Naomi Long
East Belfast · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Underneath the Facebook posts to say that he had passed away, people speculated with such comments as, "Probably high on drugs", "Probably drunk", and, "Typical boy racer". There was all of that speculation. It was hurtful to the family, and it was inaccurate.”
“There are circumstances that we need to consider and be careful of. I was told, for example, that, when the issue of good character references at trial was being looked at in New South Wales — Committee members may wish to look at this for themselves — one of the groups that opposed their removal was representative of domestic abuse victi…”
“It sets out the strategic direction adopted by the Department and key partners to tackle those appalling crimes and protect vulnerable victims of exploitation.”
“The provision seeks to provide protection, via legal advice and representation for complainants, against the use of non-relevant personal material and evidence of previous sexual history being used in the court process.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the wider issue of ensuring that a withdrawal of services never happens again, I think that most of us agree that, although everyone has the right to take industrial action, no one has the right to derail and hold to ransom the entire justice system in that way.”
“Those measures will go some way towards helping to support complainants and enable them to have input into the decision-making process about what records containing their personal and sensitive information are required to be shared with the defence.”
The complete record
Every one of 7,548 lines we hold for Naomi Long, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 151.
“By removing them from the criminal justice system, they are more likely to be referred to the NRM and get the kind of support that they need.”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way again. On that issue, one of the challenges that we and the PSNI face is that a child of 11, 12 or 13 may not see themselves as being a victim of grooming, but they may, in fact, be a victim of grooming. That is one of the reasons that, when we look at issues such as modern slavery and child criminal exploitation, our number of referrals to, for example, the national referral mechanism (NRM) is lower for young people from our own community than it is for those who have been trafficked into Northern Ireland from elsewhere, because we are poor at distinguishing between those who are victims of coercion in their activities as young people and young people who are willingly participating in crime off their own back.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that this is the second or third occasion on which the Member in question has arrived late to the Chamber, selectively quoted from somebody's speech and made points that have already been covered. It happened in a debate last week, and it has happened again today. Is it in order for Members who have only arrived in the Chamber and have missed the start of someone's speech to then make interventions that misrepresent that speech?”
“What the Member said about the Youth Justice Agency is interesting, and I agree with her. It is one of the best services available to deal with troubled young people. The work that it does is transformational not just in young people's lives but in those of their families and communities. Does the Member agree that that has been demonstrated on a number of occasions, particularly when legislators came here recently from Chicago to see our youth justice system and were so compelled by what we were doing to keep younger children out of the justice system that they returned to legislate to replicate what we do here? They were so compelled by the argument that the youth justice system was making and by the success that it demonstrated.”
“I have also heard from many people who have engaged in restorative practices offered by, for example, the Probation Board but would prefer to do a stint in prison than have to deal with somebody who holds them to account and makes them account for and acknowledge what they have done wrong. The idea that that is in some way easy justice or less effective for victims is a really flawed analysis.”
“I thank the Member for giving way and being generous with her time. I have experience of speaking to victims who were subjected to burglary in their home, for example. Some frail and elderly individuals have found that the restorative route was much more important for them, because they had almost mystified the perpetrator into some huge monster that had in some way eaten away at their confidence and sense of security in their home. Being confronted with someone who was about the age of their grandson and had just been reckless in his conduct took away a lot of that fear and helped them to adjust.”
“Does the Member agree that, crucially, as part of the response for those who offend under the current minimum age of criminal responsibility, referrals by the PSNI and others of the victim to the appropriate services, such as Victim Support, still take place? It is not that somebody is being denied the services that they would otherwise receive as a victim.”
“First, in the context that we are in today, were Mr Buckley's comments a departure from the normal parliamentary standards that we should expect in a debate in the House? Secondly, is his use of fake points of order to furnish himself with social media clips an abuse of the privileges given to us in the Chamber? Thirdly, is it in order for a Member to stand in this Chamber and deliberately mislead the public by taking clips of statements that they have made and putting them on their social media without being challenged? I am not one to raise fake points of order, but, on the basis of William Hay's ruling in 2009, I believe that the context in which that happened and the tone in which it was delivered require further consideration by the Speaker.”
