Debate contribution: Justice Bill

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .

MLA
Mrs Naomi Long
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
22 October 2024
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Oral Answers to Questions
Heading
Justice Bill
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4608434

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I can reassure the Member absolutely that it will not be half a Bill. The sentencing Bill is a much wider Bill in its policy extent and size. Whilst the Justice Bill is wide in scope, it is, as the Member will understand, narrow in focus and technical in nature. The victims Bill is much wider-ranging. It covers many sensitive issues that have been raised with Members and on which I have been lobbied to deliver. My anticipated scheme is one Bill per year, and that remains my intent. Whether that Bill passes will be determined by the schedule that the Committee chooses to scrutinise the Justice Bill and whether it wants to manage two or, potentially, three Bills at once. The proposal for an 18-month Committee Stage creates the jeopardy that we may not be able to get the sentencing Bill or, potentially, the victims Bill through in the mandate.

151 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: 0.03 (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

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 framing0.02No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.52No
Overall judgement0.03At 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
No identity-related subject0.71
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.28
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:27 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