Debate contribution: Social Housing: Victims of Domestic Violence
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 18 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Social Housing: Victims of Domestic Violence
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5548495
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There will be different circumstances for different individuals, but, oftentimes, they want to remain in their own home. We have floating support services available through the Supporting People programme to provide practical housing-related support to victims. That helps them to sustain their own tenancies and live safely and independently in their own home. We also have the Sanctuary scheme, which is a multi-agency initiative that enables victims or those at risk of domestic abuse to remain in their home by installing additional security measures. The aim is to ensure that victims do not need to leave their home or become homeless. In addition, my officials are engaging with the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations to determine what assistance may be available to support the introduction of the scheme across housing associations. We are funding the Supporting People budget for services that are aimed at helping women who are at risk of domestic violence. In 2025-26, that totalled £5·21 million. That included £3 million for short-term accommodation-based refuge provision, funding 14 refuges, with 138 units of support, and £2 million for floating support provision across nine services. Where that refuge is needed, it is provided, and, where we can help those who are affected by domestic abuse to stay in their home, we provide that support.
216 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.79).
- 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-qualifying 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.68 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.31 |
| 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 15:33 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.