DUP says Alliance MLA's flag removal bill 'risks repeating past mistakes' and that taking flags down should be 'voluntary'
The DUP has said that the removal of flags should be done on a “voluntary” basis by “agreement”.
The party was reacting to a new bill by Alliance Party MLA Paula Bradshaw which would make it clear that the Department for Infrastructure must remove certain flags from its lampposts and railings.
The TUV has described the bill as “an assault on Unionist culture dressed up as ‘balance’".
The UUP has also been asked its position, as have the SDLP and Sinn Fein.
The DUP, in a statement from the party in general, said: “We opposed the establishment of the Parades Commission, which continues to place illogical and disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression and heighten tensions rather than de-escalate them.
"New structures proposed by the Alliance Party governing the display of flags and emblems would risk repeating past mistakes, not learning from them.
"The focus in this area should be on addressing concerns through voluntary action and agreement not by imposing regulations that run contrary to the principles of mutual respect and cultural accommodation, whilst also burdening statutory agencies with additional bureaucracy and cost at a time when vital public services are already under significant pressure.”
The Display of Flags and Emblems Bill was laid before Stormont on Tuesday, and Ms Bradshaw was quizzed about its provisions by MLAs on Stormont’s infrastructure committee the following day.
Ms Bradshaw told MLAs that the cost of enforcing her new law would be in the tens of thousands of pounds, not in the millions, citing an estimated figure of £143 per removal.
She also made clear that it would not just cover terrorist flags but national ones if they are deemed “intimidatory”.
Specifically, it says that flags must be removed if "in the opinion of the department" they are paramilitary in nature, "intimidatory or threatening", or "likely to stir up hatred or arouse fear".
Next, there will be a presumption to remove if a flag is in a "sensitive" area and is deemed "antagonistic, or not conducive to good community relations" or as "demarcating that place as belonging exclusively to persons with a particular national or cultural identity".
The definition of “sensitive” area is broad; the bill suggests it could include shopping centres, arterial roads, new housing developments, parks, "a place where public services are provided," or "any other place that persons of all national and cultural identities could reasonably be expected to have access to".
A statement from TUV Strangford candidate Jonathan Jackson said: "Let no one be fooled by the emollient language of 'balance' and 'respect' wrapped around this bill.
"What Ms Bradshaw has actually introduced is a mechanism by which the Sinn Fein controlled Department for Infrastructure – advised by a Code of Practice shaped by the discredited Fresh Start Panel on the Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition process — will be handed a duty to strip legitimate expressions of British identity from our streets.
"This is Parades Commission mark two.
"Unionists will not be deceived by the rebranding.”
He said that it gives officials “sweeping discretion to take down the Union Flag and other legitimate Unionist and Loyalist emblems, while taking no measures against Irish language street signs”.
He also said the bill lacks “a serious attempt to define what actually constitutes support for a proscribed organisation”, saying for example: “Is a 1912 UVF flag, honouring men who died at the Somme, to be treated as paramilitary regalia?
"Will the same rigour be applied to the Starry Plough or to flags of a foreign republic flown to mark territory in this part of the United Kingdom?
"I think we all know the answer to that.
“This is a one sided instrument aimed squarely at Unionist culture.”
He added: “Let us also not forget who is bringing this forward.
"This is the same Alliance Party that pursued the removal of the Union Flag from Belfast City Hall and sought to strip it from war memorials – a move overturned by the courts.
"Alliance has no credibility, and no standing, to now present itself as an honest broker on flags and emblems.”