Debate contribution: Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill
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
- Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5528495
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It does not play into the victims and witnesses of crime Bill. When it comes to the wider legislative programme, however, we are still bottoming out the issue. I have invited the Chief Constable and the Infrastructure Minister to a meeting so that we can determine whether there are gaps in legislation, because it remains unclear to me that there are such gaps. For example, it is already illegal for someone to be in control of a vehicle if they are underage; it is illegal to ride that vehicle on the pavement; and it is illegal to ride it without insurance, MOT certificate and other safeguards. Those are matters of enforcement, and there are complexities around that. Indeed, as some Members will have seen today, innovative work is being done by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) on technology that can force the electric motors of e-bikes to switch off so that the police can seize the bikes. I will have the meeting to look at whether there are gaps, and, if there are, we will be happy to close them. As with everything else, there is limited time left in the mandate, and we cannot simply legislate willy-nilly without going through the due process of consultation and other things. I am convinced that an area of this falls to parental responsibility. Many of the young people who drive the scooters are under 13 or 14 years old, and they certainly do not buy them out of their pocket money, so some adult responsibility has to be taken for their conduct.
260 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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | 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 | 0.58 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.40 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| 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.