Debate contribution: Childhood Abuse: Prevalence Survey
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Childhood Abuse: Prevalence Survey
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5453305
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I say first that I recognise that there are many people who have been subjected to sexual abuse, whether as children or as adults, in settings that are not institutional. Their pain, horror and trauma is no different from that of those who were abused in institutional settings. The Executive took the lead on inquiries into institutional settings because, as the state, we had responsibility for the children in those settings. Something along the lines of a prevalence survey would be very useful, but I am not sure that it would necessarily fall to the Department of Justice to take one forward. The Department of Health or the Executive Office, given their wider responsibilities in the space, may be better placed to undertake such a survey. I agree with the Member that the prevalence of domestic and sexual abuse in our society is not just a historical issue but one that is prevalent today. The number of people affected is more significant than the number of people who have come forward. I always encourage people to make a disclosure about their abuse, be it historical or otherwise, to the PSNI, because people who may not feel that their abuse was part of a wider pattern may learn through disclosure that it was.
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 (0.87).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.72 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.23 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:05 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.