Debate contribution: T: BUC Review: Update
Debate contribution by Ms Aisling Reilly on .
- MLA
- Ms Aisling Reilly
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 24 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- T: BUC Review: Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4497755
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I concur that engaging with young people is extremely important. It is important because young people are key to our society. As I mentioned, T:BUC of course stands for Together: Building a United Community, which is recognised in delivering on the ground and investing in our young people, across communities, over the past decade. The planned interventions programme in particular funds community activity aimed at providing positive alternatives for young people who are at risk of becoming involved in antisocial behaviour, sectarianism and recruitment by paramilitary gangs. Since 2015, through various projects, the programme has been delivered to over 30,000 young people. The outcome is that over 90% of those young people have improved self-confidence and are less likely to be involved in negative behaviour. That shows the value of investing in our young people, believing in them and encouraging them to believe in themselves. Programmes such as T:BUC provide opportunities for our communities to take positive pathways, work together, learn from each other and build a better place for our people to live, work and thrive in. As an Executive, we are committed to improving community relations here and look forward to building on all the progress made to date.
201 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: 0.04 (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 (0.76).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.59 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.76 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.24 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.98 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:48 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.