Debate contribution: Ending Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Mr Stewart Dickson on .
- MLA
- Mr Stewart Dickson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 14 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Ending Violence Against Women and Girls
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4736264
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Opposition for bringing this important motion to the House today. We stand here confronted with a harsh truth: violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland is not just a problem; it is an epidemic. Statistics show that women in Northern Ireland will face at least one form of gender-based violence or abuse in their lifetime. More than two thirds will have at least one experience of unwanted sexual contact during higher education alone. That is a harrowing and shameful statistic. It represents a collective failure to educate perpetrators, protect survivors and deliver justice. I send my best wishes to my party colleague the Justice Minister. As Members will know, she was struggling with a cold yesterday. She has shown remarkable leadership in this area. I thank her for the work that she has done. Her Department has overseen many critical reforms, particularly those from the Gillen review, which continues to address some of the failings of our justice system in handling serious sexual offences. The establishment of the sexual offences legal adviser has provided more than 2,000 adult survivors with vital access to legal advice and support. That will soon be extended to children, making sure that their voices are heard in the courtroom. The creation of remote evidence centres, which I visited during my tenure on the Justice Committee, has provided so many vulnerable witnesses, including children, with a safe and comfortable space in which to give their best evidence by video link. Those centres supported more than 300 people in 2024. Those strides are in the right direction, but there is a long way to go. The Gillen review has laid bare the systemic issues and the changes that are needed to deliver justice and support for survivors, but some recommendations remain outstanding. Reforming the legal definition of "reasonable belief" in consent must be considered urgently. The current legislation fails to understand consent and leaves far too much room for ambiguity and dangerous assumptions. Likewise, we must do as much as we can to create a system that does not re-traumatise survivors or dismiss their experiences. The introduction of pretrial education is a vital step that must be prioritised. Myths and stereotypes continue to pervade public understanding and courtroom decisions. Educating jurors before they hear cases would be a simple but powerful step in ensuring that justice is based on facts rather than misconceptions. The DUP amendment risks undermining the progress that has been made so far and further delaying the reforms that are so urgently needed. The Gillen review was built on extensive consultation with survivors, experts and stakeholders. Having more consultation at this stage would only further stall the urgent reforms that survivors deserve. Therefore —
— the Alliance Party and I cannot support the amendment today.
Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker.
472 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: 0.05 (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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.58 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.42 |
| 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 11:47 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.