“I was sitting here at the time. Secondly, he went on to say that I needed to provide an explanation about the alleged immigration status of the person who has now been charged with offences relating to what happened in north Belfast last night. As you are aware, I am not and never have been the Home Secretary. I am the Justice Minister, and immigration is not devolved. <BR /> <BR />The context in which those statements were made is the highly volatile situation that is developing outside the House. The purpose of the intervention was clearly to get a TikTok clip out of it and put it on social media, where it has now been shared, in order to inflame already angry tensions outside and particularly to direct them towards me and, by extension, my colleagues. <BR /> <BR />I therefore ask the Speaker to look at the matter on a number of fronts.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that, in 2009, the then Speaker made a ruling on appropriate conduct in the House. He said that the context of comments that were made in the House and the manner in which they were spoken would out rule, if you like, the issue of parliamentary language. Therefore, when people make comments, it will depend on the context. <BR /> <BR />Earlier, Jonathan Buckley came into the Chamber and made an intervention. It was a point of order that was not a point of order, in that it related to comments that were made outside the House. He did so in a tone that can only be described as inflammatory. In that statement, he also made a number of false statements. First, he created the impression that I was not here and demanded that I be brought to the Chamber to make a statement.”
“The intention is simply to strengthen the ability of the police to act swiftly on the issues. It is not limited to e-scooters and scramblers; it relates to all motor vehicles. That will be helpful, as other motor vehicles and other new developments may lead to similar vehicle nuisance occurring in future. <BR /> <BR />The amendment broadly reflects similar provisions in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 passed at Westminster. When I met Mr McGlone to discuss his proposal and on the understanding that the PSNI also supports the amendment, I advised him of my support, subject to further engagement with him by the Department for Infrastructure and PSNI to seek their views. Minister Kimmins has also now indicated her support, and I am therefore happy to commend the amendment to the House.”
“We have all heard this evening of the frequency with which that occurs in many of our constituencies. <BR /> <BR />The intention behind the amendment is to strengthen the operational tools available to police in tackling that behaviour and to ensure that enforcement action can be taken more swiftly where appropriate. Parents may be content to buy a scooter for their child and allow them to go out and ride it. I suspect that they will not buy them a second one if the first one is confiscated by the police. <BR /> <BR />Members will agree that the illegal use of scooters and scramblers is a scourge on our communities. The Department has been dealing with a large number of questions and correspondence on the matter, and we have a thorough knowledge of the issues.”
“I am grateful to Mr McGlone for providing me with advance notice of his intentions, and I was therefore able to agree and engage with him prior to its tabling. Further, my Department is familiar with the issue, and my officials were able to engage with DFI counterparts and seek the views of the PSNI, which also supports the amendment. <BR /> <BR />The amendment would remove the current requirement under article 65 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 for a warning to be issued prior to the seizure of a vehicle except in limited circumstances. In practice, that would provide the police with greater flexibility to intervene immediately where vehicles are being used in a dangerous, reckless or antisocial manner that is causing significant disruption and distress in communities.”
“At this stage, I support the amendments, with some practical reservations that, I believe, we can work through. I would prefer to have the provisions on the statute book to allow them to come into operation as soon as is practically possible. The alternative is to wait for primary legislation well into the next mandate, which would delay matters to an unacceptable degree. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to amendment No 90. Mr Patsy McGlone, Mr Paul Frew and Miss Nuala McAllister have tabled an amendment on:”
“However, given the support of the Minister for Infrastructure and my deep concern about the need to improve safety on our roads, I am content to support amendment Nos 74 and 75 today and to work through the detail as we proceed. It may be that I will need to table amendments at Further Consideration Stage for the Assembly to consider. If the amendments pass in any form, it is highly likely that it will be necessary to delay their commencement until operational needs can be met. However, I will be clear with the Assembly on these matters at Further Consideration Stage. In the interim, I am happy to engage with the Members who have tabled the amendments so that we can, hopefully, reach a conclusion that is satisfactory to everyone involved.”
