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 5224451
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question. As she is aware, we have included the Arts Council in taking the matter forward. That was a recommendation, as she knows, from the Hart report. It has been outstanding for such a long period because of the need to find as much consensus as possible on a matter that is both sensitive and incredibly important to victims across the piece. We have always been acutely aware that not all victims and survivors have the same view on every matter. We have therefore worked carefully with them, and I am really pleased that we have found a way through on what was a challenging issue over the past number of years. I have no doubt that there will be the same challenges with local memorialisation, but we want the process of working with people to be victim-centred. It also has to be trauma-informed. That will take time, working with the Arts Council and potentially with councils. Local groups may want to see something a bit different in their area, and we need to have the flexibility to take them into account. Once the plaque is completed, work will continue at pace to ensure that the commitment to local memorialisation is fulfilled as well.
210 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: 0.05 (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 (0.63).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.12 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.63 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.93 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.07 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
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.