Debate contribution: Rural Communities in North Antrim: Investment
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Rural Communities in North Antrim: Investment
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5284553
Read the official Assembly record
Text
With such projects, it can be difficult to drill down into them, because a lot of what they are trying to do involves stopping things happening. They are trying to stop young people being dragged into antisocial behaviour. They are trying to stop young people being pulled into paramilitary organisations and criminal gangs, and they are trying to provide better opportunities and outcomes for young people. It can therefore be difficult to determine some of the outcomes, but I am really pleased to say that, since the beginning of the programme — not that programme alone, because there are communities working together across so many interventions — we have seen a 60% reduction in paramilitary-style attacks. There has been a 70% reduction in the number of households reporting homelessness due to paramilitary intimidation. The number of convictions for paramilitary-related and criminal gang-related offences has increased sevenfold since the beginning of the programme. That is evidence that it is working, but we should stand together and say clearly that criminal gangs and paramilitarism are absolutely wrong and that there is no place for them in our society. They need to go away. They should never have been there in the first place. I really support all such interventions to support communities to be resilient against such organisations.
216 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: 0.05 (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 (0.66).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.66).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.66 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.34 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.66 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.95 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.04 |
| 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 14:08 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.