Debate contribution: Antisocial Behaviour: Legislation
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 11 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Antisocial Behaviour: Legislation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4269684
Read the official Assembly record
Text
With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 5 and 11 together. I recognise that antisocial behaviour (ASB) in not only rural communities but any community can be a source of great anxiety and suffering to those who are affected. It is rare for community safety issues such as antisocial behaviour to be resolved by the criminal justice system alone. ASB requires partnership working across all the relevant agencies together with local and central government, which has the levers to put in place joined-up, long-term solutions to prevent incidents arising and to tackle their impact. With that in mind, my Department is undertaking a number of different strands of work on a collaborative basis. We led a multi-agency, cross-departmental review of antisocial behaviour legislation that considered nine areas of potential change. The policy responsibility for those areas fell across the Department of Justice, the Department for Communities and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. On foot of that review and having identified four areas where legislative change may prove to be beneficial, my Department, together with the Department for Communities, launched a joint public consultation on proposals to amend legislation with a view to ensuring that the relevant authorities have effective and proportionate powers to tackle ASB and its effects on our community. We are analysing the responses, and policy options will be developed for consideration.
231 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: 0.02 (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 (0.81).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.96 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:48 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.