Debate contribution: T:BUC: Update
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 25 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- T:BUC: Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4674793
Read the official Assembly record
Text
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 6 and 13 together. As Members will be aware, the Together: Building a United Community strategy reflects the Executive's commitment to improving community relations here between people of different political, ethnic and religious backgrounds. Since its launch in 2013, we can all recognise that considerable progress has been made, with a number of headline action targets having been fully achieved. Progress continues to be made towards meeting other targets in often complex areas of work. We know that work remains to be done, however, and we want to ensure that our approach to good relations meets the needs of everyone in our society. We acknowledge that, since the first T:BUC strategy was launched, our society has become increasingly diverse. There is therefore a need to ensure that our approach to good relations effectively engages all those who live here and, in turn, creates a truly united society. The final draft of the Together: Building a United Community review's report is under development by officials. We expect recommendations to be submitted to us shortly. Those recommendations will help shape the starting point for designing a refreshed approach to good relations and inform the timeline for its development.
205 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: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.51 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| 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 11:38 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.