Debate contribution: Bonfire Regulation

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 16 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

16 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Bonfire Regulation

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5111586

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am listening to the debate and trying to channel the average person watching it with their head in their hands, thinking, "Will we ever make progress in this society?" I say that because the quality of the debate and some of what has been said has been absolutely depressing, it has to be said.

I will happily engage with my DUP colleagues across the Chamber and respond to some of the points that they have made, although that will be in a few minutes. I come on to why the motion is hugely important. Clearly, it speaks to the divisions that we have in our society and to our need to express culture. It is, however, also inevitably a manifestation of the fact that we are still a divided society.

It is important to say that the motion does not call on any specific Minister to do anything, despite the fact that the party that tabled the motion is the largest party in the Chamber and the Executive. That is disappointing and speaks to an absence of real leadership. Were there to be a full-blown implementation of FICT, that would have to be led by the First Minister and deputy First Minister. There is no other way for it to happen.

We have seen today what the two big parties make of these kinds of divisions. It is a joint determination not to move on and show leadership together but to use the issues to divide, to yell across the Chamber and, ultimately, to find political and electoral benefit from the division in this society. That is what it is all about.

I will give way in one second, when you can peddle some more division. That, ultimately, is what it is all about. It is not about culture or protecting safety; it is about peddling division, important as the issue is. I will give way, because I am sure that Mr Brooks will have something mature and enlightening to say.

Let me answer that point. That drivel is thrown at parties such as mine all the time, including by Members —

Hang on one second. Mr Clarke is shouting across the Chamber at me. Earlier this summer, there was a bonfire in Meridi Street off the Donegall Road. It was mentioned earlier. Next to it were tons upon tons of asbestos. You are shaking your head: do you deny that there were tons of asbestos lying off the Donegall Road? Is that valid?

Oh, you are not allowed to talk about fact. I corresponded —

I corresponded —

No, I will not give way, because I gave way to your colleague. I have a very short time. I have already let your colleague in. I corresponded on behalf of my constituents on the Donegall Road, and, to answer your question, I have engaged with community groups across my constituency, including those from a loyalist background. When I say that that is a priority for me, I could not be more serious. I care about that tradition, I care about that community, and I want the best for them. That is why I did not want a bonfire to be built next to a big pile of asbestos. I did not want them to get asbestosis, pneumoconiosis and all the carcinogenic complications. I find it astonishing that I was called some kind of angry, bitter, republican activist because I did not want my constituents to breathe in that stuff. It is a tragedy for unionism that it finds itself in that position: a tragedy. That bonfire should not have gone on. I have to address a point that was made. I engaged with the Environment Minister.

No, I will not give way, because I have a very short time. The Environment Minister did not speak about the bonfire until 48 or even 24 hours before it was built. With the greatest respect to him, that would not have happened were it not for my party standing up and talking about the issue. That was the SDLP using our role to speak on behalf of people in that community. Let me tell you this: my office had calls from people in the Village — working-class people who live in that loyalist community — who said, "Thank you for speaking up about this", in part because other people did not. On the broader point about bonfire regulation, I want people to enjoy bonfires safely. I will not be going to them every day of the week, but I want my constituents and others across the region to enjoy them. People enjoy them: I respect that, but that cannot legitimate hate. What was displayed at Moygashel was the most disgusting, revolting hate and racism. By the way, it is a disgraceful slur on ordinary working-class unionists and working-class communities in general to say that that behaviour is some kind of legitimate expression of culture. The answer to all that is, yes, implementing the findings of the FICT Commission. That will involve joined-up work by the First Minister and deputy First Minister and their parties, not slurs across the Chamber, and a genuine commitment to see one another and one another's culture and to empathise with one another. Sinn Féin's Chief Whip is laughing at me; apparently, it is a bad idea to call for working together. I agree with some of the motion's intent. I wish that there were a specific call, I wish that there were a specific action, and I wish that the debate were somewhat more mature. I genuinely wonder what some of the people watching it, particularly young people, whether they are loyalist young people who want to build a bonfire on the eleventh night and enjoy themselves or young people from any other background, will think. Perhaps young people who are thinking about going to university across the water are listening to the debate and wondering, "Will I ever come back to this place?". They will think, "Do you know what? Maybe I will not". Honestly, we should think about the future and about how we move forward so that loyalist communities and all communities respect one another rather than constantly digging at one another. The quality of the debate has been absolutely depressing, but I hope that we can move on at some point.

1,058 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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

Challenge this classification