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 4774081
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. The Executive Office deals with many areas that are incredibly sensitive. We have adopted what is often referred to as a trauma-informed response and approach to the issues. I am disappointed to hear that that has been the experience of some victims. Of course, the recounting of such experiences is, in itself, hugely traumatic. I pay tribute to those victims and survivors who came forward and put themselves through the process. There is, however, a safety net in place through the support that is given. That is provided not just through training — all the panel members are trained in trauma-informed response and its techniques — but through the funding that goes to the Victims and Survivors Service to support victims and survivors who are going through the process. I therefore appeal to anybody who feels that they need help in that area to approach either the commissioner or the Victims and Survivors Service to get such help and support.
167 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).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.49 | No |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.61 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.29 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.06 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| 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.