Debate contribution: Agri-food Sector: Programme for Government
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
- Agri-food Sector: Programme for Government
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4511365
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her important question about this really critical industry for Northern Ireland. We have a really strong farming community that we all ought to be very proud of in Northern Ireland. Our agri-food products are world-leading and world-class, and that comes from, of course, the application and hard work of so many of our farmers across rural communities. We need to be champions of that. I spoke recently at the Ulster Farmers' Union AGM and made it clear that, in the Executive, I am here to be a champion for farmers and for our farming community and to rightfully raise the important issues that they have. We want to support them and need to support them, and that is particularly acute at a time of global supply chain insecurity in relation to our food. Locally, we have great nutritious and high-quality food that is produced in Northern Ireland because of our hard-working farmers, and, in the Programme for Government process, we will want to engage with the rural community, our farmers and the agri-food sector to make sure that the Programme for Government fully reflects their importance to our economy.
194 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.34 | 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 | 0.96 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 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.