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 5284581
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question. She will be aware that I was heavily involved in the creation of the first T:BUC strategy, and I look forward to T:BUC 2, which will be the refreshed and revised strategy. However, it is also fair to say that the core aspects of that strategy remain as relevant today as they were when we first launched it. It is all about community cohesion and community resilience but also, importantly, working with communities. There was a signature project as part of the first T:BUC strategy that was about the reduction of the barriers between communities. There has been some success from that, but it has not been as fast as we would have hoped. We set ambitious targets to remove all peace walls. We worked closely with her then party colleague David Ford in the Department of Justice and others to push Departments to do everything that they could to remove them. Some really good work has been done in North Belfast to that end, but, importantly, it is about working with communities and ensuring that they feel safe and secure. It is not about doing things to communities but about working with them to make sure that there is community consensus.
209 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 (0.75).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.75 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.96 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.04 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| 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.