Debate contribution: Mother-and-baby Homes in NI: Unmarked Graves
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 4 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Mother-and-baby Homes in NI: Unmarked Graves
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4254379
Read the official Assembly record
Text
That work has been moving forward at pace against the report on the five key recommendations. Work on the key policy decisions to be made in legislation is still at a relatively early stage. I know that many of the people most impacted on by the issue have not yet seen the draft legislation, but that is because it has not yet come up to Ministers. Once it does, we will consider some of the policy questions in the consultation. There are still a number of issues to be resolved, including on what we will go out to consultation, but we want to be able to look at them as comprehensively as possible. Mother-and-baby homes were not part of the Historical Institutional Abuse (HIA) inquiry. If we can, we therefore want to deal comprehensively with that issue through this inquiry and its redress scheme so as to prevent any unnecessary further inquiry into dealing with some of the elements. We will be very conscious of that issue and try to take it into account as fully as we possibly can.
180 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.74).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.74 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-qualifying 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.82 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:41 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.