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 4543849
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you. We are going to say a lot more about the change fund in the coming weeks when we have settled on the final application process etc. We will certainly talk to the Committee about that. You are right: £3 million has been earmarked over the first two years of the plan. We intend to target that funding keenly towards the change fund itself. We have launched the small business research initiative (SBRI) challenge fund. That is to help local businesses be innovative about creating solutions. The figure for that — I cannot remember the right figure — might be £500,000 but I will confirm the actual figure for the Member in writing. That is going to be for two challenges for small businesses to develop tools to improve the safety of women and girls at home, work or school. That is one area. The second area will be on having innovative methods to increase and improve the physical and psychological safety of women and girls in all settings and equipping people to identify and respond to potential violence. The funding will be very much targeted at that first two-year plan, but we want to achieve more funding, and we said that this is just the start. I will give you the breakdown of the actual figures for the three areas of funding in writing.
226 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.74).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.74 | Yes |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.56 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.43 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.