Debate contribution: Social Inclusion
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
- Social Inclusion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4674878
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yes. There has been a commitment to bringing forward those social inclusion strategies. They will be tailored to those particular groups and are loosely based on each of the section 75 groups. The Department for Communities takes the lead on that, and I know that a significant amount of work is already under way. From our point of view in the Executive Office, we deal with a number of groups that have been and continue to be marginalised, not least victims and survivors, for example, and, in that area, we have dedicated funding through our Victims and Survivors Service. We also approach that work through a number of different commissioner-type roles, such as the Older People's Commissioner, which promotes issues associated with older people. We will move to make better reference to that in the Programme for Government, but, of course, we will work with our colleagues, particularly in the Department for Communities, to ensure that all our communities can benefit.
161 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: 0.04 (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 (0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.60 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.60 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.36 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 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.