“The PSNI warns that that could have the unintended consequence of officers having to let motorists proceed, even though they have failed a drug test, owing to the lack of legislation to support an arrest. For that reason, there may be limited practical benefit in introducing drug testing at authorised checkpoints at this stage. The PSNI's view is that, if specified drug limits were to be introduced, that type of power would become much more useful, and the PSNI would be supportive of it forming part of the wider drug-driving framework. <BR /> <BR />It is therefore clear that a lot of operational and further legislative detail is required to be worked through by a number of statutory partners.”
“<BR /> <BR />PSNI understands the intention behind amendment No 75 and supports the principle of having that power available in future should excess limits similar to those for alcohol be legislated for. Under current legislation, however, Northern Ireland does not have such specified drug-driving limits, and enforcement remains focused on people who are driving while unfit through drugs. That means that impairment must be evidenced through the manner of driving. A positive roadside drug test may assist an investigation but, by itself, does not prove the offence or place the case in the same position as drink-driving. Should those powers be introduced, the fact that the motorist will have been stopped at a vehicle checkpoint increases the possibility that no impaired driving was witnessed.”
“<BR /> <BR />Officer numbers are already under pressure. Any new legal duty must be something that officers can realistically deliver in practice. The proposal could have consequences for a number of the PSNI's partner organisations, including my Department, Health and Social Care and Forensic Science Northern Ireland. If the amendment creates pressure to roll out roadside drug testing service-wide, that will bring with it additional costs, budgetary pressures and demands for training, equipment, access to forensic medical officers, blood sampling, laboratory analysis and reporting. Under the current legislation, the PSNI advised, a service-wide roll-out of roadside drug testing would not be feasible at this point and could place undue pressure on existing forensic and health service capacity.”
“If the requirement were to apply to collisions, moving traffic offences and cases involving suspicion, it could cover a wide set of circumstances. <BR /> <BR />The scale of the issue is also significant. Between April 2025 and March 2026, there were 38,176 detections for motoring offences in Northern Ireland. Those figures do not include the wider number of motorists who were stopped and spoken to for minor matters, where officers may provide advice or guidance without taking formal action. It appears that a mandatory requirement linked to traffic offences could require officers to carry out preliminary tests even in lower-level encounters in which no formal detection is made. That could remove officer discretion and result in testing that is not necessary. That also needs to be viewed against the current PSNI resourcing position.”
“An improperly drafted statutory duty could result in a member of the public being detained longer than is necessary while equipment is sourced or being subjected to another preliminary test simply to satisfy the legal requirement. <BR /> <BR />A preliminary impairment test is also more intrusive than alcohol and drug testing. It requires the person to leave their vehicle and complete a number of tasks, often at the roadside, in public view and in whatever conditions present at the time. In minor cases, particularly where there is no suspicion of impairment, the PSNI is concerned that doing that may not be deemed necessary or proportionate. There is also a practical issue regarding the range of incidents to which it would apply.”
“For example, if someone takes codeine, they may test positive for certain categories of drug, depending on the test that is undertaken, even though the codeine may not be impairing their ability to drive. As a result, drug testing cannot currently be used as effectively here as it can in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. The PSNI is actively working on that area with its partners. <BR /> <BR />The longer-term aim is to reach a position in which roadside drug testing can be brought more closely into line with preliminary breath testing. Even with preliminary breath testing, there may be occasions on which suitable equipment is not immediately available.”
“Devices are widely available, and officers are trained in their use from their initial training. The process is also supported by drink-driving limits and evidential breath-testing machines that make next steps clearer following a positive preliminary breath test. It should also be noted that current PSNI policy provides that all drivers involved in a road traffic collision that is attended by the police should be breath-tested. That is reflected in the volume of preliminary breath tests that are already carried out, with 30,363 tests recorded between 1 January 2025 and 31 December 2025. <BR /> <BR />The position is different for preliminary drug testing. The main limitation is, as I mentioned, the absence of a specified drug limit in Northern Ireland such as those available in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.”
