Debate contribution: Urban Villages: North Belfast
Debate contribution by Ms Aisling Reilly on .
- MLA
- Ms Aisling Reilly
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 29 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Urban Villages: North Belfast
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4486083
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question. As I mentioned, the Department recognises that needs vary across communities here and seeks to address as many of them as possible. Since Urban Villages launched in 2016, there has been a range of other developments that will impact on what Urban Villages does next. That will include reviews of programmes such as Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) and DFC's neighbourhood renewal programme, and a cross-departmental test and learning pilot to test departmental joint working, initially in the Diamond area of Derry and in Aughnacloy.
We look forward to updating Members once we have considered how best to continue with our aim of promoting thriving places and achieving the best outcomes for all our citizens.
As you said, the Urban Villages programme idea has proved to be very successful, particularly the co-design process with communities. We all know that communities are better placed to reflect their needs than any of us here or any official. As I said, TEO officials have developed options on the future of the programme, and, once those have been considered, Members will be updated.
187 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: 0.03 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.34 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.66 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.30 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:03 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.