Debate contribution: Restorative Justice Practitioners
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Restorative Justice Practitioners
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5224634
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We intend to create, essentially, a pyramid of access for all restorative justice. At the top of that, the highest-qualified and most experienced providers will deal the most sensitive cases where restorative justice may be appropriate. At the bottom of that, there will be a much wider group, with much higher numbers, that will deal with more community-based restorative interventions rather than justice referrals. In between, there will be stages of accreditation for people to be able to develop themselves personally in their chosen way. I am committed to continuing to work with all those who go through the accreditation process, who engage with the formal justice system, and who do so with integrity but also with connections in the community and the ability to engage people on the ground in a way in which, perhaps, the formal justice system is not always fully able to do. Crucial for me is the ability to engage with the PSNI, the courts, probation and others to ensure that the decisions that are made around restorative justice bring about changes in behaviour but also leave victims feeling that they have got the outcome that they wish and deserve.
195 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 (0.90).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.85 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.11 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:42 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.