Controversy Erupts Over Belfast Bonfire Funding Decision

Belfast City Council has been forced to delay its bonfire diversionary payouts decision this year after Sinn Féin said the City Hall funding programme had become open for “any Tom, Dick and Harry”. Elected Representatives Defer Decision

Elected representatives at a council committee on Friday (March 21) agreed to defer a decision on where to allocate funds from its £600,000 “Summer Community Diversionary Programme” - which allocates £300,000 each to July and August events. Councillors were asked by City Hall officials at the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee to allocate funding based on a scoring of applications, but Sinn Féin, with support from parties around the chamber, proposed the council take another look at the system. Programme Objectives

The council states the Summer Community Diversionary Programme “provides support for the delivery of community-based diversionary and festivals programmes”. It adds: “All funded activity must make a significant contribution to the reduction of anti-social behaviour linked to key areas, bonfires and dates over the summer period, specifically 11th July and 8th August.” Controversial Past

The annual scheme ran into controversy earlier this decade with Alliance, the SDLP, and Green Party previously calling the programme a DUP-Sinn Féin community funding “carve-up,” which lacked an open process. The fund was postponed in 2020 due to the pandemic, and in 2021 Sinn Féin and the DUP pushed through a decision to fund again the same groups from 2019, to the consternation of smaller parties. Concerns Raised

Sinn Féin Councillor Ciaran Beattie expressed concerns at the City Hall meeting, stating, “It basically allows every Tom, Dick and Harry to come in for funding. If this was a construction tender going out, it would be like bricklayers going for plumbing contracts. Some of these groups wouldn’t know a diversionary programme if it hit them up the face, yet the door has been opened for them to apply.” He highlighted specific examples of organizations seeking funding and raised worries about the future implications of the widened parameters. Call for Review Mechanism

Alliance Councillor Michael Long and SDLP Councillor Séamas de Faoite shared concerns about the scheme, emphasizing the need for a robust review mechanism to ensure funds are effectively utilized for diversion work and not to facilitate antisocial behavior. The scoring system was critiqued for lacking transparency and effectiveness in evaluating the impact of funded activities.