Debate contribution: Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .

MLA
Mrs Naomi Long
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
3 June 2024
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Question for Urgent Oral Answer
Heading
Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4493429

Read the official Assembly record

Text

As the Chair has recognised, this did not happen because it was brought at Consideration Stage, so the drawing of any conclusions in that regard does not follow through in logical terms. I welcome the opportunity to put it on the record clearly that neither I nor my officials misled the Assembly in any way — not in any way. We were clear, and I categorically refute any suggestion that that was the case. The provisions were in the Bill at its introduction. While it is factually correct that specific queries were not raised about the provisions, that should not be interpreted as misleading the Assembly. The Committee did not ask questions on the particular provisions. They were neither hidden, nor was there any failing on my part or that of the Department. Where the Committee sought clarity and additional information, that clarity and additional information were provided. I do not accept the Member's assertion that legislation was rushed through in the last political mandate. While it was a challenging period for all, no processes were condensed in the Committee, and we worked with Members, including members of the Justice Committee, to ensure that appropriate time was given for full scrutiny to be applied. There was no condensed passage of any Bill. I am conscious that my officials and I made ourselves available at long and short notice to provide additional information. I draw the Member's attention to the then Chair of the Committee, Mervyn Storey, who said:

"The Bill underwent extensive and detailed scrutiny and debate. The Committee Stage and the lengthy debates at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage resulted in a large number of amendments being made to the Bill and the addition of a range of new provisions that have improved and strengthened the legislation to provide protections for some of the most vulnerable — the victims of sexual abuse, child exploitation, human trafficking and modern slavery. That is most welcome."

He went on to say:

"The Committee did not just scrutinise the provisions of the Bill in a full and thorough manner but actively looked at the current legislative provision and identified opportunities to improve it and deal with emerging types of offending behaviour." — [Official Report (Hansard), 15 March 2022, p18, col 1].

To the best of my knowledge, no representations were made to the Department or the Committee as the legislation passed through the House. The first representations that were made by the media in respect of the legislation came when the provisions were commenced, which was a considerable time after the passage of the Bill.

I thank the Member for coming to meet me. We had a productive and useful discussion. The grounds on which the Member objected to the particular sections of the legislation are not and are not relevant to those that were tested before the courts. There was always a concern, as was raised by other Members, about the right of victims to speak about their experience. That is why the basis for the restrictions on reporting was drafted narrowly, so that victims could retain their anonymity but also have some recourse to be able to speak. We are now in a different position from when the Member and I met. It will be for me and my officials, with the legal advice available to us, to look again at the provisions and all options available to us at this point.

The parties to the proceedings will be heard again in the courts in relation to the precise form of declaratory relief. That will happen shortly. We have six weeks in which to reach a conclusion on whether to appeal the judgment. We want to take legal advance speedily on the matter ahead of that deadline to ensure that we consider all of the ruling's implications, not just for this particular legislation but for legislation passed by the House more widely.

652 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.06 (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 (0.61).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.05No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.61Yes
Overall judgement0.06At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.72
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.18
No identity-related subject0.10
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:35 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.

Challenge this classification