Debate contribution: Irish Language Street Signage in Belfast

Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on 13 October 2025.

MLA

Mr Phillip Brett

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

13 October 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Irish Language Street Signage in Belfast

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5176550

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The debate brought little that was surprising. Sinn Féin Members articulated their long-held position. Let us make it clear: Sinn Féin's position, which it is entitled to hold, is that there should be dual language street signage across Northern Ireland and in every corner of it. That is what it wanted from its stand-alone Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022, but that is what it did not get. Despite that, the TUV has to take this opportunity, at a time when unionists should be standing together on the issue, to attack a fellow unionist. There was no mention of the fact that it was a unionist politician who tabled the motion. Mr Gaston has to read from his scripted remarks, which were given to him before he came into the Chamber, and there were no compliments, no thanks and no talk of unionists working together. We hear of unionists standing together. I am very happy to stand with him, but I will not sit here and take attacks from one party that then expects us to roll in behind it on another. Our agenda on the issue is clear. The debate was an opportunity for unionists to stand together. Instead, Mr Gaston wasted half his time attacking the DUP. The DUP did not deliver the stand-alone Irish language Act that the party opposite wanted. The very people who may be appointed to those roles attack the party for not being able to achieve it, yet you, Mr Gaston, come to the Chamber and attack me. In the 14 minutes during which SDLP Members spoke in the debate, they did not make one remark about the motion. They could not articulate one sentence in support of the 15% policy that has been put in place by their party. Mr McGlone made excellent remarks. I have a lot of time for Mr McGlone, and he gave a great history of the Irish language, but it is of absolutely no relevance to the issue before us. The leader of the Opposition decided to speak about flags and the chats that he has in cafes on the roads of South Belfast, but he could not articulate why his party voted for Belfast City Council's policy. Justin McNulty — well —

I will move on. We will aim for the stars on that one. In the 10 minutes in which Alliance Members spoke, they did not articulate how they will vote on the motion. I am happy to give way to them now, if they wish to clarify to the public who are listening how they will vote and the reason for that.

It is now clear that the Alliance Party could not make it clear that it will not call for a review of the position in Belfast. Listen: that is its prerogative. It needs to own that. We have been accused of whipping up tension, but this is the very place where such discussions and robust debates should happen. We are the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, and this is where their discussions should happen.

I will happily give way.

You must not have read your speech very well, Mr Gaston, before you read it out, because half your speech was dedicated to attacking the DUP. We have made it very clear what we have done. First, we tabled the motion on which you have just spent six minutes speaking. Secondly, although you lambasted the issue of the Irish Language Commissioner, we did not consent to having a stand-alone Irish language Act or an all-encompassing Irish Language Commissioner that would have delivered what Sinn Féin wanted, which was a requirement for a percentage of Irish language speakers in the Civil Service and for dual language street signs and road signs all over Northern Ireland. In your determination to discredit and attack the DUP, Mr Gaston — in your dedication to that — you missed those facts. You are perfectly able to do that, yet you set out to attack us. I just ask how your remarks have served the cause of unionism standing together, and I ask you to reflect on that. Mr Gaston went on to discuss the power of the Communities Minister to issue guidance. Guidance is guidance and has no legal impact, and the Member knows that very well. When parties on this side of the House should be standing together, Mr Gaston's speech was an attempt to throw mud in the air and confuse.

I will happily give way.

There is no legislation from Westminster on dual language street signs. My view on the matter is clear. I was on Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council when it introduced its policy, which was that, if a majority of residents want to have a dual language street sign in whatever minority language that is, fair play to them: go ahead and do that. We voted that through.

I will not give way any further. We have had an argument. It is clear how the votes will be cast. The Alliance Party has admitted that, in the deal that it did with its friends in Sinn Féin and the SDLP, it was done over. However, rather than vote with this party to get the review, it will just vote with them again. The people of Northern Ireland will see from the vote tonight that the Alliance Party had the opportunity to ensure that the voice of the people of Belfast was heard by saying that we need a review of the policy, but, rather than vote for that, its Members will vote with their friends in Sinn Féin and the SDLP.

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

Assessment

Flagged Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

This closing speech on a motion about Irish-language street signage in Belfast spends most of its time on which parties failed to back unionist unity, saying the debate 'was an opportunity for unionists to stand together' and asking how a rival's remarks 'served the cause of unionism standing together'. It presents having blocked a stand-alone Irish language Act and Irish-speaking requirements as achievements for one bloc, and casts the opposing parties as voting 'with their friends'. That frames a language-policy question mainly as a contest between communal blocs. It does not ridicule the language or attack nationalists as a community, and it briefly states a substantive position: dual signage should follow where 'a majority of residents want' it, rather than a lower threshold.

Public interest or divisiveness

There is a genuine policy disagreement underneath, about the consent threshold for dual-language signs and whether the council policy should be reviewed, and the speaker supports minority-language signs where residents agree. However, very little of the speech engages with that substance. Most of it is point-scoring about who attacked whom, appeals for communal solidarity on a recognised flashpoint, and framing other parties' votes as siding with the other bloc. The substantive and divisive elements are both present, but the bloc framing dominates.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:30 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