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 4254383
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Absolutely. I am not aware of the detail of what you have said about the potential sale of such land, but there is no doubt that people throughout Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland have been absolutely appalled at some of the revelations about the treatment of those babies and children. It is an incredibly emotive issue for very many people, so it is absolutely right that we address it in every way that we can. Although I do not know the detail of the specific plots of land that the Member talks about, land absolutely should not be sold if there is a question mark over those sites. We will certainly take that issue away, consider it fully and perhaps write to the Member with more details.
129 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: 0.07 (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 (0.63).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.63 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | 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 | 0.69 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.16 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.10 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.04 |
| 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.