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 4608308
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It originated as a Committee amendment at Consideration Stage of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill. While we, as a Department, noted the potential merit of notices and orders, we did not support that amendment because we had significant concerns at the time about including that level of detail in secondary legislation, rather than in primary legislation. We also raised concerns about the restrictive two-year time frame, because it was an untried and untested policy. It had been legislated for in Scotland, but it had not been operationalised. It was only when it was operationalised that they realised the extent of the problem. It is also affecting implementation in England and Wales. I want to reassure Members that we are committed to introducing DAPOs and DAPNs. There is a mechanism by which we can ensure that they add value to the current protective mechanisms, including, for example, non-molestation orders. It is about ensuring that there is additionality and, crucially, that we introduce them only at a point at which they are properly resourced. If victims go seeking protection and that protection fails, that is a real issue for us. We have to be sure that whatever we introduce is operationally sensible and deliverable.
204 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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.93 | 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 | 0.62 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.21 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.17 |
| 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.