Debate contribution: FICT Report: Recommendations and Proposals

Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .

MLA
Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
13 May 2024
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Oral Answers to Questions
Heading
FICT Report: Recommendations and Proposals
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4488767

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am always acutely aware when I respond to questions on that area that it deals with a number of tricky and contentious issues on which there has been no consensus since the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement, nor was there consensus before. We are aware that the officials' advice is at an advanced stage, and we anticipate getting that in the next short while. We will work through it and have those discussions absolutely in good faith. We do anticipate getting it prior to the summer recess.

86 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: 0.07 (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 (0.89).
  • Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
  • 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 framing0.09No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.09No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.07No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.18No
Overall judgement0.07At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.89
Reports or questions it0.11
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.59
No identity-related subject0.31
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.07
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.03
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:27 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