Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Amendments on Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Amendments on Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5601830
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Many teachers have given their support to the measures, so it is not the case that this is about the Department of Justice versus teachers, as the Member suggests. Many of those who are highly specialised in dealing with young people recognise that confronting a young person with their actions and the consequences of those actions is often much more effective than imposing penalties. It is important that we listen carefully to what those who work with young people and have experience of achieving desistance have to say on the matter. They have, for example, spent years working in the youth justice system to ensure that young people are safe and that they do not go on to create more victims. As I said, there will still be accountability. I believe that that accountability will be proportionate and appropriate. As I said before lunchtime to your now former colleague the Member for Upper Bann, we will not implement the provisions in the legislation until such times as we have in place a robust mechanism for accountability.
176 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: 0.07 (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 (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.59 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.28 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:51 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.