Debate contribution: Historical Clerical Child Abuse
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
- Historical Clerical Child Abuse
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5432777
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his important question. At the heart of all that we do must be those most impacted on: the victims and survivors. We acknowledge and put on record that it is incredibly difficult for those who have suffered at times horrendous abuse to come forward and share their story and their reflections to help inform the work and a way forward. I say a huge "Thank you" to all who have done so. There has been participation with the independent chair to inform some of that work, and I know that the junior Ministers have met victims and survivors through the forum on a number of occasions. In addition, many hundreds of victims and survivors came forward to contribute to the research reports. We genuinely thank all of them for that. Their contribution has been invaluable to our considerations. Victims and survivors have absolutely been at the heart of everything that we have done so far.
160 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).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.19 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.33 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.23 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.18 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.10 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.09 |
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.