Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Ciara Ferguson on .
- MLA
- Mrs Ciara Ferguson
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 16 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5624380
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the opportunity to speak at this stage of the debate on the minimum age of criminal responsibility. First, I will take a moment to thank the Ten is Too Young coalition, which is a group of six leading children's rights and justice organisations, and, more widely, the wider 60-plus organisations that Nuala just mentioned. All supported taking this huge opportunity to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility. I thank them for their invaluable research, briefing papers and ongoing engagement. I also take the opportunity to apologise to those organisations for the situation that played out yesterday. Reflecting on last night, I felt that the quality of the debate was nothing short of disgraceful and that democratic right of people here to deliver significant legislative change has been left in a futile state. The reality is that the most vulnerable children will continue to be criminalised, and the most disadvantaged of those vulnerable young children will suffer the most. The Ten is Too Young coalition took evidence from a wide range of European countries that overwhelmingly use welfare responses, diversion, education, family support and child protection-based interventions. In those countries, there are legal thresholds for compulsory school attendance, social media bans, medical consent and more. To reflect modern research on developing psychology and neuroscience, we must reflect children's capacity. The science is clear: the human brain, especially the parts responsible for impulse control, judgement and understanding consequences, is still developing well into the mid-teens. I am sure that everyone here can remember how they acted as a 10-year-old, 11-year-old, 12-year-old or 13-year-old. Children under the age of 14 often act impulsively and without the ability to fully grasp the long-term impacts of their actions. Surely, therefore, where we realise that there is a need to protect young people from premature exposure to adult responsibilities, adult risks and adult consequences, it is difficult to justify a system that continues to hold people criminally liable when they are of primary-school age. I will focus my remarks on the impact of early criminalisation and the need for stronger, targeted welfare-based responses, early intervention and family support. Children's rights organisations have raised the issue of the criminalisation of care and the fact that children in care are over-represented in the criminal justice system here. We should all pause to reflect on the over-representation of children in care in the youth justice system. A report from 2022 contained an acknowledgement from legal professionals that disproportionately more children in care appear in court. In fact, since the report was written, the figures have continued to climb, and, as of 2024-25, 48·4% of children in custody were in care. I will say that again: 48·4%. That means that nearly half of all our young people who are detained have complex backgrounds stemming from the social care system, which clearly evidences a disproportionate over-representation. Unsurprisingly, that is linked to several factors, such as individual and family backgrounds placing children and young people at increased risk of offending; extensive trauma, which fundamentally alters the nervous system and manifests itself in challenging behaviours; and heightened criminal involvement in residential settings compared with how similar issues will be resolved in a steady, nurturing family home.
Yes.
537 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 | 0.11 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.10 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:52 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.