Debate contribution: Communities in Transition: Funding Eligibility
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Communities in Transition: Funding Eligibility
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4774017
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her supplementary question. Let us be very clear: there is absolutely no place for paramilitarism in 2025; indeed, in my view, there was never any place for paramilitarism or paramilitary activity. Of course, the PSNI takes the lead on the criminal aspects of that and must do everything in its power to ensure that those who continue to be involved in such behaviour are brought to justice. On the community aspects of that, yes, there are many programmes throughout government in many Departments that deal with the very issues that the Member rightly highlights. Of course, all Ministers would want to do more of that, but the Communities in Transition programme particularly looks at those who may be vulnerable to being dragged into that type of behaviour. It is very much a programme that focuses on prevention and community resilience and, in particular, working with young people who are at risk to ensure that they do not end up going down that pathway. That includes mental health programmes, training programmes and different types of community-based programmes, which are all based on that best practice.
189 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: 0.05 (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 (0.65).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.72).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.65 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.72 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.28 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.98 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:52 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.