Debate contribution: Shared Future: Strategic Framework

Debate contribution by Ms Connie Egan on .

MLA
Ms Connie Egan
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
8 April 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Shared Future: Strategic Framework
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4481143

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am glad to speak on the motion today, particularly as it calls for the development of a cross-departmental shared future strategy. My and my party's vision of a shared future is one where everyone can be safe, play their part and be treated fairly and with respect. We believe in a society for everyone that is underpinned by our shared values of equality, respect, diversity and interdependence. People must be free from intimidation, discrimination and fear. As well as the societal impact of division in a post-conflict society, there is also a huge financial cost. My colleague highlighted the Deloitte report from 2007, which estimated that the division was costing Northern Ireland between £800 million and £1·5 billion per year. Research that Ulster University produced last year estimated that, in the education system alone, the cost of division is £226 million per year, which is £600,000 every day. That is a staggering sum, but the issue is not just about the financial cost; it is about the societal impact that such division has on Northern Ireland as a whole. I will highlight and come back to comments that were made about facilities and provisions not being open to all. It was shameful that previous Executives did not act on the fact that the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 does not apply to teachers. That is a clear and tangible example of where people could be discriminated against and have no legal protections. I welcome that Chris Lyttle, my former colleague in the Alliance Party, brought forward a private Member's Bill to address that, and I understand that that will come into force later this year. However, it is disappointing that Executives did not take that forward.

Significant change is needed to reduce the impact of division in our society. That cannot be the responsibility of one Department, which is why we call on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to lead on a strategy to embed sharing, integration and cohesion across all Departments and public services. I recognise, however, that, to move forward, we must not forget about the past. There is much work that we still need to do to progress and address our history in Northern Ireland. I would like to see the sectarian demarcation of areas with flags, murals and banners that promote proscribed paramilitary organisations fully outlawed, with legislation to ensure that public bodies remove such material. We have a legacy Act that was introduced against the will of the parties in Northern Ireland and overwhelmingly opposed by victims and survivors. The mechanisms in that Act do not put the needs of victims first and will not lead to a more reconciled society. I would like to see the Executive take forward proposals for a pension for those bereaved by the Troubles. We have seen many families fall between the cracks and be left disappointed that their trauma and pain have not been recognised by previous payment schemes. Here and now, I recognise that work is being done in communities to promote cohesion and integration. In North Down, my constituency, I have seen at first hand some of the good work funded by the Communities in Transition project in Kilcooley and Rathgill; however, I would like to see those projects be a lot more flexible. Unfortunately, many in North Down will tell you that paramilitary activity is not limited to those two estates in Bangor. It is important that initiatives from the Executive reflect that. As colleagues have said, it is important to recognise that our local communities are way ahead of politicians on this issue. The best examples of community cohesion and inclusive initiatives are more often than not driven by local people in their areas — provided by youth workers, women's centres and mental health initiatives on the ground.

Yes, I will.

I thank the Member for her intervention. I agree, and there is a body of evidence to back up those claims. To move towards a truly shared and integrated society, I want to see us go beyond the old narrative of two communities in Northern Ireland. We are an increasingly diverse place. It is important that equality and human rights issues are an essential part of a shared future. It is regrettable that more progress was not made on a bill of rights for Northern Ireland in the previous mandate. That could have been an important tool to enshrine rights for all and ensure that those who are marginalised are protected. I want a shared future to mean a society in which everyone is welcome and free from discrimination. I am extremely concerned by the recent rise in hate crimes recorded by PSNI with race as the motivator. Addressing hate crime needs to be a factor in building a shared society and a united community. As I said, good relations should no longer be about the old narrative of two communities but for everybody in society. I would like to see that underpinned by a strategy for the integration of refugees into our society and full implementation of the racial equality strategy. This matter affects our entire society, and there are many issues that I would like to speak about, but I am running out of time. Before I bring my remarks to a close, I will say that, when it comes to human rights and inclusion, it is also important that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities is incorporated into domestic law. This debate is about creating a framework for a shared and united Northern Ireland, addressing our past to create a society in which everyone is equal and free from discrimination.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.07 (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 (0.91).
  • The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.98).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.11No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.08No
Dog-whistle messaging0.04No
Controversy escalation0.10No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.91Yes
Overall judgement0.07At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing0.02
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it (chosen)0.98
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.98
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.02
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

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.

Challenge this classification