Debate contribution: Committees: Public Information
Debate contribution by Mrs Sinéad Ennis on .
- MLA
- Mrs Sinéad Ennis
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 2 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Committees: Public Information
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5272091
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Assembly Commission is developing a new website to enhance navigation and the user experience and improve search functionality and accessibility. The new website will also facilitate the better integration of Committees' digital media content, and all those improvements will better promote their work. Social media is important when it comes promoting the work of Committees, and the Commission has recently enhanced its digital content resources to better support Committees with video and image-based content. Those focus on calls for evidence and consultations and on showcasing the engagement work of the Committees on external visits. The Assembly's social media channels support the work of the Committees on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and LinkedIn, and they cover a broad range of demographics.
121 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 | 0.08 | 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 | 0.85 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.14 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:07 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.