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

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 14 September 2026.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

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 5686301

Read the official Assembly record

Text

What we have here is, once again, the thought police on patrol. They are out and about, telling MLAs what they should and should not think and saying to members of the public, "This is good legislation. We're going to police how you think". What I mean by that is that what I think about putting up a flag and the reasons of somebody down the road for doing so could be different, yet this legislation looks at the intent of the person. That creates thought policing, what I would describe as "subjective whataboutery" draped in the title "Display of Flags and Emblems Bill". I will recap where we are tonight. I go back to an intervention from the Minister. The Minister asked:

"to get a wee bit of clarity on your last point"

— this was to Ms Bradshaw — and continued:

"You said that DFI should take responsibility and that it is about the property within DFI's responsibility. My understanding of the Bill is that it relates to all property, regardless of whether it is DFC or DOJ. It is not just DFI property specifically. I just want some clarity on that point."

Then the Bill sponsor came back to say:

"It is primarily DFI property. Are you saying that it could be the like of Housing Executive land or something? Is that what you are intimating?"— [Official Report (Hansard), 7 September 2026, p73, col 1].

We are in a situation where the Bill has got to Second Stage, and the Minister — this is no slight on the Minister or DFI — does not even understand the Bill or where its intended purpose and remit place the responsibilities. Is it the case that, if someone were to put a flag on the bandstand in Ballymena town centre — a council-owned asset — DFI officials would be the ones charged with taking that down? The explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) refers to:

"staffing implications, particularly for the Department and the PSNI"

but does not say anywhere that it could be the council in the case of such a structure. We have got to this stage in the Bill process, and nobody is even clear who has responsibility for taking down such a flag. Even if it is not on a DFI asset, is the DFI responsible?

I will happily give way to Mr Frew, if he can clarify.

There we have some clarity. I would have expected the Member who brought the legislation forward to get to her feet to defend her private Member's Bill (PMB), but no.

I am happy to give way to Mr Clarke.

I am more confused. I am only a Back-Bencher, co-opted these past two years, but I am learning every day. I am learning that not all legislation that comes to the Chamber is good legislation.

In order to refresh my memory, I noted down a few points from the last time. We have clarified that Northern Ireland Electricity assets are DFI's responsibility. Similarly, Fibrus infrastructure is DFI's responsibility. If there is a banner at a church hall from a pro-life group displaying a botched abortion, that is for DFI to deal with. If there is a mural on the side of a housing association building, that is for DFI. If there is something on any public realm works have been carried out by councils, that is for DFI as well. Ms Bradshaw would give DFI wide-ranging scope to interfere with private property that that Department has no business being on. To be clear from the start, if it is terrorist-related, it should come down. It is the thought process of subjective whataboutery that I cannot stand. It has driven a coach and horses through the intent that, I believe, was behind the Bill. Mr Brett is right that policy on terrorism is a reserved matter. What are we really getting at with the Bill? It is clear that the Alliance Party is trying to come for cultural identity and, in doing so, is happy to sacrifice the national flag. It is somewhat ironic to consider where we find ourselves tonight. We are often lectured by the great and the good of the Alliance Party that we need to move beyond flags, yet this is now the second day on which we have been debating flags in the House. It is the Alliance Party that has chosen to create this row about flags. If the Bill were to pass into law, what a holy row it would be. The Member has introduced a Bill that has no support on this side of the House bar Mr Carroll, I imagine; he will speak for himself. In the consultation, unionism was bitterly opposed to it, yet the Bill sponsor pressed ahead with it regardless. The proposal has to go on, because, at the end of the day, the Alliance Party took the flag down from City Hall and will not be happy until it has cleansed the national flag from lamp posts across this country.

At the heart of the Bill is the extension of the state's reach into the lawful expression of national, cultural and, indeed, commemorative and sporting identity. That is where the Bill is headed. That brings me back to the thought police in the Alliance Party. The Bill gives civil servants the power to remove lawful flags because they are considered offensive by some: by some, not by all. It gives that power to the individuals who are making the decision. Where flags are considered to be offensive, insulting, antagonistic, as we hear, or damaging to community relations etc, the decision is down to the thought process of someone in the Department. Mr Burrows used the example of a Liverpool flag. My goodness, if a complaint came in and it was a Man United supporter who received that complaint, I would have to support him, and that flag would have to come down from your house, Mr Burrows. DFI officials would be sent round to take it down. Terms in the Bill such as "insulting" and "offensive" do not provide narrow, objective legal tests. They are not crafted by a KC; they are broad, subjective and politically sensitive judgements. That is why I say that the Bill is subjective whataboutery. That is why the Bill crosses a very important line. It moves beyond enforcing criminal law that already exists into regulating cultural expression. Many reasons to oppose the Bill have come up in the debate, but, for that reason and that reason solely, I oppose the general principles of the Bill. Clause 1 highlights the problem. Subsection (2) deals with flags connected to threats, hatred or support for proscribed organisations. Existing criminal law already addresses such issues. I support the police in going into areas to take such flags down. Subsection (3) goes much further, however.

It creates a presumption in favour of the removal wherever, in the Department's opinion, the flag is "offensive, abusive, or insulting" or:

"not conducive to good community relations".

