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 5224646
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Given the work that has been done, which both Community Restorative Justice Ireland and Alternatives were involved in as part of the working group, we are fairly confident that those areas are covered. When I talk about the different levels, to be clear, some of the people whom we are talking about at the top of that pyramid where you will have very few practitioners will be in cases, for example, of rape or murder — so very serious offences — and some restorative practice may be necessary there. For example, we have been approached by and have examples of victims who want to sit down with the perpetrator and have a conversation with them, and restorative justice can allow them to do that in a way that is meaningful, respectful and victim centred. That would be at the very apex, if you like, of difficulty. Then there would be stuff that is not justice but is more about restorative practice, such as community dispute resolution and other things, so it would not have reached that. Between that, there will be a whole scale from diversionary conferencing with young people to the work that the Probation Board does with offenders post the point where they have been convicted and so on. There will be opportunities for organisations to upskill and to go through those layers of accreditation. Some of the practitioners that we have in Northern Ireland are amongst the most skilled that you will find anywhere on these islands. I believe that we should use that resource to best effect.
261 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 (0.82).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | 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 | 0.83 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.09 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
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.