Debate contribution: Troubles Memorialisation Programme
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 2 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Troubles Memorialisation Programme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5432755
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We have had a briefing from our officials around some early preparatory work. The Member will understand fully that it is a hugely sensitive area that needs to be led by victims and survivors. There will certainly not be a one-size-fits-all approach. I have had the great privilege of working with victims and survivors' groups for many years over the past two decades. I have sat with victims and survivors and seen their tears, and I have heard very clearly how much hurt they still suffer now. Whatever we do needs to be incredibly sensitive to that. There is no doubt that the issue of the definition of "a victim" has been significant in this space over the past 20 to 30 years. We will be working with victims and survivors. I have said it before and will say it again: in my role, I feel that it is my responsibility to do absolutely nothing that would cause further hurt to people. It is in that context that we are exploring some of the options around the matter.
178 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: 0.07 (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 (0.99).
- 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 | 0.08 | 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 | 0.46 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:58 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.