The Alliance Party will drum that up. That is why the Bill includes "a new housing development". Alliance does not want the national flag to fly on lamp posts; it wants to create a problem with that. We talk about "offensive". Offensive to whom? How many people must be offended? Is it one, 10, 90? Nobody knows. What exactly is meant by "antagonistic"? What constitutes harm to community relations? The Bill does not define any of those terms. It is subjective and depends on how someone interprets the Bill. That "someone" is DFI, where responsibility squarely lies. The Union flag is the lawful national flag of this part of the United Kingdom, yet the Bill provides no specific protection for the Union flag. That shows the intent of the Bill. It gives no protections either for the Ulster banner; Orange flags; lodge and district banners; military and regimental flags; supporting flags; royal commemorations; Somme commemorations; or traditional displays associated with the marching season. The Alliance Party wants to get rid of all of that. It wants to dial that down and dilute it. Not on my watch, Ms Bradshaw. If the Bill is primarily about paramilitary flags, that is certainly not evident in its blue pages. Celebration and commemoration are factors that the Department "may" consider. I always love the use of the subjective word "may". It is not "will" consider; it is "may" consider. They are not exemptions, and exemptions will not be conferred, so there would be no positive right for me to display the national flag. Indeed, the presumption runs in the wrong direction. Once one of the factors in clause 1 applies, removal is presumed to be "in the public interest". Let us walk through that. If somebody goes on to the new, fancy portal and puts in their objection to a flag flying down the street or outside their house, the presumption is that, in the public interest, it will be removed. We should not entertain that. It would then be up to the communities to persuade the state why their national flag should be allowed to remain flying. In a free society, the opposite principle should apply. Lawful expression should be presumed legitimate unless the state can demonstrate compelling and clearly defined grounds for interference. We have not seen that in the Bill. It is a case of, "This is a general principle. This is what we are trying to do. The Speaker is closing the deadline. We have to get this in or we're going to miss the boat". There was no thought process as to what would happen once it went into the Chamber. The code of practice? Members will not see that. Let us look at clause 2. It compounds the problem that I have been trying to set out as a lowly Back-Bencher. Clause 2 compounds the problem through an extraordinarily broad definition of "sensitive place". What is "sensitive" to one might not be deemed sensitive to another. The Bill regards:

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

as sensitive places and states:

"The Department may regard the following as a place where public services are provided— (a) school, (b) medical facility, (c) leisure centre, (d) library".

That definition covers the majority of Northern Ireland.

One could say that that relates to any village or town across Northern Ireland, where people will have to abide by the thought police's new law on flags.

I am happy to give way to Mr Clarke.

That is something that I would hope Ms Bradshaw will soon get to her feet to try to defend. Take Cullybackey, for example. We had the mini Twelfth there this year, and it was very well decorated by the local Orange lodge. You are driving along the main street and you see the school proudly flying the national flag. On the one hand, if the exemption is for a school, it is allowed to fly the flag, but, on the other hand, if somebody would dare to put the flag up outside it, on a lamp post, they would be deemed to be in breach of this law, and that is very concerning indeed.

I am happy to give way.

I do not see Ms Bradshaw making too many notes on the questions that are coming up. She must have a better memory than me. I hope, Mr Clarke, that Ms Bradshaw will take up that point. The other troubling thing about that is when the Bill refers to "in the vicinity". "In the vicinity" might be different to me than it is to someone else. Jon Burrows is in my vicinity at the minute, but some might say that it should mean 10 metres, 20 metres, half a mile or 2 miles. There is nothing in the Bill to define what "in the vicinity" is. Once again, the legislation simply provides no answer. Let us move on to clause 3.

I am happy to give way.

Yet the Alliance Party wonders why I call it nationalists' little helpers. Once again, it has shown by its thoughts, words and actions that that is what it is indeed trying to do.

I am happy to give way to Mr Clarke.

I imagine that they are treating the Bill with the contempt that it deserves. Regardless of what is passed in this place, they will not care. One of the most fundamental problems with the Bill is that those who will abide by the law of the land will go on to the portal, rightly or wrongly — I would say that anyone who does so is foolish — to put their name to a flag that went up at such and such a time. Nationalism will not care. Do you think that somebody who turns up to give a monologue for Thomas McElwee will try to convince the people of mid-Ulster to fill out a permit to fly a flag?

I am happy to give way, Mr Brooks.

That is a case in point. In its history, the law has not been strongly followed, if that is the right way to put it. Its bedfellows in the terrorist wing will happily stand under and march behind those flags at commemorations, so it has no intention of abiding by any law that would be put in place. You could not even shame them. The brass necks on some of the ones sitting across the Chamber mean that they would lecture unionists on what they have to do regarding the flag of their country. It is all a pawn in the game, and the Alliance Party is once again happy to be that pawn and to move around the chessboard for Sinn Féin and the republican movement.

I hope that, come the election next year, unionists will remember that when Alliance candidates go to get their transfers. They are giggling and laughing in the corner, but time will tell, Mr Honeyford, in Lagan Valley, Andrew McMurray — I do not even know what constituency you are in — and, in East Antrim, Mr Donnelly. In East Antrim, I would certainly not be laughing about trying to take down the Union flag.

I will move to clause 3.

2,393 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Flagged 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?

A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.

If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.