Debate contribution: Integrated Advice Partnership Fund
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 5 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statement
- Heading
- Integrated Advice Partnership Fund
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4631974
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am disappointed to hear that that is the case in Belfast City Council. That absolutely should not be the way that it is done. I want to make sure that it gets to everybody who needs access to it, wherever they live in Northern Ireland. People should not be discriminated against on the basis of where they are from. Having taken that comment on board, I will look at the memorandum of understanding that we have with councils to make sure that there is a fair and equitable distribution, because people will need the help. The Member is absolutely right to highlight the fact that the cut to the winter fuel payment that was made by the Labour Government — the SDLP's sister party — has the potential to cause extra difficulty for people this winter. It is right that we stood against that and made our opposition known, but now we need to make sure that we have help for those who are in need.
I absolutely agree. We often hear about the voluntary and community sectors, but I believe that that should encompass the voluntary, community and faith sectors, because faith organisations and the Churches play a huge role in how we deal with and tackle some of the most pressing issues that face people in Northern Ireland. I will always be a voice for faith communities, which do so much work in that area and have often felt that their contribution has been ignored by government. I am more than happy to ensure that we give that recognition and that there are opportunities for faith-based organisations to become more involved. The Member did not ask, but I am more than happy to confirm to him that Ards and North Down Borough Council will receive £105,167·52, as well as what he heard previously for Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, both of which, I am sure, he is interested in.
I do not see why there should be any issue with getting the impartial advice that people need. It has certainly been my experience that churches are exceptionally welcoming places. The people whom I have encountered in Church organisations are often the most concerned about the issues around poverty. I will highlight and celebrate the work that they do and not, in any way, denigrate the contribution that they make or say that they are unwelcoming places. It is important that we put that on the record. The Member says that it is only £1·3 million and might not go that far, but it is £1·3 million that we have been able to deliver. It will make a difference in each of those council areas, and, instead of always finding something negative to say, perhaps we should take a moment to recognise that here we have some good news for people across Northern Ireland.
One of the benefits of getting the funding out to councils is that they can identify the partners that they can work with. I am sure that there are organisations, such as the one that the Member has mentioned, that perhaps do not operate on a Northern Ireland-wide basis but operate in different areas. Of course, they can be partners with the local council to provide those services, if they can meet the criteria that I set out.
555 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: 0.11 (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 (0.80).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.69).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.69 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.30 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| 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 11:31 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.