Debate contribution: MARAC Process: Improvements
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 19 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- MARAC Process: Improvements
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4666133
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am committed to ensuring that the risk that is posed to victims of domestic abuse is assessed and managed as effectively as possible. Members will be aware that Leonard Consultancy conducted an independent review of the multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) arrangements on behalf of all strategic partners involved. The review examined MARAC's operational effectiveness and identified potential learning and opportunities for improved effectiveness. My Department has now established a dedicated multi-agency working group to consider and respond to that review's findings, with a view to strengthening the responses to and protections for victims of domestic abuse. The group's key objectives are to identify costed recommendations for new multi-agency risk assessment arrangements and supporting processes; improve risk assessment and management in order to increase the safety of victims of domestic abuse; and reduce the risk posed by perpetrators of domestic abuse. The working group plans to hold a series of facilitated workshops to work through and agree recommended changes for how new arrangements should operate.
Through those workshops, members will consider how to build in a "person of concern" focus in order to ensure that new arrangements will focus not only on reducing the risk to the victim but on reducing the risk from the person of concern. I am confident that this work will result in a robust multi-agency arrangement that will make a material difference to the safety of high-risk victims of domestic abuse.
237 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: 0.02 (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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.69 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.22 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:37 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.