Debate contribution: Programme for Government 2024-27: 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
- Programme for Government 2024-27: Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4674821
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I did not watch that evidence session, but the targets will be measured in two ways. First, they will be measured against the set of well-being indicators. That will involve measurement against a set baseline, and improvements against that indicator will then be monitored and reported continually. All of that will be available online. It is currently live online, but, of course, some of those indicators will evolve and change, depending on the final Programme for Government. That will show real and meaningful progress against a wide range of targets and indicators set down in the well-being framework. The second way in which they will be measured is through the specific targets against each of the priorities. The official may not have been able to give you the specifics because those will, of course, be led by the Ministers who lead on each priority. For example, for health waiting lists, that will depend on the budget that is received and then on what comes back from the Health Minister on specific targets. It will be similar for social and affordable housing, which the Minister for Communities will bring forward and lead. The key thing for us will be to ensure that there is consistency in the types of target that are set down and that they are realistic, can have an associated budget within the difficult budget envelope that we have and are deliverable.
234 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.76).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.76 | Yes |
| 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 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.