Debate contribution: THRiVE Project
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
- THRiVE Project
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4488807
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. The Executive Office budget has been incredibly difficult. We requested £7 million of additional revenue, particularly to support our good relations and ending violence against women and girls strategies. Unfortunately, we were able to secure only £1 million of additional funds. When you take into account inflationary increase and other pressures, that does not leave a significant amount of headroom. Of course, our good relations strategy and interventions are vital. Urban Villages is one where we have had very good learning. We are actively considering the way forward, particularly around the place-based intervention model. We hope to come forward with proposals. We will consult the Committee on those to forge the new programme.
120 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: 0.04 (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 (0.90).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.90 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.10 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.75 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.11 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.10 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.03 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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.