Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 2 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5584119
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. I want to provide clarity, because the retention of the data of people who have been acquitted was discussed earlier. In order to comply with human rights, if someone is acquitted, their data has to be removed from the database. If the police wish to retain it, they will have to apply to the biometrics commissioner and have an independent assessment. This is not a catch-all whereby the police can simply collect data and keep it. In fact, the evidence shows that, if they thin their data, they are more likely to find information; otherwise, you cannot see the wood for the trees. I share the Member's concerns about people's private data. I do not want the police or any other organisation to have unfettered access to my data and to be able to use that for any purpose. The point of these biometrics regulations is to ensure that that is not the case. Of course, there are legitimate purposes for people to hold our personal data and biometric data. Those are legitimate and fair, but they must also be proportionate and respect people's right to a private life and their privacy and dignity. It is important to strike that balance. Members may argue about whether the balance has been struck in the right place, and I will come back to that in my closing remarks on this group, but it is important to say that none of us in the Chamber wishes to see unfettered access to people's data or the ability to retain things indefinitely, which, is, unfortunately, the situation that we are in prior to this Bill's being passed.
279 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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | 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 | 0.92 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:43 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.