Debate contribution: Public Disorder: TEO Strategic Action

Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .

MLA
Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
16 June 2025
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Questions for Urgent Oral Answer
Heading
Public Disorder: TEO Strategic Action
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5010823

Read the official Assembly record

Text

First and foremost, my thoughts and support are with those who have been impacted on by the recent disorder. The Executive unequivocally condemn the violence that has been witnessed, and I, again, call for calm across our communities. We assure you that ensuring the safety of and support for all those affected is of paramount importance in our collective response. There can never be justification for the violence that has taken place, which has resulted in residents fearing for their lives and numerous PSNI officers being injured. We send our best wishes to all those who have been affected and thank the PSNI, the Fire and Rescue Service (NIFRS) and the many community organisations and local representatives for what they have done to try to support those communities. We recognise that we live in an increasingly diverse society and that good community relations go beyond what are often referred to as traditional community backgrounds. The T:BUC review and plans for the new approach to racial equality post 2025 acknowledges that, and we are committed to developing a more collaborative approach across relevant strategies as part of the refreshed approach to good relations.

However, we cannot tackle the issue in isolation if we are to create a safe, prosperous and welcoming society for all. Critical to the success of our work is a truly joined-up approach to addressing the issues across government and wider society, and everyone has their part to play in that.

I thank the Member for her follow-up question. She is absolutely right: it is important that, when we talk about collaborative working, which we often do, we talk not just about collaboration between the Department and those outside it but about collaboration within the Department. That is why I am pleased to say that we have joined up the refugee and asylum unit and the race relations unit. Also important is the fact that the T:BUC review is under way. As we look forward to T:BUC 2 coming down the line, we see that its focus will be social cohesion, which, as I said, goes much wider than references to the traditional communities. We know that identity in Northern Ireland is much more complex than that and goes beyond those often referred to as the "host community". We are an increasingly diverse place. Ultimately, we want the strategies to work. It does not matter how many of them there are, how glossy they look or how long they are: we want the outcomes at the end of them. That must mean that they are all joined up and that we use resources in the best way possible to effect positive change and increase social cohesion.

448 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.06 (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 (0.52).
  • Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.09No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.05No
Dog-whistle messaging0.04No
Controversy escalation0.06No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.65Yes
Overall judgement0.06At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.52
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.48
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers0.82
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.18
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:52 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.

Challenge this classification