Debate contribution: Display of Flags, Emblems and Banners

Debate contribution by Mr Doug Beattie MC on 30 April 2024.

MLA

Mr Doug Beattie MC

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

30 April 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Display of Flags, Emblems and Banners

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4487323

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Flags. The Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition lasted for over three years, produced a report with 17 chapters and over 180 pages and cost over £800,000, yet this debate is about flags. There is so much more to the issue than flags, and we need to consider all of that. Let us talk about memorialisation, for example. The number of murals and memorials to murderers far outstrips the number of memorials to victims. They are up there 365 days a year. Victims have to walk past them 365 days a year, yet we are not discussing them. Why? Flags. There is a sense — I hope that I am wrong — that the motion is trying to find fracture points in communities. I hope that it is not. It is the same as the call-in that we had on Ards and North Down Borough Council about flying the Union flag over war memorials. That is really important to our community, yet it was called in and stopped. That creates a fracture in communities. Here we are with the FICT report, with all its chapters, as I have just discussed, and we have pulled out a chapter that singles out flags. Flags: national flags, GAA flags, football flags, commemorative flags, Orange Order flags and Ancient Order of Hibernians flags. Are those flags more intimidating than murals of terrorists wearing balaclavas or holding guns or memorials to terrorists who terrorised? Flags. Let me be direct: there should be no flags of any kind to paramilitaries — none at all. They are offensive and illegal. They attempt to legitimise those who went out to murder and create mayhem. Even today, they are an insidious and malign influence in our community. Those who found themselves in a terrorist organisation or a paramilitary group during the dark days of the Troubles must look and realise that, if they do not want our children and grandchildren to live through what we went through and make the mistakes that were made during the Troubles, they should not fly those paramilitary flags. They can remember their dead: just do not do it at the expense of victims. I like the idea in the motion of lawful authority for the flying of flags. That would give lawful authority to those who put them up and to where they are put up, so that they can do it safely. That can be done under the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 in exactly the way that we all put our posters up on lamp posts, sometimes keeping them up there for up to two months. Why not? I also support the notion of flags going up on a specific date and that we all know when they will come down again. They should come down at a specified point. I do not support the burning of any flags. I do not support the burning of national flags. I have spent my life in the service of my country, and I have stood beside coffins draped in the Union flag: I do not want to see it burned. In the same way, I served with people from the Irish Republic who were buried with their coffins draped in the tricolour: I do not want to see it burned either.

Let us not disrespect either. Do not let anybody misappropriate anybody's national flag.

I will get into that in a moment, if that is OK. I want to stick with the theme that I support flags not being flown around places where public services are delivered, such as hospitals, health centres, leisure centres and libraries. We had an issue at Craigavon Area Hospital, where flags were up all the time at the roundabout, but people have worked hard to get them removed. I do not know whether that will happen this year, but people worked hard. Here is the rub to this whole debate. Are we here to listen and really make a judgement or have we all turned up with our pieces of paper and already made a judgement before anybody opened their mouth to say anything? Before I uttered a word in the debate, I was told that our amendment could not be supported. Let me try to see whether Members really want to debate and really want to see whether we are on the right side of this. The motion states that it:

"endorses the proposed code of practice"

in the FICT report. Guess what? There is no proposed code of practice in the FICT report. What it refers to is "a possible code of practice". It goes on to say:

"the Commission is not in a position to recommend a code of practice".

How do I know that? I was on the FICT for three years. I was part of the discussions for three years. I know for a fact that nobody would agree a code of practice. There is not one in the report.

The motion proposes that the Assembly:

"endorses the proposed code of practice for the respectful display of flags at paragraph 11.48".

Paragraph 11.48 does not say that. It says, quite clearly, "possible code of practice". Therefore, there is nothing in the report that says that there is a proposed code of practice. My amendment tries to bring the motion back in lane so that we can support it. Let us be honest that the report states:

"In 2005 the Office of the First Minister & deputy First Minister (now the Executive Office) published a flags protocol."

It continues:

"The evidence suggests that there has been little or no improvement in the years following the development of the protocol."

Why do it again? If you put it to the centre and it does not work, why do it again? It will not work, and that is what this motion is doing. It is putting it back to the Executive Office, and it will not work. The FICT report also says:

"The Commission was made aware of locally agreed solutions and the development of protocols around the type and time flags are flown. Some people said that such an approach was helpful in making progress on this issue at a local level."

The report said that local community groups and local civic groups made progress. I work with a group in Portadown called Regenerate, which the Member will know very well. That group worked extremely hard from 2015 to come up with a flags protocol. It fundamentally changed the flying of flags in the town of Portadown and stretched out. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. There are huge issues there, and I will go back to the flying of paramilitary flags. I cannot support the flying of paramilitary flags of any shape or form, but that group worked hard. If we try to bypass civic groups and community groups such as that one, all you will see is more flags. I get it that the Member is frustrated. I get it that all of us are frustrated. I am absolutely frustrated about this. I do not want to see flags flying all year round and going into tatters; I really do not. However, to fix the problem, it is not just to throw it towards TEO and say, "Come up with enforceable rules, and they will all stick to them". The FICT report did not say that. Not once did the FICT report say that, but there is an opportunity to make changes —.

I do not have time, unfortunately. Sorry. There is an opportunity to make changes. I tried to table an amendment that would get us back into line on this and that would acknowledge those community and civic groups and the work that they do, and it was batted off out of hand. I cannot support this motion, because it is simply not factual. It states that it will endorse the "proposed code of practice" that was recommended in the FICT report, but none was recommended in the FICT report. I will say this to the other Members who are sitting here: how can you support this motion if it is not factual? You simply cannot.

1,371 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:02 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