Debate contribution: AI Strategy
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- AI Strategy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5224478
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Nor did I realise that question 7 had been withdrawn. That is why I requested permission for the questions to be grouped. Apologies. The Member is absolutely right. We have a timetable for phase 2 and phase 3. Phase 2 is now complete. As I am sure the Member is aware, a task and finish group has been established by Professor Helen McCarthy, who is in our new post of Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser (CSTA). She has been a real breath of fresh air. That shows the benefit, even though hers is only a part-time posting, of someone's coming in from outside the system with knowledge and experience of, and passion for, the area. She is really trying to drive through what we require from the strategy. That work is well under way. As I said, that group has been convened, and she has been engaging with a wide range of people. We have established six core pillars for the new AI strategy and action plan, and the aim is that it will cover up to 2030. The six pillars are governance, infrastructure, data, skills, public-sector transformation and citizenship. We are looking at having an AI hub for delivery, which would look at the actions. I commend our CSTA, as it is a significant amount of work. I know that she has also relied on a range of third-sector and private-sector partners for expertise and support. Of course, we are very grateful for the help and support that we have received on that from inside and outside the system.
260 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.51 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| 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 13:41 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.