Debate contribution: Central Good Relations Fund
Debate contribution by Ms Aisling Reilly on .
- MLA
- Ms Aisling Reilly
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 8 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Central Good Relations Fund
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4481257
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The central good relations fund (CGRF) is an annual merit-based programme designed to deliver and support projects in areas where there is good relations need. Funding is awarded, subject to budget, to those groups that score highest in the assessment process. Welcome statements are used to identify particular thematic or geographic areas from which applications would be welcomed. In 2023-24, we funded projects across all council areas to the great benefit of communities and the people who live here. Unfortunately, though, due to the challenging financial position of 2023-24, difficult decisions had to be made, which included cuts to the central good relations fund. That resulted in many worthy projects being unable to secure funding through CGRF. We commend the ongoing efforts of groups in the community and voluntary sector that work tirelessly to improve the lives of people here, especially when times are challenging. Central good relations fund applications for 2024-25 are under assessment, and that process will be completed before the end of April 2024. Letters of offer will be issued to successful projects after a budget for the 2024-25 programme has been confirmed.
186 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: 0.03 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.44 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.93 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 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.