Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mrs Ciara Ferguson on 16 June 2026.

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 5624388

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I agree 100%, and nobody across the House would dispute that, because they were young people themselves and tested boundaries. If children have love and a nurturing environment around them that sets boundaries and discipline, that is how they learn. I do not think that anybody can disagree with that. Maintaining the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be reframed: it is actively choosing to keep a system in place that discriminates against children based on their vulnerability and their exposure to abuse, poverty, neglect, family breakdown and trauma. It is criminalising and detaining with no consideration of the emotional, educational and economic inequalities that those young people have faced or the future impact of stigmatisation or incarceration on their capability to turn their life around. As Members noted yesterday, adverse childhood experiences are significant, and the question that we should be asking is this: what happened to you? We know that there is investment across every Department in advancing training to ensure that people know what adverse childhood experiences are and how they should be working with and supporting our young people. Do we really believe that the best place for those vulnerable young people is behind bars, or do we believe that they deserve a chance to grow, to change and to be more than their worst mistake? Criminalising children does not make any of us safer. It unfairly traps vulnerable young people — disadvantaged kids — into a cycle of offending. A criminal record at age 10, 11, 12 or 13 is, in my opinion, a life sentence in disguise for those young people. Instead of pushing those young people deeper into the justice system, we can collectively use welfare-based interventions, counselling and restorative justice to address the root causes of their behaviour, whether that is trauma, neglect, poverty or abuse. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child supports a minimum age of at least 14, and we wholeheartedly agree, with exceptions in only the most serious of cases: murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and assault by penetration.

The Department's public consultation found that there was overwhelming support — 84% — for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. With each passing year, we are increasingly out of step with international standards and a contemporary understanding that is based on data and research on child development. We also live in a society in which around one in four children grows up in poverty. We also have some of the highest numbers of children in residential care and experiencing homelessness. Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility fundamentally increases public safety. The evidence shows that avoiding criminal justice outcomes and processes is vital to reducing offending and reoffending among children and young people and that restorative responses significantly lower rates of violence and reduce the number of future victims. A renewed focus on community-led, trauma-informed and rehabilitative responses to childhood offending is required. Equally, targeted early interventions on child poverty, housing insecurity and institutional care are critical. If we are to divert children and young people away from the criminal justice system sustainably, we need to focus on meeting their needs and on delivering child-friendly justice. Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14 is not about excusing harmful behaviour. In fact, it is about preventing it. It is about recognising that children need guidance, not a criminal record. It is about replacing punishment with rehabilitation and substituting fear for opportunity. Criminalising children does not make anyone safer, but it does trap children in a cycle of offending. Countries that have made the change see fewer children reoffend, stronger communities and a better future for their young people. We can protect the public, honour victims and support children simultaneously. Through restorative practices, rehabilitation and secure care, where needed, we can deliver better outcomes without branding vulnerable children for life. Reform does not weaken the ability to intervene on harmful behaviour. Rather, it strengthens the interventions that will be used: interventions that are proven to better rehabilitate, to reduce reoffending and to improve public safety. Restorative justice can give victims a voice, an apology and real change, not just a sentence on a piece of paper. Let us choose a justice system that heals rather than harms our young people. Give our children — all our young children — the chances that they deserve. Let us not punish children into becoming adults whom each and every one of us, and our communities, will fear. Instead, let us invest in a system in which they can become the types of adults that we need for our community into the future. Expert organisations, practitioners and human rights institutions all support that vital change. It is a progressive and evidence-based proposal that is rooted in international human rights standards. Instead, the DUP, the Ulster Unionist Party and the TUV have chosen to remove our ability to vote by misusing a mechanism that was introduced to protect minority rights to block progressive change. The absolute absurdity of that is playing out in practice now when the co-sponsor of the amendment and the Minister, who is the Bill sponsor, cannot even vote on their proposals. Those who signed the petitions of concern, particularly those in the UUP who initially refused to do so, should go and meet the 60-plus organisations that we have all met and explain their decision to them. Discuss the issue with them, read their evidence and relay to them the rationale and reasoning behind your decision on the minimum age of criminal responsibility. We had a huge opportunity — a real chance — to make a positive change for our children and young people. We had an opening to follow the evidence and raise the minimum age, thus putting human rights at the forefront of our youth justice system. Rather than retain one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility across Europe, we had the opportunity to modernise our youth justice laws, put in place stronger, evidence-based interventions and enhance our existing youth justice provisions, which are recognised around the world. The petition of concern was introduced as a process to protect minority rights, enable equality across communities and ensure human rights compliance. Instead, locally elected representatives have been blocked from exercising our duties to debate and vote on an important issue, yet we were elected by our communities to do so. It is completely unacceptable. In my opinion, it is a disgrace that the petition of concern was misused. To those across the Chamber who deployed the petition in such a cynical manner, I say this: if you are so confident in your position, go and speak to the 60-plus organisations. Go and read the evidence and explain to them that they are wrong. Do not block the rest of us from exercising our legislative responsibilities, which we have been mandated to carry out by our constituents. Finally, I appeal to those who have signed the petition of concern, particularly to those who claim to have the best interests of children at heart: it is not too late to change your mind. In two weeks' time, you will have the chance to remove your name from that cynical petition and let the democratic process happen. You have the chance to reflect, rethink and listen to the voices of the experts. I strongly encourage you to adopt these progressive, evidence-based proposals and raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

1,242 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:53 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.

Challenge this classification