Debate contribution: North/South Ministerial Council: Institutional and Plenary Meetings
Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Ministerial Statements
- Heading
- North/South Ministerial Council: Institutional and Plenary Meetings
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5623634
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Mr Speaker, I apologise that I was not here for the start of the statement. First Minister, very recently, Members attended the North/South Inter-Parliamentary Association (NSIPA) plenary in Dublin. It was a wonderful opportunity for us to hear about some of the really good projects that are coming forward through the PEACE PLUS programme. What role will the North/South Ministerial Council have in shaping the next round of funding with a view to our consideration of PEACE PLUS through the prism of full cultural and ethnic diversity as opposed to the binary green/orange of the past? Further to that, following on from the leader of the Opposition's contribution, while it is great that so many agencies slotted into place over the past few days, what will you do about long-term emergency planning for when that situation arises again, so that people know where to go for help?
147 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: 0.12 (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 (0.80).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.50).
- 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 | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.11 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.50 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.31 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.17 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.95 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.03 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:47 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.