Debate contribution: Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill: Northern Ireland
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill: Northern Ireland
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4482718
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. As we understand it, only a small number of people in Northern Ireland are impacted on, but those who are undoubtedly had their life profoundly changed by what happened as a result of that great injustice. We have therefore been working with the Justice Minister and other colleagues — many others in the House have been doing the same — to push for Northern Ireland to be included in the legislation. It is vital that it is. The time that it would take us to put through bespoke legislation here would be disproportionate and would mean that justice would, in all likelihood, be delayed for a number of years. We have been working hard. We met the relevant Minister when we were over at the East-West Council meeting. We took the opportunity to meet face to face to push the issue and urge him to include Northern Ireland. We see no legal impediment to Northern Ireland's inclusion in the UK-wide Bill. It would be the timely thing to do, and it is important to get justice for those who have suffered that injustice.
190 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: 0.04 (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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.79 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.20 |
| 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 09:57 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.