“If legislation states that the police must carry out one or more of the preliminary tests, there would need to be clarity around what happens when that cannot be done for genuine operational reasons. There may be occasions when a test cannot be carried out owing to circumstances on the ground. For example, there may be no suitable device available, an issue with equipment, a medical priority, scene safety concerns or other competing demands at the scene. In those circumstances, there is a risk that officers, despite acting reasonably, could be left open to criticism, legal challenge or unintended consequences. <BR /> <BR />It is important to distinguish between the three types of preliminary test. Preliminary breath testing is well established and already supported by internal PSNI policy.”
“<BR /> <BR />The amendments were tabled on 19 May, and neither my Department nor the Department for Infrastructure has had sufficient time to carry out the usual due diligence on the fitness for purpose of the amendments' wording or the operational implications. However, the PSNI has provided some helpful initial information. The PSNI supports effective preliminary testing where it is lawful, necessary and practical. There is no objection in principle to strengthening the use of preliminary testing or to improving the policy, training and operational capability that supports it. However, the PSNI would have concerns about any amendment that creates an absolute statutory duty that cannot always be met in practice.”
“<BR /> <BR />I understand that amendment No 75 would amend the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to change the intention of article 17 of that Order from providing a power for the PSNI to administer preliminary tests to a duty to administer preliminary tests if, in certain circumstances, a constable reasonably suspects that the person has been driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle and has committed a traffic offence or if an accident occurs. There would still be a power, as opposed to a duty, if a constable reasonably suspects that the person is driving or attempting to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs.”
“<BR /> <BR />I understand that amendment No 74 would amend the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to provide powers to the PSNI, when on duty at an authorised checkpoint, to ensure that people cooperate with a checkpoint drugs test. The amendment defines a checkpoint drugs test as obtaining a specimen of saliva analysed by an approved device to determine the presence of drugs in the body. It would be an offence to fail to cooperate with a checkpoint drugs test without reasonable excuse.”
“The Minister advised that the three proposed amendments on vehicle seizure, preliminary testing for drink and drugs and drug checkpoints also reflect public engagement with her Department on the issue and that she is content with policy intent of the three amendments. Minister Kimmins and I therefore both support the opportunity for the Assembly to engage on and consider each of the amendments as we work collectively to address this life-or-death issue. <BR /> <BR />I want to speak to the amendments in the group in the sequence in which they feature on the Marshalled List. Amendment Nos 74 and 75, tabled by Messrs Frew, Bradley, Kingston and Dunne, would amend the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to insert new clauses relating to drugs testing at authorised checkpoints and a duty to administer preliminary tests.”
“After what feels like a bit of a filibuster over the last hour, I will be as brief as possible while giving Members my assurances on some of the issues that have been raised. <BR /> <BR />I am grateful to the Members for tabling these important amendments, and, while I support any measures that would make our roads safer, the amendments fall within the remit of the Department for Infrastructure. I therefore consulted the Minister for Infrastructure, who advised me that road safety continues to be of paramount importance to her and that she is committed to working proactively to address a range of issues that negatively impact on road safety.”
“Thank you. Of course that is the case, and that is why we do not have prescribed limits: the presence of any illegal drug an offence. The challenge is to link it, in a way that is compliant with the law, with saying that that has, in some way, interfered with a person's capacity to drive the car. That is where it becomes more difficult, and I want to bottom it out with the Members involved so that we are able to implement it in a meaningful way.”
