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 5686398

Read the official Assembly record

Text

That brings me to this thought process. There are laws in place at the minute; does anybody know why the Justice Minister is not pushing the button to ensure that those laws are followed? I would have thought that the Members giggling in the corner would be happy to speak to their party leader and ask why the PSNI is not fulfilling its duties in taking down flags with which, time and again, issues have been raised. They are happy to say nothing to their Justice Minister, their party leader, yet they support this Member's Bill to try to force upon unionism the erasure of the national flag in the vast majority of places across Northern Ireland. Bring in this think tank and this portal that people will have to register with to ask for permission, saying, "I want to fly the flag of my country", and provide associated details, but, yet again, nationalists will pay little to no heed, because they do not care about the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Clause 3 requires the Department to establish a reporting mechanism through which anyone may complain about a flag and submit views regarding its display. Mark my words: that will inevitably invite organised campaigns across Northern Ireland. They have done it with parades, and they will do it with flags if we in the Chamber are silly enough to give them the provision to do that. From what I have seen of the Bill — I stand to be corrected by Ms Bradshaw — there is no requirement for complainants to live in the area that they are complaining about. They do not have to show —.

If I can finish this point, Ms Bradshaw, I will certainly bring you in. From what I have read, the complainant does not have to show that they have been directly affected or that any genuine harm has been caused by the flying of a flag. While the views of nearby residents "must" be considered, they will not prevail, so anybody from across Northern Ireland could drive past the national flag, say, "I don't like that" and go on to the portal. The Bill does not state that they have to live within a certain distance of the flag or drive past it every day to be offended. I heard it said once that offence is a choice, and there are quite a few in the Alliance Party and nationalism who like to be offended. I am happy to give way, Ms Bradshaw.

There you go. I must have answered the question that I put out. I will move on. Even when —.

I am happy to give way, Mr Brett.

