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 4563097
Read the official Assembly record
Text
When it comes to the scrutiny of the policy intent, I brought to the House my concerns about the ruling by Justice Humphreys. The Supreme Court previously said that it is flawed to look at the consideration of any clause on the basis of the length of its entry in Hansard. Obviously, people will consider matters at other times and in other ways. There will be political consideration and debate that will not be reflected in Hansard. I therefore argue that, contrary to the ruling, the Committee did its scrutiny in that case. It simply did not see the particular issue with the Bill. That is entirely reasonable. The judgement stands as it stands, but, to be fair, the lack of scrutiny was not down to the Committee not having the Bill. The Committee had the Bill. It had every opportunity to explore those issues, and no one raised them, including the parties to the litigation proceedings on the Bill.
160 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: 0.04 (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 | 0.26 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:23 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.