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 4511331
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question. Of course, we want to listen to children and young people. Sometimes, we say that we must listen to them because they are our future. They will point out, quite rightly, that they are our now and that the issues in the Programme for Government impact on them right now, therefore their views on it are very important. The First Minister and I met the Children's Commissioner last week, and we raised that issue. We will want to do sectoral engagement in particular. We would encourage young people to participate in the whole range of the consultations and to jump online and participate in that way. However, we will have sectoral engagement with young people — and with older people, which was referenced as well — to listen to their issues and views because that is important. I welcome the fact that we have decided to do a children's rights impact assessment, which is being released as part of this. Again, it will be interesting to hear the views on that to make sure that we have been looking at all the relevant areas that we ought to look at, and if there are any missing, that is, of course, something that we will address during the consultation.
215 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: 0.03 (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).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.55 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.87 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.10 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.