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 5615209
Read the official Assembly record
Text
A number of amendments have been proposed by Back-Benchers in the passage of the debate, many of which were incoherent, including that from your former colleague, whose I do not believe was competent. However, the purpose of Further Consideration Stage — I know that the Member is an expert on everything, but maybe he has something to learn about legislation — is for the Assembly to have a further opportunity to refine any amendment that is made. The issues that have been raised will be taken away and looked at by the Department, and, should any additionality be required to give the complete suite of offences that fall under that determination and under the intention of the Member, that will be brought. I have already discussed at length with Mr Frew the changes that will be required to some of the amendments that he tabled. It does not mean that he is naive or incompetent. It simply means that further work is needed. No Back-Bench Member has access to the drafting expertise that we have in the Department, which is why we work with other Members who wish to work with us to ensure that what we end up with at the end of the day is good legislation.
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member in the Chamber to, yet again, take something that I said and twist it into something that I did not say? I did not say that Back-Bench Members of the House should not propose amendments to Bills. That would be foolishness, because Committees regularly do so. I welcome amendments from Members on the Back Benches. What I said was, very clearly —
What I said clearly —
If some people would be quiet, I could finish the point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, is it in order for a Member of the House to take what I said and twist it into something that I did not say?
332 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: 0.10 (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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.23 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.13 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.19 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | 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 | 0.98 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.