Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- 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 5686435
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am happy to give way to Ms Bradshaw if she wants to come in and provide us with costings, but I presume that that will be another question that will be put down for her summing up and to which we may or may not get an answer. We would have operating systems, investigations, plenty of officials, contractors, removal operations and potentially police deployment. We would have all that, but let us get back to the bread-and-butter issues. At a time when our road network is crumbling, when potholes remain unrepaired, when many constituents are submitting claims, and DFI is refusing to pay them out, can the Department really take this on?
Can the Department do that with its current manpower? Perhaps there is a big wad of money coming here. Maybe the Bill sponsor is talking to the Finance Minister and we can expect the rabbit to come out of the hat in her summing up, but I sincerely doubt it. Resources are scarce, and all that Alliance Party Members want to do, from their leafy areas of Northern Ireland and from their ivory towers, is put more onerous responsibility on DFI. Just last week —.
I am happy to take —.
I am not. It is Mr Martin.
Absolutely. All that I have to do is look at the angry emails that I have received today about our road conditions. If the Bill sponsor would like to go on a road trip to North Antrim, I would like to show her where money could be better spent. It could be spent on the Duneoin Road or the Moboy Road. Indeed, I could take her to Clough Primary School, where people are pushing for additional parking. DFI has stated that there is a car park on the other side of the road that they could use to facilitate additional car parking, but that would require people to cross a busy road. DFI says, "We'll not provide any more parking because there's a free car park across the road, but, by the way, we're not willing to put in a crossing to allow the weans to safely cross the road to access it". Those are the bread-and-butter issues that everyday people care about. People in leafy, urban, well-off areas might not care about them, but people in working-class areas certainly do. DFI will not provide the crossing or additional parking in that example in Clough village, but, under the Bill, it would be expected to move in and remove flags from lamp posts.
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that I said that I was bringing my remarks to a close. However, since you thought that the context was well set and the point was well made, I will take that as a given. It is quite clear that the Bill sponsor and the Department are at odds and do not understand who is responsible for what. It is quite clear that the Bill sponsor wants DFI to go into unprecedented territory: to be the thought police and to go on to private property that is not its own and remove emblems that people may deem to be offensive. The biggest shock, however, is that the Alliance Party, not happy at having pulled the flag down at City Hall, now wants, through the Bill, to extend that to other parts of Northern Ireland. If it is willing to say that a Linfield flag as an example of something that is not acceptable and will not be permitted, there is no flag in the country that displays any cultural celebration at all that will be safe from the Alliance Party. On that basis, I trust that Members will go through the Lobby to vote against the Bill.
Hear, hear.
632 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Uncertain: close call Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials
Uncertain: this record is published but not counted in any total.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.72 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Cultural grievance politics (0.61); Dog-whistle messaging (0.79); Controversy escalation (0.64).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.51).
- Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
- The answers did not meet either automatic threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.48 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.33 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.61 | Yes |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.79 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.64 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.42 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.72 | Above flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.21 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.05 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.23 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.51 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.99 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
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.