“I do not want to debate through the Member, but I am happy to —.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. One of the challenges that I will refer to in my speech is that, unlike with alcohol, we do not have statutory limits for drugs in a person's system, and that can make it hard for the police to enforce because they have to observe incapacity to know that a person has been taking drugs. While I am supportive of the amendments tonight, they may need some revision at Further Consideration Stage in order to provide a workable way forward. However, I want to work with the Member and his colleagues to find a way through so that we can implement the legislation in such a way that the police have the resources to enforce it and it is meaningful in its outcomes.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He is, as always, very generous with his time. The Member mentioned a young man who was injured by an e-scooter. Many parents buy the e-scooters, and their children use them without helmets and are moving at quite a speed. Does the Member agree that people need to consider the risks to the children who use e-scooters, not just the life-changing injuries, but the permanent damage, if not death? There needs to be some responsibility shown by the parents who purchase those vehicles when they know there is no suitable place where they can be operated safely, instead of, basically, launching their child out the door with something that could cause death or serious injury.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I also thank his colleagues whom I met along with the family of Jaidyn Rice. You will be aware that, in addition to these amendments, there is provision in the sentencing Bill to increase the sentence available for those who, through intoxication from drink or drugs, cause death or serious injury. It is really important that in cases such as that of Enda Dolan, for example, the maximum penalty available is raised in order that it can reflect the seriousness of the incident. It is not an accident. If you take drugs or drink and get behind the wheel of a car, it is a deliberate act, and if somebody suffers loss, hurt or injury as a result of that, you should definitely be held fully accountable.”
“It is solely to ensure that officers reach the highest standards and are protected from colleagues who do not.”
“When it is not, it is important for the protection of those diligent officers, the public and others with whom they may work in the future that we have barred and advisory lists so that no one who is under suspicion of poor practice at home can simply go and work in another service elsewhere. It is also important that that can be dispatched as quickly as is practicable so that we do not lean on the public purse and spend money on such cases as, we know, has happened in the past. For instance, we know that an officer who was suspended for a prolonged period, on full pay, worked a second job during their suspension. We know that those things have happened. That is what we want to prevent. It is not to besmirch every officer, and it is certainly not to open up another round of legacy opportunities.”
“All of this is about keeping the public safe, ensuring that we have confidence in the PSNI and ensuring that the good officers who put themselves between us and danger every day do not have their reputation damaged by people in the organisation who act in bad faith, abuse their position and seek to bring the organisation into disrepute. I never want to be in a position where we need to use the regulations. I would like to believe that every officer who joins the PSNI will do so with the desire and intent to serve people lawfully, diligently and with the highest personal and professional standards. However, that may not be the case.”
“It would also allow the PSNI access to the information that is required to commence and conclude disciplinary proceedings, so long as it does no harm. That is something that not only the Police Ombudsman believes would be helpful but which two Chief Constables and a number of other senior officers have said they would find helpful. It would enable them to move more swiftly to ensure that the person is removed from service if they are unfit, particularly in serious offence cases where you are dealing with gross misconduct.”
“Amendment No 76 would allow the Police Ombudsman to submit an early report where it is clear at that point in the investigation that the officer concerned has committed gross misconduct. On the way through an investigation, that may well be reached well before a final decision on whether the criminal threshold for prosecution has been met. That will allow an early report to the Chief Constable in order for him to make a decision on whether they should have a special case hearing, as we discussed. That could reduce the time spent on suspension at a cost to the public purse while awaiting the outcome of a criminal case, provided that any resultant disciplinary proceedings can be judged not to prejudice the criminal case. That would, without doubt, require the responsible person to liaise with the PPS to ensure that it would not do so.”
“I have been clear about the burden that legacy places on the Department of Justice, the ombudsman's office and the Police Service. With new legacy arrangements coming down the track from Westminster, I do not want to reopen or create more work in the justice system when there are alternative mechanisms for those to be addressed.”
“Again, I see no reason why we would depart from that mechanism, although, again, I am open to engaging with Members and others as the regulations are drafted. The equivalent date here would be 1 July 2016, which is when our code of conduct came into force. It is our intention to have a time limit.”
“However, it will mirror the England and Wales provisions in setting out a specific framework, via which the ombudsman will make a special determination. The ombudsman will consider the seriousness of the alleged gross misconduct, the impact of the allegation on public confidence in the police, and the public interest. In making any determination, it will also consider the nature and seriousness of that conduct. <BR /> <BR />To be clear, those regulations have been in operation in England and Wales since 2017, and we continue to engage with the Home Office on good practice. In England and Wales, condition C is limited in time to the point where the police code of conduct was set in legislation, which, in England and Wales, was 2012.”
