that people wanted them to stay up.

Mr McNulty: It will be the Department's responsibility to remove illegal propaganda points.

Ms Bradshaw: I would not necessarily call them "propaganda". Anything on which people had expressed a view, on the online portal, that they had gone up to create an illusion of dominance of one political party, cultural identity or national identity would fall under this.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): C'est fini

, Paula. Thanks for coming to the Committee.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you very much, everyone.