Debate contribution: Domestic Abuse Protection Notices and Domestic Abuse Protection Orders
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 22 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Domestic Abuse Protection Notices and Domestic Abuse Protection Orders
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4608300
Read the official Assembly record
Text
My Department has progressed significant preparatory work to bring forward domestic abuse protection notices and orders. However, as Members will be aware, the statutory requirement to lay regulations has not been met. My officials are continuing to work with partners to resolve a number of significant and complex operational challenges to ensure that the regime is affordable and deliverable and, crucially, that it will enhance the protections that are available to those who are most at risk of harm. However, we are determined to make progress. My officials intend to provide a further update to the Justice Committee on that work in December. I believe that the introduction of domestic abuse protection notices would make a real difference to the safety of those at risk of harm from domestic abuse. I am keen to find the best way to progress it. My Department's high-level estimate is that the total new cost arising from the proposed DAPN/DAPO regime is likely to be in excess of £12 million in year 1, rising to over £17 million by year 3. That is not affordable within my Department's current budget, so resources will need to be made available to support their introduction. They have been identified as a pressure with the Department of Finance. However, cost is not the sole reason for not bringing DAPNs and DAPOs forward at this time. My officials are also exploring other operational factors with partners to ensure that the eventual model is effective, adds value and is operationally deliverable.
251 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 (0.78).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.78 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.60 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.22 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.18 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:27 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.