That shows that the overwhelming majority of residents who live in an area could and would support the flying of a flag, yet somebody else or an organised group of people who put in objections could force the issue to get the flag removed. That is, indeed, a recipe for a heckler's veto. Far from reducing conflict around flags, the Bill risks generating more conflict, more anguish and more community turmoil. The Bill also encourages those erecting flags to notify the Department in advance of what they intend to do, what will be displayed and how long it will be displayed for. I will say that anybody who puts up a flag absolutely has a duty to take it down before it becomes tattered, but this is state overreach into cultural expression. We are told at the beginning that notification would be voluntary, but, if advance notification becomes a weighting factor in a flag's removal by DFI, communities will inevitably feel under pressure to register their intentions with the state in the first instance. Today's voluntary notification could easily become tomorrow's mandatory system. Clause 4 requires the Department to produce a code of practice, which I have already mentioned. The code of practice would govern the display and removal of flags, including what constitutes an "excessive period" of display. I have not seen the code. As I look around the Chamber, I do not see anybody nodding their head to indicate that they have seen that code. I doubt that the Minister has seen the code, given that she does not realise that the wide-ranging powers in the Bill would apply to her Department. We are therefore being asked to approve extensive enforcement powers without knowing the detailed rules under which they would operate. Will the code recognise the traditional marching season? Will it recognise long-established cultural practices? How many flags would it deem excessive? Will organisers be expected to identify themselves to the Department? I suspect so. I go back to one point: how many flags would you deem excessive, Ms Bradshaw? I imagine that one Union flag would be excessive to many in the Alliance Party, but I do not agree with that. That is what brings this back to the thought police in the Alliance Party. The questions that I have posed are not answered in the Bill. What we have heard, in absolute bucket loads from the Bill sponsor, is whataboutery, but that does not replace the need to place the details in the Bill. I move to the list of consultees, and that is very telling about the direction in which the Bill sponsor wants the Bill to go. We have the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission, the Community Relations Council, the PSNI, the Housing Executive, the Executive Office and district councils, but there is no guaranteed consultation with the Orange Order, the Apprentice Boys, the Royal Black Preceptory, marching bands, veterans' organisations, football clubs or loyalist cultural groups. Those are the people who should be consulted, because they are the people who are targeted by the Bill. There will be no consultation with those who are most affected. Indeed, the enforcement powers contained in the Bill should cause every Member concern. Anyone who obstructs the Department or its contractors during a removal operation commits an offence. The Department may also seek assistance from the PSNI where obstruction or disorder is anticipated. Let us be realistic tonight about what that means: a complaint is made, civil servants apply their subjective criteria, contractors move in to remove the Union flag, the police accompany them, local residents object, and those who obstruct the operation risk the fine and prosecution. That is not a recipe for improved community relations; that is a recipe for confrontation. The Bill will increase tensions, which is the opposite of what is needed in Northern Ireland. Equally concerning is the absence of basic procedural safeguards. The Bill contains no clear statutory right to advance notice of disclosure or removal. As an MLA, Ms Bradshaw, can I write to the Parades Commission mark 2 — whatever it may be called; we do not have a name for it yet — to ask for a disclosure of complaints? Can I get in writing the reasons why a decision has been made? Can I ask for an internal review from the Parades Commission mark 2 or for an independent appeal before a removal takes place? Will it be the case that, in the dead of night, contractors will be tasked to go into areas and take down flags? Is that the intention? The omission of the right of appeal should give us all serious concerns. When my party responded to the original consultation, the TUV described the proposals as creating a "Parades Commission-style" system for flags. The Bill sponsor's explanatory and financial memorandum confirms that the Parades Commission was consulted during the development of the Bill. The similarities are obvious to all those who have taken the time to read it. There is a notification that there are objections; there is a code of practice; there are subjective judgements about the location, context and community relations. Does that sound familiar to anyone? There are restrictions on other authorised cultural expressions. There is police-backed enforcement. Does that ring any bells for the discredited Parades Commission? The Department for Infrastructure may administer the scheme, but many of the defining characteristics are strikingly familiar. Unionists have had bitter experience from what they have seen and where that road can lead to. All we have to do is to think about Drumcree, what has been exposed recently and how unionism has been taken for granted. I can assure the House that it would be a rerun of that scenario for the new body that has been proposed.

I have to touch on the Linfield Football Club flag controversy. It should provide Members with another warning of what the Bill is about. Alliance promoted the Bill using a graphic referring to abusive flags that included a flag bearing the Linfield club crest. Linfield understandably raised concerns and objected to it. The Alliance Party later argued that the flag had been intended as an example of an acceptable cultural display. My goodness, is that the best that the Alliance Party can come up with? Talk about keeping digging the hole that it has landed itself in, but let me fast-forward.

I am happy to give way to Mr Brooks.

Indeed. That added to the embarrassment of the gaffe that the Alliance Party made and that it continually makes. Talk about poking an old wound and reliving past gaffes. In coming to a close, I say that the Bill would reward intimidation and penalise peaceful communities. It would reward those who register when they put up flags. We do not even know for how long their data would be stored in the system. Nobody knows, because nobody has even thought about it. The explanatory and financial memorandum acknowledges that the costs "cannot be quantified", but, and this is where a coach and horses were driven through the Bill, it states that it is only the Department, namely DFI, and the PSNI that would incur the anticipated administrative costs. It states that, for the PSNI:

"it is assumed that each removal requires one hour of time from two Constables and one hour of Inspector time ... per removal, assuming no additional support is required. On that basis, and applying the above estimated 195 incidents per year",

removals alone, as a result of legislation that the PSNI's parent Department had not enacted, would cost close to £30,000 a year. Make no mistake about it, however: the removals that the police do not attend will be the ones that will cause the problem. The ones that the police do not currently attend are the ones that generate big bills. It is not just a matter of the policing operation there and then, in order to hold the hand of the contractor appointed to take the flag down, but of the aftermath: the community fallout that would inevitably result from the legislation. I therefore caution Members, whether it is the denial of cultural expression or the astronomical costs associated with the Bill —.

1,827 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.