Debate contribution: Bonfire Regulation

Debate contribution by Mr Stewart Dickson on .

MLA
Mr Stewart Dickson
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 5111517

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Perhaps, I can paint a slightly different picture of where the Alliance Party is coming from in respect of the matters. The Alliance Party has been clear: we recognise the wish of those who want to celebrate their culture with bonfires. At best, bonfires can be a genuine celebration of culture, history and community spirit. They can be opportunities for people to come together to mark that tradition and enjoy an event. However, celebration should never come at the expense of respect, safety or the law. The Alliance Party believes that all bonfires across Northern Ireland must meet those three clear principles: all bonfires must be respectful, safe and lawful. That is a reasonable ask of anyone. First, bonfires need to be respectful. Sadly, this summer, too many were anything but that. We saw sickening displays of effigies of political leaders, election posters of me, my party colleagues and many others in the Chamber and even grotesque racist imagery. In July, a bonfire in Moygashel was used to display and burn an effigy of a migrant boat complete with life-sized, dark-skinned mannequins in life jackets. That was not a celebration of culture; it was a blatant act of racism and hatred. Such displays have no place in any society, let alone a shared one. Secondly, bonfires must be safe. I cannot stress that enough. That is not just about fire safety, although that is critical; it is about protecting nearby homes, businesses, electricity substations and even hospitals. Just this summer, a bonfire in south Belfast that was built alarmingly close to an electricity substation put the supply to two major hospitals under threat. I was a patient in Belfast City Hospital on the day of that fire, and my outpatient appointment had to be transferred to the Royal Victoria Hospital because the City Hospital was under threat as a result of concerns about that substation. That is not just reckless; it is indefensible. We must remember the tragic loss of John Steele, who fell 50 ft to his death from a bonfire in Larne. The safest way forward is to replace the traditional bonfire structure with a prepared beacon, a purpose-built structure that would be safely —.

Yes, I will.

I recognise that children and young people get involved in the collection of wood. That includes vandalising trees and pulling apart pallets and things like that.

When that includes vandalising trees, pulling apart pallets and doing things like that, then I do not agree with you. Where I do agree with you —.

Stop shouting "Shame" at me. I agree with you that it is appropriate for young people to collect bonfire material, but let us try and move on to beacons.

We are also faced with the problem of toxic fumes from unregulated collected material. Contaminants, even including asbestos, from material such as tyres and plastic often find their way into bonfires, releasing dangerous pollutants into the air. Yes, the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition has been clear on this: bonfire materials should be "wood only" or beacon-style. That is what we need.

Bonfires need to be lawful. Permission from the landowner needs to be granted. Far too many bonfires are erected each year without the consent of the landowner. In my constituency of East Antrim, some bonfires are regarded as being traditional because of their location, but, in reality, permission has never been sought or granted. That not only undermines the rule of law but places the landowner at risk of legal liability. Bonfire organisers who are genuinely proud of demonstrating their culture and who want to produce a responsible bonfire should show respect for the rights of others and ensure that they operate within the law. Let me be clear: bonfires should never be platforms for sectarianism, racism or intimidation. They should not be used to threaten neighbours, mark territory or spread hate. If the organisers seek recognition of their culture, they must respect the rights and dignity of others. The Alliance Party wants bonfires to be genuine cultural celebrations that are lawful, safe and respectful. Until they reach that standard, they will continue to divide and to pose danger and risk to public health and the environment. In a society that is still healing from conflict, we cannot tolerate that. The Alliance Party and I do not wish to do anything other than provide for respectful, safe and lawful bonfires, regardless of community or tradition. This is a cross-departmental issue that all Departments need to engage in. The motion is just a starting point. We need to move —

— from where we are now —

772 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.14 (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: Parades, bonfires and commemorations.
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.14No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.06No
Cultural grievance politics0.12No
Dog-whistle messaging0.10No
Controversy escalation0.15No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.88Yes
Overall judgement0.14At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing0.02
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it (chosen)0.98
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.68
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.26
Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers0.06
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

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.

Challenge this classification