Debate contribution: Bonfire Regulation
Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Bonfire Regulation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5111412
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion. Every summer, we witness the same problems and see flags, effigies, political posters and other racist and sectarian symbols placed on bonfires. That is not a reflection of unionist celebration or culture; nor should it be portrayed as such. Those who place such items on bonfires do a disservice to the wider loyalist and unionist community. Every summer, we also hear reports of bonfires being built on land close to houses, play parks, electricity substations for public services, and so on. Over the years, I have been contacted by landowners — for the record, I have never been contacted by the Meridi Street landowner — desperate to find a way to prevent the collection of bonfire material taking place on their land. That desperation is not borne out of any negativity towards the tradition per se; it is out of fear that something will happen to one of the bonfire builders on a site for which they are not covered by insurance. It is important to be clear: many bonfires are for celebration and commemoration and are considerate of everyone in the nearby neighbourhood. They go ahead without contention and are enjoyed by local communities. It is that positivity that we must focus on. The bottom line is that bonfires must be lawful, safe and respectful. Anything else is a threat, in the immediate term, to good relations and, in the longer term, to the ability of that community to regenerate and attract inward investment. This year alone during the Eleventh night celebrations, there were 72 bonfire-related incidents reported out of a total of 194 incidents dealt with by firefighters. On the night of 11 July, the Fire and Rescue Service received 277 emergency calls, which was more than double the number received the previous year. That tells us that the problem seems to be escalating, potentially in isolated and repeat locations, but there is an issue that needs to be dealt with. In recent years, we have seen countless injuries, a death and even firefighters attacked while carrying out their duties. We all have to ask ourselves how long we should allow that to continue and at what point we should finally say that enough is enough. As I have said many times in relation to my private Member's Bill on the display of flags and emblems — I repeat the same sentiment here today — it is not about removing tradition nor policing culture; it is about respect, safety and building communities in which celebration does not come at the expense of others.
That is why I call for support for the implementation of the FICT recommendations.
I suggest that the motion would have been more successful had it, instead, called for leadership from the First Minister and deputy First Minister on the establishment of a cross-departmental programme board with oversight from the Executive Office, because this is not a problem for one Minister or one Department — they cannot resolve it in isolation. Rather, a united approach is needed across government. The problem requires collaboration between the Environment Agency, the Housing Executive, the PSNI, the Fire and Rescue Service, the Department for Infrastructure, councils and, most importantly, local communities. It also requires that the wider questions of landownership and responsibility be addressed. Too many sites that are used for bonfires sit in the grey area that I mentioned earlier, where landlords are either absent or unwilling or unable to secure their property. If celebrations take place on contaminated or unsecured land, the issue presented is not cultural: it becomes an environmental crime and a threat to public safety. We need coordination, clarity, accountability and robust —.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I agree with Mr Brooks that there are successful community bonfires across Belfast city and beyond, but we need our community leaders to step up whenever there is a serious —.
I will. Go ahead.
As someone who comes from a background of urban regeneration, I like to see brownfield sites in our inner-city areas being regenerated. There are alternatives, such as beacons, and there are other ways in which we can make bonfires safer and reduce the threat to the public. I take the Member's point that we need to respect tradition, but we have to do so in a way that is safe. I am conscious, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am running out of time. Whilst legislation and regulations, the need for which were identified by the FICT commission, are in place, they are not properly overseen. We need a refresh so that we can look at how to implement the recommendations of the FICT report. We need leadership, cooperation, action and those regulations. Our communities deserve safe celebrations, free from hate and harm.
795 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.10 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.88).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.98).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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 | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.09 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.10 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.17 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.12 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.02 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.66 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.29 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.05 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:15 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.