Debate contribution: Lisnaskea Capital Build Projects
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Lisnaskea Capital Build Projects
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4937635
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her important question. I am fully supportive of the project. It is a fantastic project that brings together statutory services — in the health centre — the school and, importantly, the community sector. It really will breathe new life into that site in a genuinely shared way. It is a fantastic project that perhaps, in the past, has suffered from the fact that there is no dedicated fund to support it. There ought to be. That type of shared initiative opens up those spaces and gives them a new use that is genuinely about every part of our society and community being able to come and use them. That is a great thing. Certainly, the then first Minister and deputy First Minister were more heavily involved in the project than I was; I was a special adviser at the time. We have been looking at trying to have a capital scheme as part of our Victims and Survivors Service, in recognition of the fact that many of our fantastic victims and survivors groups have capital buildings that were funded through PEACE or other funds. However, that was a considerable time ago. There is a need to make sure that those premises are accessible for disabled people and fit for purpose. That is under active consideration within the Executive Office.
224 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: 0.03 (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 (0.80).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.78 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.21 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:22 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.