My Lords, I apologise for delaying the Committee for some minutes. I completely abandoned my toasted teacake to get here very quickly; I had mistaken the time.
The Minister is right that it is a technical change, of course, but it reflects the significance of flags in Northern Ireland. This was a cause of great bewilderment to me when I first went there so many years ago—25 or 30 years ago—including the fact that one saw the Palestinian and Israeli flags: the Israeli flag generally in loyalist areas and the Palestinian one generally in nationalist areas. It reflects identity, not as Palestinians and Israelis—those are political choices—but rather the identity of people as they see themselves.
The law is clear. The flags to be flown on public buildings are flown on them because those buildings are part of the United Kingdom. Clearly, if the rules change in Great Britain, they should change in Northern Ireland as well.
It is quite interesting to read the Assembly’s proceedings on this particular statutory instrument. It was, as always, an intriguing and interesting debate that reflected the wider view on flags in Northern Ireland.
On balance, the issue has been dealt with sensitively over the last two decades, but there have been some notable exceptions, such as over Belfast City Hall some years ago, which caused a great deal of fuss. You have to be very careful in what you do about flags. It is pretty clear that this particular change was initiated by the palace. Noble Lords will ask why for themselves—I think it is pretty self-evident—but the commemoration of the birthdays of all the royals has had to be abandoned on the flagpoles of Northern Ireland as a consequence of what I think this change resulted from. The essence of this is that what happens in Britain happens in Northern Ireland as long as it remains part of the United Kingdom. Even if it did not, it would still have to have sensitivity about flags. However, it is still part of the United Kingdom, so I support the statutory instrument.