Debate contribution: Programme for Government: Update
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 9 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Programme for Government: Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4511325
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. It is an important one that provides a good opportunity to clarify the process. At the moment, this is a draft that is asking people what their view is of the prioritisation. Following the finalisation of that prioritisation, a set of measurements will, of course, be put in place to ensure progress. The Member will see that there is a reference towards the end of the document to the "Wellbeing Framework". There will be a set of indicators that will be based on objective and subjective measurements. That will all be set out: it is live online at the moment. Those indicators may change, however, depending on the prioritisation and rightly so. For each finalised priority there will be a set of indicators that will be monitored. Depending on the reporting mechanism, those will be monitored month by month, annually or biannually.
We will monitor those for progress against the outcomes set out. I can assure the Member that there will be that monitoring, that assessment of progress, and a budget attached. However, that will follow the finalisation of those priorities. It would be presumptuous of us to assume that those priorities will simply remain after the consultation process.
206 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: 0.02 (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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.41 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:58 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.