Debate contribution: Ending Violence Against Women and Girls: Funding
Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .
- MLA
- Ms Michelle O'Neill
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 1 July 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Ending Violence Against Women and Girls: Funding
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5061735
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Executive Office has committed £3·2 million of funding until March 2026 to support EVAWG at a local and regional level. The impact of that funding will need to be evaluated across the period, but early analysis shows a really positive impact to date. For example, from January to March this year, £655,000 of Momentum funding was provided to local councils to enable them to build awareness of the issue and of the local change fund. Councils held over 225 events and reached over 7,300 participants. The results of the survey that was carried out showed that 88% of those who participated had an increased knowledge of violence against women and girls; 81% had increased knowledge of healthy relationships; and 85% had more confidence in helping to end violence against women and girls. All 11 councils have now opened a local change fund for 2025-26. That is very much about getting right into the grassroots of community and voluntary organisations to help them prevent and respond to violence against women and girls. We also have the regional change fund, which has provided £1·2 million to strengthen programmes run by regional community and voluntary organisations with ending violence against women and girls expertise. Activity highlights include campaigns and social media activities. The feedback is that those have been widely viewed, which we, obviously, very much welcome. We are also aware that six new staff members were recruited for the regional change fund projects. The funding has ensured that important connections have been established to act as the basis for longer-term connections. The need for longer-term connections and coordination in tackling this damaging issue is acute. All that information paints a positive picture of what we have been able to achieve to date. There is, however, no doubt that there is much more work to be done. We are off to a strong start, but collectively we need to keep moving in the right direction together.
324 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: 0.02 (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 (0.73).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.73 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.61 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.39 |
| 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 13:03 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.