Debate contribution: Good Relations Programme: North Belfast
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
- Good Relations Programme: North Belfast
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5284573
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. I also thank him for being a relentless champion for the groups in North Belfast and ensuring that the issues remain actively discussed and on the table. I am pleased to say that, just in this financial year, there are over 120 funding awards to North Belfast totalling somewhere around £2·6 million. That is a significant amount of support. The Member is absolutely right: the scheme was developed some time ago, and it is fair to say that a number of the groups that historically benefited from the scheme are, for a range of reasons, no longer part of that scheme. That has meant that there is not a fair and equitable distribution of that funding in North Belfast, nor is it accurately and relevantly getting to the places that it needs to get to. The scheme needs to be reviewed, and it certainly needs to be revised with more groups coming into that, but we are also looking at that in the context of the T:BUC review to see how best we can support the communities in North Belfast that the Member champions.
191 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: 0.06 (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 (0.82).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.67 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.28 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.04 |
| 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.