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 5584173
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. I, too, understand that importance. He will be aware that I am committed to ensuring that, as far as possible, we remove young people from the criminal justice system at a young age in order that we can provide alternative ways to hold them accountable for their conduct and behaviour and ways that are more effective when it comes to outcomes in later life. The difficulty — I will, no doubt, get the opportunity to set it out when Sinn Féin comes to discuss its proposals — is that, for example, the proposed new article 63JA in amendment No 12 introduces a three-year retention period for individuals under 18 who are convicted of a qualifying offence and a three-year retention period for a non-qualifying offence. It does not differentiate between the two. That has not been developed or tested. Furthermore, amendment No 13 would remove new articles 63L, 63M and 63O. That would take away the less stringent regime that we have put in place specifically to deal with people who are under 18. Therefore, while it may be well intentioned, I am concerned that it would dismantle some of the protections that the Department has drafted into the Bill with regard to biometrics for young people.
My apologies for intervening again. You mentioned more oversight of the commissioner: the purpose of the commissioner is to be entirely independent in the judgements that they make, so we need to create the office of commissioner and allow it to bring forward the guard rails around this but to be independent of government. It would be inappropriate for us to try to control the commissioner or limit or fetter their independence and discretion, because that would, effectively, mean our taking decisions on individual outcomes rather than leaving it for the commissioner, who will be appropriately skilled to do that. Certainly, that is how it has been done in Scotland and other places.
327 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 (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.76 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.21 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.