Motion or amendment: Institutional Contribution to Recognition and Redress
Motion or amendment by Ms Connie Egan on .
- MLA
- Ms Connie Egan
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 11 April 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Institutional Contribution to Recognition and Redress
- Assembly identifier
- Document 396946
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Institutional Contribution to Recognition and Redress
That this Assembly expresses its shame at the historical institutional childhood abuse which took place in Northern Ireland from 1922 to 1995; acknowledges the ongoing trauma and suffering of victims and survivors; salutes the courage of those leading groups representing and supporting victims and survivors in continuing to seek adequate assistance and acknowledgement; recognises the anger and frustration felt by victims and survivors that they have not been adequately supported; deplores the ongoing failure of the institutions directly responsible for this trauma and suffering to engage adequately in contributing to redress and recognition since they were given notice that they would have to meet such obligations in 2010; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to explore all possible means of ensuring as a matter of urgency that those institutions, as they have in other jurisdictions, make a fair and meaningful contribution to public recognition of and financial redress to victims and survivors.
162 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
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 (0.83).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.31 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.29 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.17 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.13 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.07 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:52 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.