Member's statement: Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022
Member's statement by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 18 November 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5243956
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Northern Ireland Assembly passed the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act in 2022. It was a private Member's Bill, but it was fully supported by the Minister for the Economy and the Economy Department, yet we still do not have it enacted. Why is the Minister for the Economy dragging her heels on that important issue? The Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act creates a right of 10 days' paid leave for all victims of domestic and sexual violence. It was good enough to be voted for and passed in the House, yet the Department for the Economy drags its heels. It was the first legislation of its kind to be passed in the British Isles, yet the Department for the Economy is now failing victims of domestic and sexual violence. Why is that? Regulations should be made immediately to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence, to keep them in work and ensure that their workplace is a safe place for them. That is a noble cause, and I will continue to press the Department for the Economy on it.
180 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | 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 | 0.74 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.25 |
| 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 13:50 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.