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 5224482
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As the Member will be aware, so much of what we do now is about collaborative design and co-production. We hear those buzzwords all the time, but they are important, because this is about including those who will use the strategy during the period and process of putting together the strategies and action plans. That is important, and there are so many different elements. If you speak to anybody about what they think that AI is, you will find that it depends on their personal experience of it. Many people will think that it is about jumping on an app on their phone and asking it to put something together, should that be a picture, a couple of paragraphs or some factual information. Of course, AI has so many other potential uses, not least in our health sector, supporting diagnostics; across our system, populating fields with common information and therefore saving a lot of people a lot of time; and in the drafting of factual background speeches. There are two key principles: the first is that it has to be ethical; and the second is that it is important that we still have a core human element to check facts and to check for bias and other issues. The end users are really important. We know that a lot of older people use government services. Many of the older people whom I know could buy and sell you in social media and online. We also know that there are challenges with some of those digital skills right across people's ages, so it has to have a role in the entire life cycle. We need to look at all its characteristics and challenges and make sure that it is fit for purpose. You are absolutely right.
295 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 (0.73).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.73 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.82 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.17 |
| 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.