Debate contribution: Domestic Abuse: Support for Victims
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 24 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Domestic Abuse: Support for Victims
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5046748
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Department provides funding for the Probation Board for Northern Ireland's promoting positive relationships programme, which is aimed at adult males who have demonstrated the potential to be abusive in intimate partner relationships and at cases in which children are assessed by social services as being at risk. A key feature of that programme is the inclusion of a dedicated partner support worker who provides support to the participant's current partner. That programme is delivered in all five trust areas. In addition, we recently approved a significant increase in investment in the programme, which will allow the number of programmes that are delivered annually to rise from 60 to 90. That will help with intervention and support. As part of the new domestic and sexual abuse strategy, my Department will undertake work to look at costed options to enhance measures to address abusive behaviours. We also work hard to tackle the toxic masculinity and misogynistic ideologies that are so closely linked to domestic violence. Tackling those issues cannot be achieved by DOJ alone. As the departmental lead on ending violence against women and girls, TEO has an important role to play, as do the UK Government, who hold the reserved power to regulate for online environments, where such ideologies are often spread.
212 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 (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.57).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.57 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.42 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| 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 12:52 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.