Debate contribution: Domestic and Sexual Abuse Strategy
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 30 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Domestic and Sexual Abuse Strategy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4563964
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yes. Sir John Gillen recommended that publicly funded, independent legal advice should be made available to all victims in cases of serious sexual offences. We introduced the SOLAs scheme as a response to that. Feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. I was really pleased to confirm that, as part of the recommendations of the strategy's action plan, we will now launch an equivalent but specific service for children and young people. The application process for the legal adviser positions that are available closes on 1 October. The impacts of such violence on children are, understandably, more extreme. When I met families of young victims, I was told directly how challenging it was to engage with the criminal justice processes. Without access to advice on what the legal system might involve or require and on their rights as they navigate it, we add to victims' anxiety and contribute to their reluctance to engage. It is important that we are able to provide that access. Beyond that, we will look at how we can have a right to be heard in the court itself. At the moment, it is for pre-trial, so, for specific pre-trial hearings, those legal advisers would be able to attend court and be heard with the victim.
208 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 (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.52 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.47 |
| 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 11:12 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.