Debate contribution: AccessNI: Review
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 22 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- AccessNI: Review
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4484338
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There are no immediate plans to undertake a fundamental review of the workings of AccessNI, but system and process enhancements are routinely considered and implemented to improve aspects of the criminal history disclosure scheme. In 2023-24, AccessNI processed over 176,000 disclosure applications across all three levels of checks. The average turnaround times for issuing disclosure certificates for basic and standard checks was one day, and the average for the more complex enhanced checks was four days, with over 80% of those being completed within two days of receipt by AccessNI. The digitisation of the AccessNI process has been a notable success in improving the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the service, Indeed, it resulted in a further fee decrease from1 April, making AccessNI disclosure fees the lowest in the UK. In recognising that the key asks from employers and voluntary groups are for fast, accurate and cost-effective disclosures, I consider that the AccessNI service performs well and delivers in that regard. The long-standing key functional change for AccessNI is the introduction of portable disclosures. Officials continue to work closely with the disclosure and barring service to progress that as soon as practically possible.
193 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 (0.72).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.72 | 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 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.03 |
| 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 10:01 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.