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 5686217

Read the official Assembly record

Text

There is no consideration of areas where flags are traditionally flown and have always been. I said last week that location is the key matter, and the police will tell you that. What is considered a problem in one area will not be considered offensive or a problem in another area, so location is key, but there is no wording in the Bill to reflect that. The Bill talks about a flag or emblem demarcating:

"that place as belonging ... to persons with a particular national or cultural identity".

I get a small number of letters each year from people complaining about flags. They are usually complaining that they have been left up for too long, and I do not support flags being left to become tattered. Indeed, at election time, I usually find myself taking down some tattered flags from lamp posts, usually at the request of a resident who is fed up with the remnants of a flag flapping after it has been up for a year. I do not support flags being left. They should go up and then be brought down in a respectful manner, not least in respect of the flag itself. I get a small number of complaints each year, and that includes from areas where people say, "I do not want flags flown at all". Usually, I do not know who has put the flag up, but, if it is considered a problem, I do not mind speaking to people to ensure that flags are brought down at the end of the marching season, so to speak.

What I receive much more regularly, however, are letters about Irish language street signs that have been imposed on residents against their wishes. Earlier today, I said that that is causing real resentment. Where we can build cultural appreciation, we do not do so by imposing things on people against their wishes, thus culturally branding their area. It is up to those parties on Belfast City Council that brought in that policy to change it, because it is up for review in the coming months. I am talking about the Alliance Party, Sinn Féin, the SDLP, People Before Profit and the Green Party.

I am finished with that point.

I have said what I needed to say on that matter. That is the cultural branding that is causing offence.

I will.

Indeed. I will come on to that clause now. I heard the Alliance Party last week say, "Oh, we are not talking about a flags commission". If you read the wording in the Bill, however, how else could it be described? Clause 3 states:

"The Department must establish a procedure ... for example via an online portal, whereby— (a) a person may notify the Department— (i) that they have displayed, or wish to display, a flag or emblem, (ii) their reasons for doing so, and (b) members of the public may— (i) notify the Department of the display of a flag or emblem, (ii) give their views on the display of a particular flag or emblem".

People will therefore have to apply to put up a flag, and people who object to it can notify the Department of their objection. What will happen then? The Department will have to have a process in place to consider requests and objections. That is a flags commission. Again, instead of fixing potholes or repairing roads and water gullies, DFI officials will be setting up that whole structure. I say again that the Bill has been devised by the Alliance Party just for the optics. I know that flags and emblems are an issue of frustration for some residents, but this Bill has all the appearance of saying, "Oh, we tried to do something about it". It is totally unworkable, however. If we want to address the issues, we have to work with local communities, engage with them and listen to their concerns, respect community identity and build consensus. By way of illustration, over the past couple of years, some interface structures that were deteriorating were taken down in the Twaddell Avenue, Woodvale Road and Crumlin Road area of north Belfast. Last year, an old fence along an alleyway between Twaddell Avenue and Mountainview Park was taken down. In recent weeks, a deteriorating metal grille fence that had been added above the wall at Holy Cross chapel along the Woodvale Road has been removed. It was deteriorating and starting to fall apart, and the credit for that outcome belongs to Department of Justice officials, the Twaddell Woodvale Residents' Association (TWRA), with which they engaged, and those residents who live facing the fence along the Woodvale Road, who consented to its removal. I also liaised with the Department, the TWRA and local residents in order to ensure that they were informed and content. What was not appreciated in that community was Alliance MLAs Nuala McAllister and Naomi Long turning up in the grounds of Holy Cross chapel last week and recording and posting a video in which they took the credit for that fence being removed. They said that the peace wall was removed by Naomi Long, who had been working with residents over a number of years. I have never seen Alliance MLAs on Twaddell Avenue or the Woodvale Road. I am reliably informed by people on the TWRA committee that the Alliance Party has never attended any meetings with Woodvale residents on that or any other local matter. I therefore advise the Alliance Party that that has not gone down well in that community. I have received text messages complaining about the actions of the Alliance Party taking credit for other people's work and taking it away from the community group that did the work to persuade that community.

I gave that illustration as it is all about working with people, building relationships, getting your hands dirty, going to meetings, knocking on doors and respecting people's identities and concerns. The other situation that I described is the antithesis of community engagement. The Bill is unworkable. It is designed to create an impression of dealing with an issue rather than to be practicable. There are matters that we can all agree on in this debate: paramilitary flags should not be flown; and legitimate flags should be flown for a limited time and not left to become tattered. However, in dealing with those matters, it is necessary and essential to engage with communities, rather than think that the solution is to create a statutory flags commission within the Department for Infrastructure. That is not that Department's primary responsibility; the responsibility lies primarily with the police and with communities.

1,108 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Uncertain: close call Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials

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