Debate contribution: Domestic Violence: Support for Male Victims
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
- Domestic Violence: Support for Male Victims
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4666204
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is not just something that I plan to do but something that I have been doing. At a constituency level, I wrote to the Minister for Communities about the fact that non-resident parents, even if they have shared custody, are entitled to housing benefit for only one additional room in their house by dispensation. If they have three children, all of different sexes, where are they all supposed to go in the one room? It therefore denies men the right to take up their shared custody arrangements as they ought to. There are real issues with our processes and procedures, which need to be more nuanced. The issue for the Housing Executive is that the same people cannot be counted twice. Unfortunately, that needs to happen in blended and separated households if relationships are to be maintained. We are trying to work our way through such issues. They are not easy to resolve, but it is important that they be resolved. My Department will introduce a small grants scheme in the next few weeks. I encourage organisations that work in that particular space to make an application. Whether it is to do studies on prevalence or to provide front-line support to people, it is something that we are very open to funding.
213 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: 0.10 (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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | 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 | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.67 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 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.