Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 15 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5614431
Read the official Assembly record
Text
What the Member said about the Youth Justice Agency is interesting, and I agree with her. It is one of the best services available to deal with troubled young people. The work that it does is transformational not just in young people's lives but in those of their families and communities. Does the Member agree that that has been demonstrated on a number of occasions, particularly when legislators came here recently from Chicago to see our youth justice system and were so compelled by what we were doing to keep younger children out of the justice system that they returned to legislate to replicate what we do here? They were so compelled by the argument that the youth justice system was making and by the success that it demonstrated.
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that this is the second or third occasion on which the Member in question has arrived late to the Chamber, selectively quoted from somebody's speech and made points that have already been covered. It happened in a debate last week, and it has happened again today. Is it in order for Members who have only arrived in the Chamber and have missed the start of someone's speech to then make interventions that misrepresent that speech?
214 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.40 | 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 | 0.79 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.16 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.