Debate contribution: Bonfire Regulation

Debate contribution by Mr Trevor Clarke on 16 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Trevor Clarke

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

16 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Bonfire Regulation

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5111552

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I did not intend to put my name down to speak in the debate until I listened to some of the rhetoric that came from across the Chamber. The motion is not a serious attempt — it is merely sabre-rattling. When I look at my constituency of South Antrim and, indeed, at Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council — you will be aware of this, Mr Deputy Speaker — I see that, at one point, Antrim led the way in changing how bonfires were built. It removed the tyres. That was community-led. We did not need a dictatorship from the Benches opposite to tell our communities how to do it. They had the wisdom to do it, and they led and did it themselves. I remember that, many years ago, I came into Randalstown one night and saw that the river had changed colour because of the amount of tyres. The community decided to change that. They did not need people, some of them hypocrites, from the Benches opposite, to tell them how to do that. That is the difficulty with the motion. The motion goes on to talk about flags. The Sinn Féin MLA for South Antrim raised an issue around the Twelfth about flags. With his rose-tinted glasses, he saw only flags of one colour. He did not see the offensive flags that were painted on walls and infrastructure in Crumlin — or he ignored them. He was interested only in the flag that represents my community. He raised tensions unnecessarily, when, with the PSNI, we could have had community resolution, which we got previously, but, of course, Sinn Féin was not really interested in resolving those things. It wanted to raise the temperature in the constituency.

I hate to say it, but the motion refers to the commission on flags — unless you were speaking to your party colleague — which is why I bring flags into the debate. The Member for East Antrim referred to cost and the environmental toxicity of some of these things. That is the whole, sole reason why the council — credit to the then chief executive — led the effort to do away with the tyres, the clean-up costs and the environmental impact on our constituency. Again, I point out that that was community-led and not done by a dictatorship from the Benches opposite. There is a danger that the motion will stoke up tension. It is merely a response to the bonfire in the Bogside. It is interesting that the Member did not make any reference to some of the stuff that was on the bonfire in his constituency. Whilst they may have attacked him personally, they attacked many others as well. We will oppose the motion, because we see it for what it is. It is a sabre-rattling attempt to stoke up tensions and increase them so soon after the marching season and, indeed, the bonfire season.

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

Assessment

Qualifying Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations

Jev’s structured answers

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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification