Debate contribution: Mother-and-baby Homes: Victims and Survivors
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Mother-and-baby Homes: Victims and Survivors
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4495025
Read the official Assembly record
Text
That will teach me a lesson to remove the material for the withdrawn questions. I did not have an answer to question 3, but I have an answer to question 4. We are very aware of the needs of victims and survivors and remain committed to introducing legislation to the Assembly for a statutory public inquiry and redress scheme as soon as possible. There are a number of complex and sensitive issues for us to consider carefully. It is important that victims and survivors are at the centre of this, which is why a public consultation on the key policy proposals is essential. We want to meet the Victims and Survivors Consultation Forum and to seek the views of Executive colleagues before coming to a decision on some of the points. It is anticipated that the consultation will be launched in a matter of weeks. We are actively considering the proposals and will include online and face-to-face events to make sure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to contribute during the 12-week period. This remains one of the most difficult parts of our past, but we are committed to the three core aims of truth, acknowledgement and accountability.
201 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: 0.05 (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 (0.64).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.64 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.42 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.40 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.09 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:37 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.