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 4738137
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have no intention of revisiting that plan. I considered the issue carefully before opting for the course of action that I took. Had I decided to not decouple the elements of the hate crime Bill from each other and to proceed with them as I have, at pace, I would not be in a position to make any progress on hate crime in the mandate, because it would have been the fourth Justice Bill of the mandate and would have fallen off the end of the time frame. If I were to revisit the hate crime Bill now, I would not have sufficient time, first, for legislative counsel to advance it, and for the policy development work that would need to take place in my Department before the end of the mandate. Effectively, I would be slowing down progress on tackling hate crime rather than speeding it up. I have opted to accelerate it, albeit it means that there will not be stand-alone legislation. To be clear, there is no difference between legislative provisions being in a stand-alone Bill and their being included in other vehicles. When they are in legislation, they are the law.
196 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.79).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.90).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.90 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.10 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.97 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.