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

Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on 14 September 2026.

MLA

Mr David Brooks

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 5686499

Read the official Assembly record

Text

During my interventions in the first iteration of this debate, I said that the Bill was well intentioned. To some degree, I still believe that the intention behind it is genuine and well meaning and that it was an attempt, perhaps, to start the ball rolling and look for a compromise. From my point of view, however, is not good enough to present a Bill with the idea, "Here is what I want to happen. I do not really know how to do it. I do not even have much flesh on the bones of what the structures would look like or the criteria by which decisions would be made. I have not given much thought to it or, at least, those thoughts have not led to any defined solutions or structures as to who would make decisions on a plethora of more challenging or blurred areas, but I am going to throw it into the system anyway, more, I suspect, in hope than expectation that I get something. If not, I can always use the politics in the run-up to the election". You could sum that up otherwise by using the words of Sir Humphrey in 'Yes, Minister', whose idea was that politicians will decide that, "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, this is what we must do". That is how this seems. I do not mean to be derogatory or insulting, but increasingly, as we listen to the debate, I find myself less and less able to take the Bill as a serious attempt. My position is clear; I have no problem with the flying of our national flag. As the Bill sponsor and many others have said, and I agree, it is motherhood and apple pie for those of us who care about our nationality and our flags. However, I do not want to see them being left up to be tattered and torn. I hate nothing more than seeing them, late into the year, flying tattered from a lamppost.

If those who undertake to celebrate their culture and express their identity in that way — in my party's case and in my case, it will be to show our Britishness; for others, it will be a tricolour to show their Irishness — are enthusiastic about putting their flags up on a lamp post, they should be equally enthusiastic about taking them down before disrespect is shown to them. I said when asked previously that I, too, have engaged on behalf of constituents who are concerned about where a flag has been placed or do not like it being near or beside their street. Mr McReynolds has pointed to at least one example of that, and it happens in most weeks every year. Sometimes, people in those streets will have varying views, and it is a complex situation to deal with, but I will always reach out in good faith if I am aware of who has put the flags up. Sometimes, there is the perception that it is always paramilitaries, but it is not. Cultural groups, community groups, lodges and so on put them up for various celebrations. I always try to reach out in good faith and mediate or see whether a solution can be found. Sometimes that is successful; sometimes less so. However, all of us in the House, regardless of our identity, try in good faith to find accommodations among our constituents. In the first day of debate, I heard the proposer talk about protocols, which I found interesting. My recollection of the protocol in South Belfast is that the Alliance Party, unlike the Green Party at the time, categorically dismissed it and refused to support it. That protocol made sure that Union flags and Ulster flags, not paramilitary flags, were to be flown and would be brought down at a certain time. It sounds very much like the proposals that the Member is introducing, yet my understanding — I stand to be corrected — is that it did not enjoy the support of the Alliance Party in the way that it did of other parties. The Member also said either to Mr Gaston or Mr Carroll — I am not sure which; I think it was Mr Carroll actually — that she had answered some of the questions during the first debate. There is no doubt that the proposer kindly took intervention after intervention, but, often, after an intervention, there was a lack of substance to the answer. Those questions were not answered. One such issue is one that I put out there. I have made it clear, before anyone tries to question it, that I oppose the flying of UDA and UVF flags or flags attached to the IRA — any paramilitary flags — in our neighbourhoods. Nevertheless, that does not allow us to dismiss some of the complex issues that the Bill will raise for the Department or for the people on whom we will put those responsibilities — that "absolute duty", as Mr Burrows said. I heard something mentioned today that needs to be dealt with, and I will give way if the proposer wishes to deal with it. How will we deal with flags that are dated 1911, 1912, 1914 or 1916? We can all think of one iteration that is often used and perceived to be flown as representative of the modern-day paramilitary UVF. There are many other iterations — some of you will have seen them across your constituencies — that commemorate battles and parts of history, but they include what, we all know, is a UVF badge. As someone who, like Mr Buckley, had relatives who served at the Somme and elsewhere in World War I, I am wary of the idea that we should allow modern-day paramilitaries to take those symbols as their sole preserve. Those things matter very much not only to me but to my community. There have been and will be times when those flags — I own some of them — are appropriately flown, such as at the Balmoral review centenary and other events, and I have wanted to buy one as a memento to commemorate that event. I will give one example. How will we deal with the familiar commemorative flag of the 14th Battalion Royal Irish Rifles, also known as the Young Citizen Volunteers (YCV)? That flag has battle honours on it and features the names of battles such as Somme, Ypres, Messines and Passchendaele. It will, no doubt, be perceived by some in our community as relating to the modern-day YCV, which is seen as the youth wing of the Ulster Volunteer Force of today. How will we square that circle? It does not matter what we think of those flags or what we perceive them to be; what matters is that an absolute duty will be placed on DFI — so we are told, but the Bill sponsor was not sure about it last time — to deal with such flags and make those decisions. Why should we expect other people to make decisions that we are not prepared to make or draw parameters and lines that we are not prepared to draw?

