Debate contribution: DOJ: Legislative Programme
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
- DOJ: Legislative Programme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4738133
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We are looking at a range of issues in relation to the victims and witnesses Bill, including, first, the potential to include some of the recommendations in Judge Marrinan's report around support for victims of hate crime and special measures in the courts. We also intend to bring forward additional measures to complete some of the legislative requirements of elements of the Gillen review that, we agreed, were necessary, and to put the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime on a statutory footing. We are looking at a number of other issues, but it is the third Justice Bill in the mandate, so there is ongoing development in what we intend to include in it. It is important that those issues are advanced during the mandate and that we have the opportunity to look at, for example, legislation around a disclosure regime, protection for complainants and restriction of access to third-party material, particularly when it comes to things such as counselling records, about which I know many Members are concerned.
170 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 (0.87).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.67 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.24 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
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.