Debate contribution: Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Harry Harvey on .
- MLA
- Mr Harry Harvey
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 24 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5046690
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, I totally agree. I appreciate that. Thank you. There is tremendous hurt and anger around the issue. We must acknowledge that. The Committee has been alive to the lived realities and experiences of so many victims and survivors. We have all heard accounts from those who were subjected to horrific physical and emotional abuse. Whilst the Bill will never undo past tragedies, nor could it ever quantify the trauma that was experienced in appropriate financial terms, it provides, in some small way, for an official acknowledgement of the wrongdoing that was experienced by victims. As the Executive Office moves in the coming months to enact the Bill's contents, it is vital that, throughout the process, the voices of victims continue to be heard. Provision for the creation of an advisory panel, alongside the inquiry panel, is a positive element of the Bill and demonstrates a victim-centred approach and victim-centred action. The pain of the past can never be undone, but the Bill is a recognition of that pain. I support the Bill's passage.
181 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: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.53 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.55 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.26 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.07 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:52 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.