Member's statement: Minister of Justice: Scrutiny
Member's statement by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 16 March 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Minister of Justice: Scrutiny
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5448341
Read the official Assembly record
Text
To state the obvious, this is a Chamber of robust debate, and so it should be. With that robustness come the scrutiny of legislation and the agreeing of motions in this place. It is right and proper that a legislature is robust and challenging so that the laws that we pass are appropriate. I was alarmed to hear the commentary from the Alliance Party's conference at the weekend, at which it was stated that an individual Minister — Justice Minister Long — was being demonised by unionist politicians. I am sorry, but we will not be deflected from doing our duty and job of scrutinising the Minister. It is a bit rich that the party referred only to unionist politicians, given that I have heard on many occasions in this place the official Opposition — the SDLP — challenge the Justice Minister. The Justice Minister has also blamed them for being personal, yet the remarks from the Alliance Party's conference at the weekend targeted only unionist politicians. Why is that? I believe that it is nothing more than tactical for a number of reasons. Not only does the Alliance Party position itself on the spectrum here closely in line with the SDLP and Sinn Féin, but it does not like scrutiny or questions. The Justice Minister also does not like questions, but we will not be deflected from our job in the Assembly of scrutinising Ministers, no matter who they are. As Justice Chairperson, I will ensure that the Committee is given full strength of arm to scrutinise the Department properly. We will not be put off by personal attacks or slanderous remarks. We are demonising no one; we hold everyone to account in the Chamber, as we should. I held the post of Chairperson of the Justice Committee 10 years ago, and I now hold it again. I look at the Justice Department, and I can tell you that the deterioration in our justice system is stark. The Public Prosecution Service tells us that the median time for court cases is now 750 days: that is 200 days longer than in 2020. That is what is wrong with the justice system.
We will continue to scrutinise it.
368 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: 0.26 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.52).
- 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 | 0.22 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.08 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.14 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.28 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.41 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.26 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.52 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.27 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.11 |
| Adopts it | 0.10 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.76 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.13 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.06 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:08 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.