Debate contribution: Crime and Policing Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Crime and Policing Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5449025
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will not keep you long. Doug's brevity has put down a challenge for us all. I want to say a couple of things. First, I totally agree that tying digital ID in with the Bill was a mistake that caused a degree of consternation. We are in danger, today, of agreeing too much: I do not know whether that does more damage to my reputation or Doug's. I am not in favour of compulsory ID or coercing people into having ID. Deirdre Hargey made the point about a lot of the Bill's content being things that we would not want to replicate, and I completely agree. However, as Connie Egan set out, the use of knives and crossbows is rising, and it is important to have more strictures around them. This extension will give us a suite of measures from the 2019 Act that we can properly commence in the next mandate, and, in the interim, enable us to have a scheme that allows people who have knives that will become illegal to dispose of them in an appropriate manner. I hope that Members are content to support the LCM.
Never.
192 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: 0.05 (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 (0.81).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.72 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.17 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.07 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:13 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.