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 5624982
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member sat on the Executive for nine months, and she has sat in the Chamber all day today. On what planet can I go forward and do this without the agreement of the DUP? It has said clearly that, whether in this mandate or the next mandate, it will not agree to any change. I accept that the Member thinks that I have great powers of persuasion — I agree with her on that — but the truth is that I do not expect that I will shift the DUP from its clear position as stated tonight, backed with a petition of concern, to one where it will work on this. What I can do, and what I said I would do and what I have been doing, is work within the law to remove young people from the justice system by having a more progressive youth justice system, but that can take us only so far. We can do the trauma-informed practice. We can look at ACEs and how to intervene on them. I can agree with Paul Givan and Mike Nesbitt on how we deal with child criminal exploitation and launch joint reports. However, we cannot agree on this one issue, and there is an opportunity for Members to nail their colours to the mast as to whether they are for the change or against it. With respect, the Member is making excuses for taking no decision.
Will the Member give way?
This is a Back-Bench amendment to a Bill that has many clauses that will benefit the people of Northern Ireland. I make no apology for wanting to progress my agenda insofar as I can.
There is no party in the Executive that will get everything that it wants through the Executive. That is the reality, and, if it was not the reality that you experienced in your nine months, I assure you that it has been the reality that I have experienced in my almost five years. No party gets everything that it wants. All parties become frustrated. Clearly, this is a point of frustration for me, but, if we were all to take the view that we will just take our toys and go home, we would not have an Executive, and you, along with everyone else, would be saying that we were failing to govern.
Will the Member take an intervention?
398 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: 0.16 (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 (0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.10 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.60 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.16 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.77 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.08 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.06 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.05 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:57 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.