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

Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on 14 September 2026.

MLA

Mr Brian Kingston

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 5686181

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Yes, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I certainly agree that the Bill is written in a way that would make it very hard to fly any flags, including our Union flag, anywhere. You can go to any country, such as America, France or elsewhere in the UK, and, at times, people want to be proud of their national flag and fly it. The Bill would make it almost impossible to fly it anywhere. It is very clear — Alliance denied it last week — that the Bill is trying to pass all the responsibility on to Department for Infrastructure officials. The responsibilities and judgement calls sit properly with the Police Service for Northern Ireland. Of course, the PSNI is an arm's-length body, when it comes to its management, of the Department of Justice. I wonder therefore whether this is about distancing the Alliance Party's Justice Minister from responsibility for these matters. Look at the actual wording of the Bill. Clause 1(1) states:

"The Department" —

of Justice —

"must remove a flag or emblem that is attached to public street furniture and displayed in a public place".

That is not just DOJ street furniture but all street furniture in any public place, the criterion being if:

"it is in the public interest to do so."

Clause 1(2) explains what the "public interest" is and how that is defined. It 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" —

so, already, we are expecting Department for Infrastructure officials to draw up their opinions on those matters —

"the flag or emblem is intimidatory or threatening ... likely to stir up hatred, or arouse fear ... or is the flag or emblem of, a proscribed organisation."

We can all agree that the flags of proscribed organisations should not be flown. There is unanimous support for that in the Chamber. However, as I said last week, a decision on whether a flag or emblem is intimidatory or threatening, stirs up hatred or arouses fear is a matter for the police. You are actually saying that it is a criminal offence. If it is intimidating or threatening somebody, that is not for Department for Infrastructure officials to address. They are too busy looking after their duties, such as clearing gullies, filling in potholes and looking after our roads and water infrastructure. In clause 1(3), we get a wider definition of "in the public interest". It states:

"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— (a) the flag or emblem is offensive, abusive, or insulting, ... is ... in the vicinity of a sensitive place" —

we will hear more about that shortly —

"(i) is antagonistic, or not conducive to good community relations, or (ii) demarcates that place ... or ... is a public hazard."

Again, it is about creating a DFI police force that will go around making judgement calls on flags — not just whether they are considered to be intimidating or threatening but whether they are offensive. Offensive to whom? That means that, if anybody considers a flag to be offensive, they can put in a request to have it removed. That is a very low threshold, and that is why I say that it is utterly unworkable. The Bill talks about a flag or emblem being:

"in the vicinity of a sensitive place".

Then, in clause 2, we are given a definition of a "sensitive place". It states:

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

we get a definition of that shortly —

"(b) a shared communal place," —

we get a definition of that shortly —

"(c) an interface area, (d) a new housing development, or (e) a place of worship."

Clause 2(2) states:

"a place where public services are provided"

includes:

"(a) school, (b) medical facility, (c) leisure centre, (d) library, (e) any other place where public services are provided."

A "shared communal place" is a:

"(a) shopping centre, (b) arterial road, (c) public park, (d) any other place that persons of all national and cultural identities could reasonably be expected to have access to."

By way of example, would flags be allowed on the Shankill Road? Every year, the Shankill Road has Union flags and streamers along it from the middle of June until the end of September, but it is a main arterial road and has shops along it and a public park. It has a school, a medical facility, a leisure centre, a library and other places where public services are provided. Presumably, if anyone objected, according to the wording of the Bill, Union flags would have to be taken down along the Shankill Road.

Yes, I will give way.

827 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