Debate contribution: Ending Violence Against Women and Girls: Delivery Plans
Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .
- MLA
- Ms Michelle O'Neill
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 23 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Ending Violence Against Women and Girls: Delivery Plans
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4543839
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I note that question 1 has been withdrawn. I know that this was mentioned earlier in the House, but the Member who was due to ask that question was stranded last night at an airport in England due to it not having accessible services for him. I am sure that everybody will want to send their best wishes to our colleague and say that airlines, and every other service, need to do better to support people with additional needs. Turning to question 2, we are very pleased to say that, following Executive approval of the ending violence against women and girls strategic framework and the first delivery plan earlier this month, the launch of that important framework took place on Monday 16 September. There is a two-year delivery plan during which we will develop campaigns and collaborate with many parts of government and society to drive transformative change. Vitally, we will support grassroots groups and community and voluntary sector organisations through a change fund to do more, build capacity and be better equipped to address this significant issue in their areas. Preparations continue at pace to bring forward the change fund, and we are pleased to say that work is ongoing to deliver a number of the actions in the delivery plan.
212 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 (0.99).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.46 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.56 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.32 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.11 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:03 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.