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 5528476
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First and foremost, I would prefer that nobody had to carry a personal protection weapon, because we want to be in a very different situation. I put that on the record. As to any exemptions and how those are handled, I again say that there is a consultation under way, and I encourage the Member to contribute to it. Members who contribute to the consultation should, however, perhaps also reflect on from where in the policing budget they want the £2 million to come instead. At the moment, that money comes directly from front-line policing in neighbourhoods, from antiterrorism policing and from other things. Neither the Department of Justice not the PSNI is getting the kind of resource that would allow us to continue to absorb those costs. I feel that the response is proportionate, given that there has not been an increase in firearms licensing fees for so long and given that it is a considerable expense to own a firearm, buy ammunition and have a cabinet in which the firearm can be safely and securely locked away. It is not a cheap endeavour for anybody involved, so paying for the certificate is only fair. It has to be said as well that the fee is paid once every five years. Yes, it is an increase, but if it is spread across five years, it amounts to £50 a year, which, I think, represents quite good value for money. I therefore encourage the Member to respond to the consultation. We will consider all the issues that have been raised, but we do have to look at how we are going to pay for firearms licensing, because subsidising it out of the public purse is not working for the police or the Department.
293 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: 0.04 (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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.98 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 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.