Debate contribution: Shared Future: Strategic Framework
Debate contribution by Mr Harry Harvey on .
- MLA
- Mr Harry Harvey
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Shared Future: Strategic Framework
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4481099
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. It calls, first, on the House to recognise the ongoing need to build a genuinely shared future. Many of us in the Chamber have, for many years, been committed to playing our part in seeing a shared future become a reality. The DUP is focused on making Northern Ireland work for everyone. We are committed to a shared future and to playing our part in building it, provided that it acknowledges and caters for all of our communities and identities across Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, on occasion, the genuineness and sincerity of some in relation to a shared future ring hollow when it becomes apparent that their concept of a shared future seems to be to freeze out those with whom they disagree or those who do not fit their narrative. A genuine shared future must celebrate, acknowledge and cater for everyone. Community integration can be achieved only through natural permeation. It is a community that integrates. Whilst government can provide tools and mechanisms to support the creation and strengthening of social cohesion across traditional tribalism, it cannot engage in the business of integration itself, nor should it seek to force artificially contrived notions of integration on society. If we mean to be genuinely realistic around the subject and not bandy it about as a fashionable vote-winner, we need to acknowledge that a shared future does not equate to a one-size-fits-all policy. Take education, for example: there is a reluctance by many to recognise that natural integration in the controlled sector, particularly the grammar sector, is just as favourable as that found in the integrated sector. Some would have us believe that integration does not happen outside of the integrated sector: that is an insult to the many schools across Northern Ireland that are often more integrated and diverse in their intake than many integrated schools.
Yes, just a wee second. The idea that parental choice can be set aside in favour of one elevated sector is wrong. Go ahead.
I thank the Member and welcome her intervention and comments. I return to the wording of the motion, which acknowledges those who enjoy:
"educational, sporting and career opportunities free from the confines of ... community divisions"
And
"recognises the need to expand these opportunities to the entire community".
The motion intimates that there are some by whom such opportunities cannot be accessed. I am interested to know to whom and what that refers, given that we live in a free country and that individuals are at liberty to study where they wish, work where they wish and enjoy whatever leisure activities they wish. Similarly, they have the ability and opportunity to enjoy cultural and identity-based pursuits. The motion appears to cite the example of public services that are not open to all in justification of that argument. That is a very alarming inference to make. If that is believed to be the case, those making the inference should spell out what public services they are referring to and whether they have raised those inequalities with the Equality Commission.
I will.
I welcome the Member's comments. The key to building a sustainable and lasting shared future will not be found in attacking someone's freedom to choose, maintain and develop their identity. In recent decades, we have welcomed many thousands of migrants to the UK to work and live, bringing with them an eclectic array of cultures, religions and traditions. We call that "diversity", not "division". There should be no difference in how we view our domestic cultures. Our shared future can and should celebrate such diversity, as it is intrinsic to our identity. As we continue to transition as a post-conflict society, there are undoubtedly areas in which needless financial and social segregation can and should be combated. That can be achieved with community buy-in through a bottom-up approach that achieves tangible results. We should focus on what we can do to build on the foundations already laid and what has been successful in the past in our future government-led initiatives —
— be that a revamp of urban villages or building successful community schemes.
692 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.38 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.42).
- Subject area: Education structures, integration and community division.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.57 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.09 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.31 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.33 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.24 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.48 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.38 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.42 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.03 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.38 |
| Adopts it | 0.17 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.68 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.32 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:53 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.