Debate contribution: Shared Future: Strategic Framework
Debate contribution by Mr Pádraig Delargy on .
- MLA
- Mr Pádraig Delargy
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 8 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Shared Future: Strategic Framework
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4481139
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, the motion is useful to assess where we are and where we are going. I thank the Alliance Party for tabling the motion. I will touch specifically on a few elements and look at their practical impact in my constituency and at the space to develop and improve on them. Those are within the T:BUC strategy and around education and Urban Villages. The seven strands of T:BUC are funded by the Executive, and 30,000 young people, including a huge number from my constituency, have taken part in and benefited from them. From that, it is very clear, as all those young people have experienced, that, to move forward as a society, we need to tackle sectarianism, racism and other forms of intolerance that we see. Critically, as Carál mentioned, it is about doing that on the ground. At a policy level, we can support such action and bring forward strategies to benefit it, but it has to come organically from communities and be supported from the political side. As a former teacher, most of my experience prior to coming here was in the education sector. I was privileged to teach in an integrated school — Oakgrove Integrated Primary School in Derry — and see its huge benefits to the community and how it worked practically, on a day-to-day basis, at breaking down barriers and divisions. That is very positive. We have seen hugely positive developments at the Strule campus, where there are 4,000 pupils, and, as Mr O'Toole mentioned, in Limavady. I welcome those examples as a positive step forward, but I recognise that there are huge steps that we need to continue to take. We need to bank what is positive but also review what needs to change. That is critical. In addition the content of the motion, which Ms Bradshaw spoke very well to, there is space for us to do that. Importantly, in all of this, it is about us working collectively and continuing to have these conversations in a positive and constructive way to assess what is going well and what we need to change. I come from an Urban Villages area: the Moor in Derry. There has been positive development there. In the Fountain, we have seen the New Gate Arts and Culture Centre, and we have seen the redevelopment of the city centre and the city walls. In the areas that I come from, we have seen the redevelopment of Meenan Square and of Central Drive in Creggan. One of the biggest things that has happened as a result of Urban Villages, which we need to continue bringing into other communities, is that, by tackling sectarianism and intolerance, we have managed to tackle some of the economic disparity across the North. Looking at the whole socio-economic piece around that is fundamental. I recognise and welcome that that is very much part of the motion. The reality, however, is that, while we look at the benefits of all that, there are still peace walls up in that area. That has already been mentioned. We cannot stand still. I welcome the fact that the motion was tabled and will support it. This is a great opportunity for us to evaluate where we are and how to get to the stage of moving that into communities. I agree that communities are well ahead of us. I have spoken to a number of people in my own area and areas across the Moor who are very much willing to move to the next step and look at where we can go. This is about building relationships, reducing duplication of services and working together in Stormont and in our communities. One element that we need to expand out to, which the motion does not really touch on, is tackling division not just within our communities but across our island. Being in a border constituency, one of the key reasons for the duplication of services that I see is the fact that we are divided across the island. I would like to continue to have conversations about that, collectively, and to develop that element. I welcome the motion. I will support it. I look forward to working with the Alliance Party and others to develop the framework in the time ahead.
712 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: 0.04 (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 (0.85).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.64).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.36 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.64 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.98 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.02 |
| 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 09:55 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.