Debate contribution: Marginalised Minority Community Support
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 11 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Marginalised Minority Community Support
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4269809
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. My Department has a contract with six rural support networks to deliver the rural community development support service across all rural areas of Northern Ireland. Since 2020-21, my Department has provided additional financial assistance to rural support networks through those contracts to work with community and voluntary groups in marginalised rural border communities where capacity is weak. That financial assistance has enabled the rural support networks to provide tailored support to build the capacity of the community and voluntary groups in rural border areas to play a full and active role in helping their communities to grow and flourish. My Department has also piloted a marginalised minority border communities digital access pilot scheme, which completed in March 2023. The main aim of the pilot was to support community groups to enhance digital access for those living in a rural border area. All those initiatives are ongoing through policy evaluation. I will give careful consideration to the needs of marginalised minority communities as I inform my thinking and take decisions on future policies. The House will be aware that the Department for Communities has statutory responsibility for all communities, and it is my intention to engage with Executive colleagues to help to inform future policy direction and to ensure a better outcome for rural dwellers.
221 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: 0.05 (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 (0.68).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Another identity-related subject.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.68 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Another identity-related subject | 0.42 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.25 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.18 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.11 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:50 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.