Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5624412
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that this is unprecedented: not that a Minister would make a contribution to the business of the House as a Back-Bench Member, but that a Minister would intervene in that way on another Minister's Bill that is going through the House and say that he is speaking as a Minister. When a justice Bill is brought to the House, I am there to speak on behalf of the Executive on that Bill. I would like a ruling on whether it is in order for other Ministers to come to the Chamber and argue openly about the status of a Bill when Members of their party could make the party political points.
Will the Member give way?
I acknowledge that, but my point was a procedural one. We have not previously seen one Minister intervening from the Back Benches in a debate that another Minister is leading. That is a procedural matter to do with how we deal with Executive business. If the Member has come here to try to imply that, in some way, I wish to silence him on the issues that he wishes to raise, I point out that he has members of the Education Committee who could make his exact points very competently, I am sure. The question here is about a Minister engaging in debate with another Minister in the Chamber, and that does not seem to me to be procedurally correct. I ask the Member to have some respect for the fact that I am not trying to impugn his integrity; I ask that he does not impugn mine.
You did. You said that I did not want you to make your points and that maybe I did not want to hear them. You said that.
300 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: 0.07 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.05 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.97 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:53 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.