Debate contribution: Firearms: Appeals
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 12 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Firearms: Appeals
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5528470
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The reason that I have consulted on firearms is that the PSNI raised the issue with me when it was looking at its budget. As I said, £2 million went on subsidising applications for firearms last year, yet the police were unable to sign off on pay for police officers because there was a deficit of around £5 million in the PSNI's budget. One can therefore see how that £2 million is pretty critical for front-line policing and for development. At the moment, fees do not cover administrative and operational costs. The fees were last increased in 2016, when the cost of a certificate for a period of five years rose from £50 to £98. The current proposals would see the cost of a firearm certificate increase to £250. To be clear, we have not consulted on any charge being imposed for firearms appeals. That would require primary legislation, and that is something that we may have to look at introducing in the future. Ultimately, if we were saying this in a context in which people, for the purposes of their job or sport, needed equipment, they would generally be expected to fund it themselves or seek a grant in order to do so. At the moment, the cost of firearms appeals comes out of the public purse. A Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report on firearms licensing referred in particular to the Department of Finance's document 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland', in which, as the NIAO report states:
"It is a requirement ... that full cost recovery should be achieved for the service provided."
We are working towards that. The consultation is open, however. We want to hear from people in rural communities and from those who participate in sports shooting. We want to hear their views, which we will consider when reaching a conclusion.
306 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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | 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 | 0.68 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.31 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:36 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.