Debate contribution: Legislative Programme: Update
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 17 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Legislative Programme: Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4802652
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am not sure whether I can choose which question to answer, but I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. First, from a standing start, we were keen for the legislative programme to have ambition. When we came in just a year ago, Ministers were required to go into their Departments and assess what was likely to progress, but it is important that legislation also reflects the views of Ministers and Committees. Some of that legislation has gone forward. I ask the Member to look at the example of Wales, which introduced six pieces of legislation in 2024 to our seven. There are comparable statistics. I also say to the Member that we should not always look to legislation first. There are many different ways of bringing about change, including reform; transformation of the way in which we do things; bringing forward policy and policy statements; and tackling the big issues in Departments. It is not always about new legislation. That said, we are taking measures to work with Departments to ensure that the ambition set out by Ministers to introduce legislation can be realised and that that legislation can hit the House for proper scrutiny in a timely way.
201 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).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.44 | No |
| 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 11:57 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.