Debate contribution: Historical Institutional Abuse Redress Board: Update
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Historical Institutional Abuse Redress Board: Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4774077
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. It is on an issue that not only have we been working on for some time but, indeed, you, Mr Speaker, have been engaged in this important matter. It was a recommendation in Judge Hart's report and one that we are very keen to see implemented as quickly as we can. We know that there is a range of different views across the sector on what the memorial should look like. We have met and had a very good engagement with those groups and are, hopefully, moving forward at pace to find a resolution and to ensure that the memorialisation can happen in this Building and, of course, elsewhere as well. I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the huge amount of work that those organisations have done for many years not only in fighting to get the inquiry but in working with victims and survivors and communicating that sector's needs to the First Minister, me and others.
168 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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.17 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.44 | No |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.53 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.33 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.10 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:52 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.