“Condition B applies in cases in which the individual ceased to be an officer prior to the allegation coming to their attention but it happens within 12 months. That one will be for the PSNI. In England and Wales, it is 12 months. I see no reason why we would wish to deviate from the 12-month limitation here. <BR /> <BR />Condition C applies in cases in which the individual ceased to be an officer and it took longer than 12 months for the allegation to come to light. In England and Wales, under those circumstances, you can go to disciplinary only where you have a special determination by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. It is envisaged that the Police Ombudsman will fulfil the equivalent function here.”
“<BR /> <BR />When it comes to reassurance that Members have sought, the intention is that regulations will be enacted once the primary provision is in place. We will aim to mirror the equivalent provisions already in operation in England and Wales. However, we are willing to engage with Members of the House, members of the Committee, the PSNI, the Police Federation and others about how that should look in our particular circumstances. The provisions in England and Wales specify that for condition A, where the allegation had already been noted before the individual ceased to be an officer, there is a one-year limitation on that recall. Sorry: condition A means that the proceedings can continue, even if the officer ceases to be an officer after the allegation has come to the attention of the authority.”
“the primary legislation comes into operation. Only when the Act is commenced will we have a situation in which someone who retires after that point will be amenable under those particular rules. However, it will permit provision to be made for those who cease to be a police officer after it comes into operation even in circumstances in which the alleged conduct occurred prior to the primary legislation. To be clear, only when this becomes operational will the start date of the ability to recall someone who retires kick in, and that person would need to retire on or after that start date. It is only possible to make provision in relation to those who cease to be officers after the primary provisions come into operation. Anyone who retires in the interim will be unaffected.”
“if they had still been serving. There is an extra layer of protection in that case. <BR /> <BR />Further to that, in circumstances in which condition C applies, disciplinary proceedings may be taken against the person only if the ombudsman, as the corollary for the Independent Office for Police Conduct here, determines that taking those proceedings would be reasonable and proportionate. The net effect of the modifications that we need to make will allow cases in which condition A applies for disciplinary proceedings commenced to reach conclusion, even should they retire or resign. <BR /> <BR />Clause 23A(8)(a) specifies that subsequent regulations:”
“For example, the regulations in England and Wales, which we intend to align with, limit that period to one year. The Chief Constable then takes the decision as to whether it is reasonable to recall that individual. <BR /> <BR />Condition C is that:”
“of the appropriate authority. Condition B is that:”
“I have taken time to set out the limitations on those provisions that I envisage coming forward as regulations. The provisions will have a slight retrospective effect; it is limited and will apply only in specific circumstances and be subject to a number of safeguards. The provisions have been drafted to align the Northern Ireland police conduct regulations with those in operation in England and Wales. <BR /> <BR />New clause 23A sets out the circumstances in which the regime for former officer proceedings can be applied: conditions A, B and C. Condition A is that:”
“In light of recent cases in which individuals who were employed to protect society have abused their position, and given some of the horrifying outcomes that we are aware of as a result, I believe that the amendments will ensure that we have a cohesive system of safeguards in place to prevent such people from gaining further employment in roles that would afford them similar access and opportunity to abuse. That is a significant step in addressing behaviours that have no place in law enforcement and in protecting our citizens from those who may be predatory and may seek out a job that gives them status or in some way absolves them from the kind of scrutiny that others would expect. <BR /> <BR />A lot of discussion has taken place and concern has been expressed about the retrospective effect of the provisions on barred and advisory lists.”
“<BR /> <BR />The public and those who are vulnerable, either through their ongoing circumstances or through an unexpected incident, ought to know that they are protected from individuals who seek to abuse the position of trust in which they have been placed. We regularly ask people who have experienced trauma to go to the police to report the incident to them, including victims of domestic and sexual violence and abuse. It is important that, when they go to the PSNI, they are not engaging with someone who themselves might exploit that position of trust and access to do further harm. We need to take the issue seriously when it comes to barred and advisory lists.”