Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 16 June 2026.

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 5624481

Text

The Member and I have agreed almost too much this afternoon. We will have to address that at another time. On the failure to address the issue in a useful way, will the Member agree that, instead of having shot down the proposal in flames, if we had, for example, discussed Paul Frew's amendment to an amendment as a stand-alone amendment, a way forward could have been found? Instead, the DUP, as always, exercises its veto power, as it is intending to do through the petitions of concern. It should be engaging on the substance of the issue to provide reassurance. We, in fairness, have done that throughout the passage of the Bill. If that had not been closed at the Executive but a pin had been put in it to say, "Let's discuss it", we would potentially have got to a point at which everyone in the Chamber, or at least everyone who is in the Chamber at the moment, might have been able to find a point of agreement.

171 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.25 (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 (0.95).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.18	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.06	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.03	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.19	No
Controversy escalation	0.12	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.23	No
Overall judgement	0.25	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.95
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.01
Adopts it	0.04

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
No identity-related subject	0.80
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.09
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.08
Another identity-related subject	0.02
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.01

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.

Challenge this classification