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 5046756
Read the official Assembly record
Text
That is one of the issues that I raised as a member of the Executive in response to the paper that came to the Executive about the review of the housing priority scheme. In a society that is changing and developing rapidly, it is really important that we look at equity in how victims of domestic and sexual violence and abuse are treated on the housing waiting list. Some schemes are already available. For example, there are schemes that provide more security for a family that has been targeted in their home by domestic violence and abuse so that they are able to ask the partner to leave as opposed to the family having to leave, which so often is what happens. Making people more aware of those schemes is something that we could do jointly. I welcome the fact that the Communities Minister's intention is to give priority to domestic violence and abuse victims, because, often, the biggest fear that people have as they leave their home is where they can go. The tendency is for people to see it simply as a house, but it is not; it is a home that someone has invested in for many years. My preference is for the perpetrators to be removed, not the victims.
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: 0.03 (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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.79 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.20 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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.