Where is the policy response to June’s racist violence?

The fallout from the racist violence of early June is becoming clearer. According to Communities Minister Gordon Lyons’ response to AQW 49905/22-27 from MLA Matthew O’Toole, as of 27 July the Housing Executive reported at least 180 affected households (well over double the Minister’s 15 June report to the NI Assembly (p. 40)). According to these figures,127 – including 88 households presenting as homeless, of whom 39 were then placed in temporary accommodation -- had contacted housing authorities directly in the wake of the violence, while another 53 attended housing clinics attended by the Housing Executive. 

(Note: PPR’s experience is that the households who have presented to the Housing Executive for help are only a small proportion of those affected. Many, living in Home Office funded Mears asylum accommodation, were targeted for racist violence in threatening posts featuring a list of addresses of Houses of Multiple Occupation. Other families, in social homes or private rentals, stayed on and lived with the threat but did need help accessing goods and services over the period of heightened risk. PPR and our friends in CATU, Anaka and Glor have documented assisting upwards of 550 individuals in total.)

The state response is less clear.

MLA Kate Nicholl asked the First and Deputy First Ministers (AQW 48546/22-27 of 12.06.2026) to detail, in light of the third successive year of racially motivated violence:

“(i) practical supports; and (ii) policy changes, which have been enacted to (a) protect vulnerable people; (b) address racial equality; and (c)promote community relations, since August 2024, including the financial resources applied in each case.”

The answer is piecemeal. It opens by referring to a (possibly new?) structure - a Community Cohesion Group - led by TEO which it says has:

“identified and developed proposed targeted interventions aimed at encouraging shared community life. These focus on supporting orientation, building relationships and youth programmes and are currently under consideration.”

The bulk of the answer refers to programmes. For victims of racist violence and other at-risk people from ethnic minority groups, there is £1m+ in funding for Councils to finance existing Community Hubs to offer:

“welcoming, safe and inclusive facilities where asylum seekers, refugees, minority ethnic communities and other migrants are supported to access essential services, and to integrate into and feel empowered to contribute to their local communities.”

For young people at risk of becoming perpetrators, there is an allocation of £400k via the existing Planned Interventions Programme. (Alongside this there is also a reference to the longstanding (since 2015) T:BUC Camps programme.)

The answer then refers to something new, “development of a £500k ‘Response Fund’, designed to enable agile, targeted support in the areas where it is needed most”. These areas are undefined, as is the mechanism for working out what to do with the Fund; this will bear watching.

For the ‘longer term approach to racial equality’, the answer refers to policy: namely, the draft Framework for Race Relations consultation earlier this year. The draft is a watered down, ‘promotion of good relations’ version of the Racial Equality Strategy 2015-2025, which though weak had had the merit of being grounded in concrete Section 75 equality duties – at least until the Executive Office decided to quietly change its approach. Moreover, the draft manages to reproduce the Strategy’s four key failings (namely the lack of a budget and a meaningful action plan; insufficient meaningful involvement of people with lived experience; absence of ethnic monitoring and data; and weak governance). The final version, and any action oriented by it, will merit scrutiny.

The answer’s concluding paragraph refers to the as-yet undisclosed findings of TEO’s review of the longstanding T:BUC programme and reiterates the Executive’s commitment to a Good Relations approach to “the issues that modern society is facing”. (MLA Sinead McLaughlin had earlier asked for information about this review, and in particular about any steps to ensure that an updated T:BUC “reflects current challenges including rising racist and sectarian incidents [and] persistent segregation” (AQW 27160/22-27); the Executive’s answer emphasised “ongoing efforts to improve community relations” (12.06.2026).) 

Elsewhere, MLA Gerry Carroll asked the Minister of Justice (AQW 48747/2-27 of 16.06.2026) “to detail any plans that are in place to support families who have suffered from race hate incidents”.  The Minister’s response invoked a number of existing mechanisms including the Hate Crime Advocacy Service and the Hate Incident Practical Action Scheme (analysed here and here) as well as the Criminal Damage Compensation Scheme (see here and here). The Minister also referred to the existing Policing and Community Safety Partnership structure and its funding and activities.

Carroll also asked the Justice Minister “whether any assessment has been made of creating a cross-departmental data infrastructure linking housing displacement, hate incidents, safeguarding referrals and exploitation cases” (AQW 48542/22-27 of 12 June 2026).  The Minister’s reply:

“while there has been no formal assessment made on creating a cross-departmental data infrastructure linking housing displacement, hate incidents, safeguarding referrals and exploitation cases, my Department chairs the Hate Crime Delivery Group, whose membership includes the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Department for Communities and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.”

This Hate Crime Delivery Group – as evidenced by the response to an earlier AQW – has been around for at least ten years. Justice Minister Long wrote that “the primary purpose of the group is to assist delivery of the strategic priorities included in the Programme for Government 2024-2027”.  (It’s worth noting here that the PfG plan mentions hate crime once -- in the same sentence as “organised crime, child criminal exploitation and child sexual exploitation, domestic abuse, gender-based violence [and] racism” (p. 47) – but does not name any specific actions proposed to tackle it.) 

It seems that while some MLAs are asking practical questions, and in some cases urging new initiatives, Ministers’ answers for the most part highlight existing structures and ongoing work. Worryingly, input from the First and Deputy First Minister in particular demonstrates continued movement within the Executive away from an equality of opportunity-based approach to race and racism in favour of ‘promotion of good relations’. 

As PPR’s founder Inez McCormack warned back in 2012,

“Good relations are not good relations if they’re built on silencing the poor”. The same holds true for victims of hate.