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 5624822
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The issue here is that, for example — the Speaker can correct me if I am wrong — the test that the Speaker does at introduction is to ensure that amendments are competent. However, a further issue around competency is whether we have the ability to legislate on these issues. Previous pieces of legislation that have gone through here were then appealed by the Attorney General on competence grounds and had to go to the Secretary of State or someone else in order to see whether they were competent. My understanding is that the Speaker, to be fair, does not do those checks. Yesterday, what I found to be unacceptable — I am happy to put it on the record again — is that it was insulting to suggest that the drafting that was done by the Bill Office was incompetent and to describe it as having been written:
"on the back of a fag packet."— [Official Report (Hansard), 15 June 2026, p99, col 1].
That was what I found offensive yesterday.
There is a difference between legislative competence and competence.
181 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: 0.06 (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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.38 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.33 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.91 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.09 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.89 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.11 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:56 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.