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 4744408
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. My focus in this role is on supporting the work of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, along with junior Minister Cameron, to build a future that is defined by inclusion, equality and respect. Many across the Chamber are also committed to working to deliver that outcome. Investing in our young people and creating opportunities for engagement are key to building on that process. The T:BUC camps programme that is delivered under the strategy specifically gives our young people the opportunity to build positive relationships with young people from different communities. Since summer 2015, the Executive Office has invested over £12 million in the T:BUC camps programme, with over 950 camps having been delivered, reaching over 33,000 young people. In 2024-25, a further £1·5 million has been invested, with over 110 camps currently being delivered. That investment in our young people and their future is so vital. Learning from each another, understanding each another and recognising that we have more that unites us than divides us in what is an increasingly diverse, vibrant and multicultural society is, simply put, invaluable. We will continue to support that work.
196 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 (0.98).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.58 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| 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.