Absolutely.

Absolutely. That is clear in the Bill. Member after Member has drawn attention to that fact and read out the text of the Bill that shows that to be demonstrably true, yet, on the first day of the debate, the Bill sponsor was unclear. In fact, I am pretty sure — I will give way if she wants to provide clarity — that she suggested that, if an agency owned the property, it would be responsible for it. If it were a Housing Executive property, the Housing Executive would be responsible for it. Presumably, if a flag had been put up on private land, that person would be responsible for it. It gets complex, but the Bill says that it is DFI. The Member is looking at me, and I am happy to give way if she wants to clarify who would be responsible in that case.

It may have been established, but anyone in the Chamber who has had to have graffiti removed — I suspect that that may be most of us —.

Yes, I am happy to give way.

I absolutely would. It is concerning. The answer to every question that does not seem to be known by the Bill sponsor is to say, "Look, we will throw it to the Committee, and it will sort it out". That is not the way to bring a Bill to the Floor of the House. As I was saying, any Member who has tried to get graffiti removed from towns and villages or, as is the case for us in Belfast and areas of Belfast, streets will know that you can follow a merry trail in trying to find out who owns a property or which agency is responsible for it. You can do that for grass-cutting, never mind anything else. How does the Member propose to deal with that? As the Minister clarified last time, I think, the vast majority of flags might go up on lamp posts, but that is not always the case. The Member drew attention to the Billy Wright flags and "Snipers at Work" signs, which I talked about during the previous debate. Again, I stand to be corrected, but my recollection is that, given their wooden nature, the "Snipers At Work" signs were more likely to be put up on BT wooden beams that could serve as posts than on the metal lamp posts of DFI with which we are familiar. Those things need to be considered. If something were to go up on a property that belonged not to DFI but to a different agency, is DFI still the responsible agency? The Bill says that it is, but the Bill sponsor was unclear on that point in the previous debate. In fact, she suggested that whichever agency owns the property would be responsible, but that is not what the Bill says. The Member can shake her head, but, nevertheless, that is the truth. I will give way if she wants to clarify that. I return to the flags that I was talking about. How will she ensure that names such as those featured in battle honours from World War I and flags that are the preserve of those of us whose relatives served in those battles are not, through the Bill, labelled as the property and lineage of modern-day paramilitaries?

The Bill sponsor will feel that she is closing loopholes, but I am afraid that she is opening Pandora's box.

A range of issues that the Bill does not deal with have already been discussed in the Chamber. As we have said, it is fine to draw a comparison between a Billy Wright flag and a "Sniper at Work" sign, but the vast majority of cases will not be that clear-cut. We received some assurances last time about the national flag — the Union Jack — but the Bill sponsor's colleague Mr McReynolds seems to think that the Bill will present the perfect opportunity to tear down the Union Jack from streets that are part of the route of the 1 July Somme commemoration parade in east Belfast. Is that the Bill's intention? I am happy to give way if the Member wants to clarify.

I do not see the clarity in it because your colleague Mr McReynolds, who sits behind you, seemed to suggest

— sorry, I did not give way — that the Bill would be the answer to that issue. He has raised my comments from last week with some of the residents with whom he is familiar on that street and sees the Bill as an opportunity to bring down the Union flag along the route of the Somme commemoration parade in east Belfast. The Bill sponsor, as well as dealing with the many holes in her Bill, may want to talk to her colleagues to make sure that they are familiar with what it means, because they seem to be confused about it.

Absolutely.

2,027 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