Debate contribution: Good Relations: Challenges
Debate contribution by Ms Aisling Reilly on .
- MLA
- Ms Aisling Reilly
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 20 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Good Relations: Challenges
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4744400
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We have made a good lot of progress on building good relations through the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy, particularly across key areas such as shared housing; engagement of young people through the T:BUC camps and wider, on-the-ground delivery; the Urban Villages initiative; and the removal of interface barriers. I place on record my appreciation of the amazing work done by the community and voluntary sector and, in particular, by groups and organisations on the ground. They are invaluable to us all. Through our engagements and visits in recent months, we have demonstrated that we are fully committed to continuing the process of building good relations in a future defined by peace and prosperity for everyone who calls here home. That is shown through our cross-cutting commitment to peace in the draft Programme for Government (PFG). We recognise that challenges remain. The day-to-day needs of communities have also changed considerably over the past few years. Communities experiencing good relations issues often face wider socio-economic challenges. As well as tackling those issues, we will need everyone across government and the community sector to work even better together. A review of the T:BUC strategy has been initiated. Its recommendations are being considered and will shape the process for developing a refreshed approach to good relations.
215 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: 0.03 (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 (1.00).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | 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-flagging 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 | 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 11:47 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.