Debate contribution: Victims and Survivors Strategy
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 31 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Victims and Survivors Strategy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4871812
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question. The victims and survivors strategy has been published. Key actions and schemes arise from it. We have asked in particular that the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) take a look at introducing a capital scheme to support some capital works. We are conscious that, across our incredible victims and survivors' organisations, many have not had the ability to apply for capital. That could be for anything from the replacement of kitchens or other facilities to making their premises more disabled-friendly. That is such an important issue because of the cohort with which those groups do such great work, and many of the buildings require that capital work. We take a needs-based approach. I was glad to see that, in the review of the previous strategy and in the new strategy, we had already identified many of the needs. We will, however, look at some new areas, such as a capital scheme, and we will ramp up our support for tackling the intergenerational trauma that is emerging.
173 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 (0.88).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.91 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.08 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:16 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.