Debate contribution: Central Good Relations Fund: TEO Bids
Debate contribution by Mrs Pam Cameron on .
- MLA
- Mrs Pam Cameron
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Central Good Relations Fund: TEO Bids
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4667336
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. In 2024-25, approximately 61% of projects in the central good relations fund are delivering against the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) priority "Our Children and Young People". Almost 8,000 young people will be directly impacted on as a result. In 2024-25, through the central good relations fund, two projects are being supported that include participants from my constituency of South Antrim: Ulster Hockey, with funding of £45,000, targeting 620 participants; and the Belfast Electronic Arts and Music Academy (BEAMA), with funding of almost £27,000, targeting 90 participants. The Your Freedom and Ours project received an award of £33,620, and it is delivering in the South Antrim constituency as well. Under the T:BUC camps programme, one group in South Antrim was awarded £30,000 to deliver three T:BUC camps projects, engaging approximately 80 young people. Under the planned interventions programme, two groups in South Antrim were awarded a total of £10,750 to deliver two projects, engaging a total of 59 young people. Out of the councils' good relations programme, £94,000 was awarded to Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council to deliver good relations programmes, including projects engaging participants in South Antrim. Those are some examples.
200 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).
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.50 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.87 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.10 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:33 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.