Debate contribution: Office of AI and Digital
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 2 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Office of AI and Digital
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5356440
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As the Member will be aware, a number of places are looking at the issue. I was disappointed to hear that Northern Ireland would not be included in the Westminster legislation on monitoring AI's generation of particular images. We have just heard from the Minister of Justice about introducing our own legislation. I continue, however, to pursue our inclusion in the Westminster legislation, which will be introduced much quicker. The Member is absolutely correct to say that we need to take an ethical approach to AI. Legislation will be required to catch up and deal with the dark side of potential technological advancements, including AI. From a public-sector perspective, however, having an ethical framework embedded in the strategy from the outset and collaborating with other jurisdictions across these islands to make sure that there is consistency will mean that, when we use AI, should that be data, for triage or whatever, it is used in a way that best gives us confidence that its use is correct and abides by the ethical framework.
173 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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.83 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 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 14:18 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.