Debate contribution: Bonfire Regulation
Debate contribution by Mr Peter McReynolds on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter McReynolds
- 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 5111580
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome today's motion and thank the Members who tabled it for debate. I have been involved in politics since 2013 and elected in some capacity since 2017. A phrase that I first heard when I was Deputy Lord Mayor of Belfast was how we in Northern Ireland had "normalised the abnormal" across society here, and I fear that we are hearing some of that in today's debate. Every year, without fail, the same problems arise with illegally erected flags on lamp posts demarcating territory and worrying residents, because no one knows who put them up or why, for how long they will be up or when they will be coming down. The same happens with some bonfires in Northern Ireland that appear on land without permission, contain harmful materials or are too close to residential properties, creating the lunacy of the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service having to hose down buildings, as we have just heard from Mrs Dillon. Bonfires can be positive. They can be a cultural celebration that welcomes all. They can be inclusive. Earlier in the month, the Chief Constable opened his statement to the Northern Ireland Policing Board by praising the effort, commitment and flexibility of his officers as they policed over 300 bonfires across Northern Ireland, with, sadly, 16 causing significant concern. We have seen the positives from adapting Eleventh night celebrations into environmentally and family-friendly events through the beacon programme. My constituency of East Belfast received seven beacons through funding from Belfast City Council. As I said, bonfires can be inclusive, safe cultural celebrations, but, without regulation, very real dangers are becoming more and more prevalent. Only three years ago, we saw a young father fall to his death from a bonfire. This year, in East Belfast, we saw a man sustaining severe and life-changing burns during the lighting of a bonfire. Regulations on health and safety, cultural expression and protecting the environment should not be demonised because of a lack of political leadership, which ignores the society that we should all want to create here and turns a blind eye to illegality.
Two seconds. Sadly, we are seeing it at the moment. We hear condemnation of vigilantes one minute and about legitimate concerns, which are based on misinformation, the next. We need to see political leadership driving change so that everyone celebrates tradition without putting themselves and, crucially, others in danger. There is so much potential for bonfires to be part of safe, family-friendly cultural events, but, without regulation, we limit that potential. Money could be spent on enhancing regulated events and driving tourism. Instead, it is needed for repairs and for the use of public services' time to respond to emergencies created by unregulated events. I say that not to erode culture but to ensure safety when celebrating culture. I support today's motion and its call for bonfire regulations to be introduced to ensure safe celebrations for all.
488 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: 0.11 (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 (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.52).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.07 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.14 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.52 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.47 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.87 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.10 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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.