Debate contribution: Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation

Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .

MLA
Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
11 November 2024
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Oral Answers to Questions
Heading
Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4667295

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for his question. The Member will be aware that that building was listed, as I understand it, at the request of the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland during a period of direct rule and outside the control or context of either the Northern Ireland Executive or the House. I am clear and reiterate this: nothing will happen on that site as long as I am deputy First Minister that would cause hurt and pain to victims and survivors. That is my promise to victims and survivors. I wish to do nothing to cause any further pain and hurt to those who have suffered the most and given the most to Northern Ireland.

118 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.13 (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 (0.97).
  • Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.12No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.26No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.17No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.43No
Overall judgement0.13At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.97
Reports or questions it0.01
Criticises or condemns it0.02
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism1.00
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:32 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.

Challenge this classification