Debate contribution: Action to End Violence Against Women and Girls
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
- Action to End Violence Against Women and Girls
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4666173
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yes. The Department has engaged with the PCSP on additional funding and how it spends the money that it has at the moment. I am aware, for example, that the PSNI has increased patrols and that the PCSP has additional measures in place, whereby people can get alarms to carry with them for additional reassurance. There are challenges, and it is not an easy issue. Ultimately, my Department mainly leads on the issue of policy, and there are no quick policy fixes to violence against women and girls. On the operational side, delivery of service generally falls to arm's-length bodies over which I do not have direct authority and control. However, it is important to say that we have engaged with the local community, the PCSP and the PSNI to ensure that they have the resources available to do the work that they need to do in that context. It is also important to say that, if people remain fearful and afraid, that is unacceptable. We need to change the culture in this place and in other places where it is acceptable to be aggressive, violent or abusive towards women. Until we get that right in the House and everywhere else, we will not see a sea change in how women are treated on our streets.
216 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: 0.04 (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 (0.86).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.73).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.73 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.27 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.67 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.33 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| 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.