Debate contribution: Storm Éowyn: Executive Response
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 27 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statement
- Heading
- Storm Éowyn: Executive Response
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4758791
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. It is an important one, because many of those people will have waited for some considerable time — too long. We know that it is too long, and we have tackling waiting lists as a priority in the draft Programme for Government. You can only imagine how disappointing it is for somebody who has waited for months, possibly even years, only to have their appointment cancelled. I can give you only the information that we are advised about, because this is, rightly, a matter for the Department of Health and the relevant Minister. However, we are advised that hospitals have been working hard to reschedule those appointments by using every available appointment. You can understand that it may not be this week, but they are endeavouring to get people rebooked appointments as soon as possible. It is not the case that they go to the end of the list. Hospitals have been working away and contacting people. For anybody who has had an appointment cancelled and not heard about being rebooked, please let your local MLA or the system know, and we will get on to that. However, the trusts have advised us that they have been reaching out over the past few days and rescheduling those appointments.
215 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 (0.68).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.68 | 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 | 0.95 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.05 |
| 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 11:46 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.