Debate contribution: Ending Violence against Women and Girls: Funding
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 2 March 2026
- 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 5432684
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his important question. It is critical that not only the strategy but, indeed, the delivery plan are multifaceted and take into account all aspects. We often talk about the fact that prevention is at the heart of the strategy and that that must start at an early stage — that is why we are working with schools, youth organisations and sporting organisations — but you are absolutely right: there is a critical need at the point at which a woman needs to leave the home due to the violence within it. We know from so much research that the most dangerous time for a woman is the period between telling their partner that they are going to leave and actually leaving. The lack of refuge spaces can cause significant delay. All Departments need to get together to address the issue; it does not just sit with the Executive Office. I hope that the second delivery plan will bring the right people around the table to finally get the issue resolved. Women should have a right to refuge when they need it, and they should be able to get to a place of safety as quickly as possible, recognising all the dangers.
206 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | 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 | 0.64 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.36 |
| 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 14:57 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.