Debate contribution: Urban Villages: Update
Debate contribution by Ms Aisling Reilly on .
- MLA
- Ms Aisling Reilly
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 28 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Urban Villages: Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4913427
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. I echo his welcome to the school. As we come to the end of phase 1 of the Urban Villages initiative, it is worth reflecting on the fact that the project has supported a range of community-led, cross-cutting and capital projects that have made a real difference to improving good relations. Along with junior Minister Cameron, I have visited many of those projects. I know that the Member has been supportive of that work in his North Belfast constituency. It is also worth noting that, to date, the Urban Villages programme has delivered approximately £50 million of capital investment and £15 million of revenue investment. Over 58 capital projects have now been completed. They had over 417,000 users, delivered 1,800 programmes, activities and training courses, and created 923 construction and administrative jobs. We are planning for a future Urban Villages programme that will include joined-up delivery between Departments and enhance the linkages that the Urban Villages programme has made in supporting ministerial priorities. We have also established a working group to take forward the development of phase 2 of Urban Villages. That will include establishing the criteria for the future programme. As I have said, once the criteria have been agreed, we will of course come to the Chamber to update Members.
219 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.35 | 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 | 0.85 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.12 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.02 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:26 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.