Debate contribution: Speeding Up Justice Programme
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 13 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Speeding Up Justice Programme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5175629
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There is a long-standing and ongoing funding challenge for Justice, which is well recognised by everyone in the House because I repeat it frequently enough. It will undoubtedly impact on what we can deliver. The DOJ's share of the Northern Ireland block grant has fallen continually over the past 14 years, from just under 11% in 2011-12 to just over 8% in 2025-26. That underfunding hampers our efforts to do transformation as funding is, quite rightly, prioritised to demand-led front-line activities, including policing, prisons and courts. We have less than 0·5% of discretionary spend, which makes it increasingly difficult for us to engage in that kind of system-wide transformation. There is an appetite, however, for change right across the justice system, and so bids to initiatives such as the public-sector transformation board are crucial because they will allow us to fulfil that appetite to fund some of those endeavours and, hopefully, make further savings in the future if we can make those changes. All of us around the Criminal Justice Board table recognise that there needs to be transformation for us to be more effective and efficient. That investment now will help us to save money in the future.
199 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: 0.02 (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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:27 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.