Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 1 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4562960
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member is being very generous. It is important that we put some of those points to rest during the debate. I do not want my speech at the end to be so long that everybody has fallen asleep, and Justin has to tell them to wake up. The policy intent of each of the six areas has been laid out before the Committee, so you know what we intend to do. It is for the Committee to decide whether to go ahead with a call for evidence. If you wish, you will be able to do that on the basis of policy; Committees have done that before. Once that call for evidence concludes, you will have all the written clauses. By the time you start clause-by-clause scrutiny and take evidence from witnesses, you will have the written clauses. I reassure the Committee that there will be no duplication of effort in that regard.
Will the Member give way?
I thank the Member. He was too optimistic in thinking that he would get to the end of his speech without me interrupting him again. I will explain what I was suggesting about how I might approach this were I a member of the Committee. It is a long time since I was a member of a Committee, so I will defer to others on this point. It is possible to have a call for evidence, but before witnesses come to give evidence to the Committee, members will have the text, as will the witnesses. The Committee will not take evidence twice or call witnesses back unnecessarily. The call for evidence is based on policy, and that is where you can proceed. As I said, other Committees have done that successfully in the past, but it is a matter for the Committee to resolve in due course.
306 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).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.29 | No |
| 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:22 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.