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 4481274
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We are all aware that, with the Executive restored just over eight weeks ago, we are in a difficult budgetary situation. We know that we are underfunded. As I said, the Executive encountered a challenging Budget position for 2023-24, and difficult decisions had to be made. To inform the decision-making process and how the budget was allocated, an equality impact assessment (EQIA) was carried out. Initial feedback received from that EQIA's public consultation was considered, and an allocation of £1·4 million was made to the central good relations fund. In addition to the EQIA, a children's rights impact assessment and a rural needs impact assessment were undertaken. We understand the impact that those reductions had on local communities and want to be clear that we remain fully supportive of good relations delivery.
132 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: 0.05 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.71).
- 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-qualifying 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.71 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.95 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.