Debate contribution: Violence against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 25 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Violence against Women and Girls
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4674848
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her important question, particularly on this day. Today marks White Ribbon Day, known as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and the start of a period known as 16 Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence. From the outset, the First Minister and I made tackling violence against women and girls a key priority. The rates of violence against and murders of women and girls in Northern Ireland are far too high. We recognise that it will require us to work collaboratively with agencies, the PSNI, schools, families and communities. The best way to do so will be through prevention. That will not be a short-term issue. It will not be done tomorrow or next week, as, I know, the Member is well aware. I was pleased that we were able to produce not just our strategy on ending violence against women and girls but the associated action plan. We have £3 million over the course of the remainder of this year and next year from the challenge fund and the change fund. That is not the totality of our aspirations, and it will not solve all issues, but we believe that it is a valuable start to working together to tackle the scourge of violence against women and girls.
218 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 (0.80).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- 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 | 0.04 | 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 | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.59 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.41 |
| 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 11:38 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.