Debate contribution: Ending Violence Against Women and Girls: Progress
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 1 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Ending Violence Against Women and Girls: Progress
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5269160
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On the request of the Assembly in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act 2021, we have undertaken extensive preparatory work with the PSNI and voluntary sector partners to design a Northern Ireland-specific DAPO and DAPN model that will be both effective and operationally deliverable. Engagement has provided a very strong foundation, but we need to do further work with the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service and the judiciary around the operational processes and court handling arrangements. Cross-agency collaboration has ensured early identification of resolution of key operational IT procedural and safeguarding requirements. We have also learnt from other jurisdictions. There was a detailed fact-finding visit to the Croydon and greater Manchester pilot sites, as well as engagement with officials in Scotland. That insight has enabled officials to refine the model to a`frto3l nlesvoid the challenges that were experienced elsewhere and to ensure that it is tailored to local needs and understands the operational responsibilities around local structures. We hope to introduce necessary regulations in spring 2026 and, subject to Executive and Assembly approval, the preparatory work places us, I believe, in a strong position to begin piloting DAPOs and DAPNs in the second half of 2026 or early 2027.
201 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 (0.82).
- 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 | 0.82 | 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 | 0.64 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.29 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:03 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.