Debate contribution: Northern Ireland Community Infrastructure Fund

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .

MLA
Mr Gordon Lyons
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
30 September 2025
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Ministerial Statement
Heading
Northern Ireland Community Infrastructure Fund
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5143391

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Ultimately, it will be down to the organisations that apply to source the quotes and source the people who will do the work. Given the small nature of some of the works that will be required in the grand scheme of things, local organisations and local employers will be able to benefit. Of course, we expect all projects to be costed appropriately and all project costs to be within an appropriate cost range for the type of works that are proposed. Any works must be properly procured, and we need to make sure that the procurement exercises are fair, open and transparent, because public funds are at stake, and we need to make sure that there is value for money. There will be £4·3 million going into local communities across Northern Ireland, and that will be of benefit. Of course, we will look at that issue when it comes to the monitoring and reporting of the scheme overall. We will want to keep an eye on that, because I hope that we can bring forward the scheme on a rolling, permanent basis, and that information will be useful to demonstrate its positivity.

I am grateful to the Member for inviting me to see the work that goes on there. Sporting organisations are able to apply for funding for the community buildings that they operate, but they must be able to demonstrate the work that they do for non-sporting activities. I draw the Member's attention to the Olympic legacy fund that I announced last week. It is also there to help sports clubs that are in need of funding. I am sure that the Member will help the people in his constituency who need it. He should be aware of both of those funds that I have made available to clubs in his and, indeed, all constituencies.

Yes, of course. We engaged with Co-operation Ireland throughout the process. We appointed it because of its expertise, the established systems that it has in place and the trusted relationships that it has with the sector more widely. It is well positioned to provide the additional support that is available. Another reason is that it is the most cost-effective and efficient delivery route. That means that we can invest more in the community sector itself.

Yes. Again, that is almost unquantifiable, because, yes, we are releasing £4·3 million into local communities across Northern Ireland, but the impact of that will go on and on, not only through the extra work that the community facilities will be able to provide but in the stability that that will bring for many jobs, employers and employees and in the additional money that we will invest in our economy. In short, it is very difficult to give a precise figure, but there is no doubt that it will continue to have a ripple effect across communities.

I appreciate the fact that that point has been raised, because it seems that some in our society today think that the last acceptable form of discrimination is that against faith-based organisations. Many feel that that is OK and that faith-based organisations can be discriminated against. However, I can confirm for him that there is no lottery-sourced funding for the project. It is coming entirely out of the capital budget of my Department.

Well, I certainly hope so, and I am very grateful to the Member for asking that question in the Chamber yesterday. When the Agriculture Minister left the Chamber, I bumped into him. I did not do it on purpose, but I just happened to bump into him as he came out, and I hope that he will not mind me saying that we had a brief conversation about it, and he committed, as he did in the Chamber, to working with me on it. It is important that proper support is provided in rural and urban areas. He clearly has a direct responsibility for rural communities, and I would be more than happy if he could assist me in what we are trying to do because it would benefit rural communities across Northern Ireland. I look forward to his support, and, in particular, I look forward to some financial support from him so that we can deliver even more.

What a good idea. Absolutely. We need to wait to see the evidence of need. We need to see exactly how much is needed, where that need is and how many applications we get etc. However, from the conversations that I have had already, from the response in the Chamber and from the numbers that have signed up — significant numbers of organisations are coming along to the information sessions right across Northern Ireland — I know that there is a huge demand for it. Those community halls, church halls, Orange halls and village halls right across Northern Ireland make a huge impact but are in huge need. It is a pilot. We are testing it. I am doing what I can with what I have right now, but I would very much like to see it become a rolling programme. We will take lessons from the pilot scheme, and, hopefully, we will be able to extend that out. I would appreciate Members' support in that.

876 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.10 (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 (0.74).
  • The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.08No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.06No
Dog-whistle messaging0.08No
Controversy escalation0.13No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.74Yes
Overall judgement0.10At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing0.26
Reports or questions it0.03
Criticises or condemns it (chosen)0.69
Adopts it0.02
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)0.99
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.01
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:17 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.

Challenge this classification