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 4774085
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question. In her role as Chair of the Executive Office Committee, she will know that we are aware of the issue and of the communication on it. We are advised that the submission of applications to the scheme has slowed down significantly and that there is no indication as this stage that there is demand out there for an extension to the date by which applications must be submitted. We anticipate that, as we head towards 2 April 2025, there will be a small increase in the number of applications, and understandably so, perhaps because those yet remaining to apply will, in light of the closure date, be motivated to put in their application in and around then. Year-on-year, the number of applications has decreased significantly. In 2024-25, we were down to 472 applications. As the Member will also be aware, we have endeavoured throughout the period to publicise the scheme, including by putting a leaflet through every single door in Northern Ireland and by working with the commissioner on online campaigns and international campaigns. We are therefore satisfied that we have done a significant job of publicising the scheme. We will, however, continue to monitor the situation to assess whether there is further need to do so.
214 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 (0.67).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.67 | 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 | 0.79 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.18 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| 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.