Debate contribution: Shared Future: Strategic Framework

Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on .

MLA
Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
Party at the time
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date
8 April 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Shared Future: Strategic Framework
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4481180

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I support the motion and commend those who tabled it. It has been a real privilege to listen to David's personal testimony, because that is where it all happens: it happens with love and with sharing our community. I also enjoyed the poem that Mike mentioned — I have just downloaded it. It is very good, and it teaches us all something about our humanity as well.

This is a timely and appropriate motion about one of the most pressing challenges facing our society, namely the unacceptable division that still separates our communities in Northern Ireland. When our peace agreement was finalised in 1998, it was done so in the hope of a better future for everyone here. That was the real and earnest desire of those who took part in the negotiations. Twenty-six years later, although that fragile peace has survived, I think that we can all agree that our society has not lived up to the vision of the peacebuilders from all those years ago. It is, of course, right to say that there are increasing numbers of people from all backgrounds who are engaging in forms of sport and culture that were once thought of as being reserved for the so-called opposite community. That is to be welcomed, and, through a combination of natural integration and the fact that more and more people are simply fed up with division, many are living lives in our communities that would have seemed unimaginable just a few decades ago. The old divisions no longer hold as true as they once did, and we can all see that our society is changing around us. That includes the fact that we are home to an increasing number of new communities from around the world. That diversity is to be celebrated, and it is a sign of a Northern Ireland that now looks different from its past. It is, however, also right to recognise that, in far too many of our communities and for far too many of our people, the scars of past and present division are still very clear. Reconciliation was never supposed to be an event that happened in 1998 but rather a process that was to continue throughout the years that followed. Despite the huge popular support for integration, we still know that it is not the reality on the ground. Lip service has been paid to integrated education, but, let us be honest, we are fooling nobody. Only 7% of our young people are enrolled in integrated schools. The vast majority of children still grow up without the opportunity to experience an environment that is unlike their own, and although integrated education should be high on the agenda, in practice, at least 10 of our integrated schools have lost their funding in the funding deal to restore these institutions. More than 44% of people here say that relationships between Protestants and Catholics are about the same as they were five years ago, and 58% of people, from different religions, have said that they use different local services either a little or a lot of the time. Those failures of integration are the consequences of the failure to tackle properly divisions in our communities and in our society. Structural segregation is still the norm in far too many areas of our lives, and we know from research that the divided education system here alone costs £226 million every single year. Tackling those costs of division may be framed by some as another pressure on budgets that are already under huge pressure, but we must recognise that the kind of shared framework that the motion calls for is an investment in the future that we all want to see. We need to recognise that, every day, the running of parallel services in different communities costs our public purse. The cost of division is profound. It is, however, also important to recognise the cost of division between the North and South of this island. Running parallel services between North and South also holds back our community and our economy. There are therefore two barriers, and the cost of division from them needs to be addressed. The first is the barrier between the people here in schools, in housing and in public services. The second is the barrier between the people, North and South, and they are not mutually exclusive. We can both reconcile our communities here and reconcile the people of this island. Finally, although the motion calls for the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to introduce the —

— required strategic framework, breaking down the barriers of segregation and sectarianism is every Minister's responsibility.

776 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: 0.06 (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 (0.86).
  • The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.53).
  • 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 framing0.16No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.05No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.05No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.86Yes
Overall judgement0.06At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing0.47
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it (chosen)0.53
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.87
Education structures, integration and community division0.12
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)0.01
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

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