Debate contribution: D-Day Events: Non-attendance of the First Minister
Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .
- MLA
- Ms Michelle O'Neill
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 10 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Question for Urgent Oral Answer
- Heading
- D-Day Events: Non-attendance of the First Minister
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4495350
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Our Department receives many invitations and endeavours to attend as many events as possible. The Executive Office is represented by me, as the First Minister, and by the deputy First Minister and our junior Ministers. Last week, our Department was represented at events including the D-Day commemorations, business awards and the Your Time To Shine female leaders celebration event.
My original answer stands. Our Department receives many invitations, and I am more than confident — I have every confidence, in fact — that the deputy First Minister represented our office appropriately at the event last week. I attend many events and will continue to do so where possible. We were more than adequately represented by the deputy First Minister last week.
I am sure that the Member is not for one second trying to denigrate the role of the deputy First Minister, who was there to represent the whole of the Executive Office.
The deputy First Minister and I and our office agreed that she would attend. We were adequately represented by the deputy First Minister, and I trust that the Member will agree with that statement.
I assure the Member that I am very confident that I can stand over my record as a First Minister for all. I think that I demonstrate that every day in word and deed.
I concur with her comment that it was appropriate that we were represented. It was appropriate that the Executive were represented by the deputy First Minister in agreement with me. That is something that we discussed, as we do with every other invitation that we receive.
267 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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.32 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.06 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.47 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.29 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.11 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.09 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:37 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.