Debate contribution: Paramilitarism: IRC Recommendations
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 13 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Paramilitarism: IRC Recommendations
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4738048
Read the official Assembly record
Text
My officials and I have regular discussions with our colleagues in the UK and Irish Governments on matters relating to ending the harm caused by paramilitarism. The Independent Reporting Commission has an important role in reporting on progress towards that objective, and I welcome its positive feedback on the work of the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime, for which I am the lead Minister. I welcome, too, the progress that is being made against the new recommendations that were made in the Independent Reporting Commission's most recent report, which was published last December, particularly the inclusion of a continued Executive-wide commitment to tackling paramilitarism in the draft Programme for Government. The Independent Reporting Commission previously recommended that Northern Ireland should have specific organised crime legislation like that used in other jurisdictions. I intend to create two new offences in the new Justice Bill that is before the Assembly: one of participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group and another of directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group. The draft clauses have been shared with the Justice Committee and will be formally added to the Bill at amendment stage. I look forward to the publication of the Independent Reporting Commission's seventh report in the coming months.
212 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.80).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.92 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| 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 11:42 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.