Debate contribution: Historical Institutional Abuse Redress Board
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Historical Institutional Abuse Redress Board
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4667307
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question. As we head towards the closure date of the scheme next year, we want to make sure that we reach those who are entitled to that support. There have been a number of previous campaigns, including a leaflet that was put through every door. However, we want to make sure in the last months of the scheme, so there will be a new campaign, including radio adverts. We have written to all MLAs and various organisations asking them to share the information. We have also sent the information to all councils across the UK and Ireland and, indeed, have reached out to organisations that we have worked with before in, for example, Australia to try to support that. We will also place stories in local and international media to try to promote to the readership the fact that the scheme remains open and to encourage them to come forward before it closes next year.
161 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: 0.03 (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 (0.60).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.60 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.66 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.27 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:33 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.