Debate contribution: Together: Building a United Community
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 13 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Together: Building a United Community
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5483249
Read the official Assembly record
Text
When we publish a strategy, have a delivery plan for it and fund projects either directly through our signature projects or through local councils, where we support a huge amount of that work, it is incredibly important that we ensure that we evaluate that and make sure that the money that we have is being used correctly. Unfortunately, resources across government are finite, so it is critical that we use them in the best way that we can. I am really pleased about the success of T:BUC. It has had a huge impact. The evaluations have been very positive. By way of example, 8,000 young people participated in the Uniting Communities programme, and 36,000 young people participated in the youth programme against an original target of 10,000. Even on tricky issues such as interfaces, progress has been made, with a third of interfaces having been reduced, a third removed completely and a third being work in progress. The important thing about Together: Building a United Community is that we do not avoid the difficult issues. It may be challenging to make progress, but we must still take on those issues and try to make positive progress against them. That can be done only by working with people in those communities. That is right at the heart of T:BUC, and I have no doubt that that will continue to be the case as we move on to T:BUC 2.
238 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 (0.81).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.98 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:17 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.