Debate contribution: Victims and Survivors: Memorial
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Victims and Survivors: Memorial
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5224443
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse (HIA) have endured unimaginable pain and suffering over many years. We recognise the importance of fulfilling the final recommendation of the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry report to honour those who suffered, including those who did not live to see justice or acknowledgement. Following extensive engagement with victims and survivors, we are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached to place a memorial plaque in the Great Hall of Parliament Buildings. We have considered the views expressed by victims and survivors and agreed the final wording for the plaque. The Speaker has confirmed that the Assembly Commission is content with the final wording, and officials are working closely with the Speaker's Office to take the final steps. We thank the Speaker for his continued support in helping us to deliver this important inquiry recommendation. The memorial will ensure that the victims and survivors are permanently and respectfully remembered and acknowledged.
157 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).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.35 | No |
| 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 | 0.53 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.34 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:41 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.