Debate contribution: Audit and Re-imaging of Memorials

Debate contribution by Mr Andrew McMurray on 11 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Andrew McMurray

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

11 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Audit and Re-imaging of Memorials

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5349729

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank my colleagues for tabling the motion. Ms Bradshaw has already spoken about it in quite a bit of detail, but I want to focus on a few points that stand out for me.

Let me say at the outset that the Alliance Party is committed to respecting people's right to remember their dead. There can be no doubt about that. Remembrance is important, and it can certainly have a positive impact in a society such as our own. We have to accept, however, that we are becoming increasingly aware of the harms that can be done through memorialisation. Turning to the matter of planning, our motion calls for:

"guidance to ensure that future memorials expressly require planning permission".

The DUP amendment calls for:

"a consistent approach to enforcement where planning permission is not sought".

Those two things argue the same point. It is my understanding that many memorials, depending on their nature, size and scale, implicitly require planning permission. Others, such as murals and plaques, would be considered as permitted development and would not normally require express planning permission. I believe that, on that point and the other proposals from my colleague Ms Bradshaw, when a formal process is applied to a matter such as this, it helps that a certain amount of toleration and acceptance is built in. The fact that a large number of memorials exist without planning permission shows that the current approach is not working. Planning permission for memorials is important for a host of reasons, one of which is their contentious nature, and the consultation requirements in the planning process can help with that. There are also reasons for rules on the safety of physical structures in the public space, and it is in everyone's interest to ensure that memorials do not pose a hazard to people's health. Guidance to make those requirements more explicit would be helpful. Enforcement of planning breaches would be a matter for councils, and that remains a sensible approach. However, councils need clear policy to work under. It has been my experience that, when issues are brought to councils' structures, on-the-ground solutions, much like those that Ms Hargey spoke about, can be worked out and agreed upon. Yes, we can sometimes get things right in this place. However, Northern Ireland goes a wee bit beyond the sterile lab conditions of a policy document. I was struck by the words of Farida Shaheed, a UN special rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, who said:

"In some cases, memory, especially if presented in the form of irreconcilable versions of the past, might hurt rather than help a society."

She further said:

"Memorialisations must not obscure a contemporary change."

Ms Ferguson made a point about it being a predominantly unionist/British thing. I turned 40, and the border turned 100, so I took a wee cycle around the border, and, according to my observations, it is not a one-sided issue. There are many contentious memorials from the other side, too. I will leave it at that. Our challenge is to build a society where we can work together to build a better Northern Ireland where everyone can thrive and where reconciliation and toleration are continually built and worked upon. Indeed, "reconciliation" and "toleration" are doing words, led by actions and not by way of saying the right thing. That is why I am involved in politics. Many of the memorials that we see in Northern Ireland are firmly holding on to the irreconcilable and antagonistic versions of our past. What vision of the future are we looking to provide for our children? What kind of attitude towards their fellow citizen are we fostering in them? Respectful memorials or the perpetuation of past hurts and glorified wrongs? I was watching one commentator yesterday, who asked whether our politicians were beacons of hope for the future, and they answered their own question with "No". We certainly cannot be beacons of hope for the future if we continually glorify the wrongs of our past and antagonise each other in the process. This is about finding a way to remember that helps our society to come together a little bit more and builds something new and hopeful that helps future generations to thrive. The process that we are envisaging is one that supports communities to re-image memorials. That approach builds on the successful experience of working with communities to re-image their murals. It has been a collaborative process, carried out in partnership with the communities in which the murals are located. There has been a lot of references to "community". We have to bring communities along because that is the only way that these things work. The Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition recommended that all those involved with memorialising the conflict reflected in a spirit of generosity, reconciliation, respect and accommodation on how they did so. That requires a good deal of good will, openness and emotional effort on all sides. For my part and my party's part, we want to play a positive role in that.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:38 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