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 5625191
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am happy to try to provide some clarity on that. The issue is not that we want people to start from scratch. They will still have that experience, and that will be recognised as they go through the accreditation.
The truth is that the last accreditations were done so long ago that many of the people who were working in the organisations at that point have moved on, yet those accreditations, technically, still stand. People can say that they are accredited by the DOJ, but you are, effectively, dealing with a completely different organisation.
The important part of this is to get people accredited at the start. It will not neglect the experience that people have, but it is about trying to start with a tiered approach, because, in addition to the stuff around community practice that the Member referred to, we are now looking at this as part of the formal justice system. A lot more will need to be done to prepare people, for example, to do restorative practice in the very sensitive cases that Cara Hunter spoke of, including those that involve death by dangerous driving or, indeed, serious sexual offences. That will be a different tier. That is the thinking behind it: it is not to exclude anyone or to put them back to square one. It is simply to start everyone off with the right accreditation for their level of expertise.
237 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: 0.03 (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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.93 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.