Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 16 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Givan

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

16 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5624436

Read the official Assembly record

Text

No, with respect, I am going to make some progress. I am happy to give way on points of clarity and will do so in due course, but I am going to proceed. I was making a comment about Mr Dickson's indicating that it may well be difficult for some of the arm's-length bodies to engage with Ministers in the Department of Health or the Department of Education because of the position that we have taken. I am not accountable to arm's-length bodies; the arm's-length bodies are accountable to Ministers. My ultimate accountability is to the electorate and the people of Lagan Valley. As a Member of the Assembly, that is from whom I get my mandate and to whom I am accountable. I want to make clear my position on some of the amendments. They have been tabled with sincerity by Members, who have spoken passionately about them. I do not seek to say that Members are anything other than sincere, but I think that the amendments are misplaced. That is my view, and I hope that people can disagree with me on that agreeably. The amendments that have been tabled are dangerous for teachers and children. I believe that most people will view with disbelief the notion that the minimum age of criminal responsibility would potentially be raised to 16 and that such a position is advocated not only by Mr Carroll, who tabled that amendment, but by someone who was appointed as the Children's Commissioner. That raises very serious questions. If I am certain of one thing, it is this: it may not be in 12 months or 12 years' time, but, if some of the amendments were to be passed, the day would come that the public would ask, "What on earth were the MLAs who voted in favour of those changes doing?". What is the problem that the legislation seeks to address?

Why are we seeking to unpick arrangements that, in practice, result in a very small number of children being subject to criminal sanctions? I fully recognise the importance of children's rights and the need to support vulnerable young people, but this is not the way to do that. Why would we elevate the rights of children who are potentially responsible for criminal offences over those of the children who might be their victims? Why would we make young people who are immune from prosecution vulnerable to exploitation by older people? To say that I am not persuaded that raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is the right course of action at this time is an understatement. It is a fundamental mistake.

It is not an academic issue. From an education perspective, schools across Northern Ireland are increasingly managing complex and serious incidents, including violence, sexualised behaviour, serious bullying and online harm. Those behaviours cause significant distress and trauma not only for victims but for the wider school community, including our education workforce. Schools have a fundamental responsibility to provide a safe and orderly environment for learning. Where serious incidents occur, pupils, staff and parents rightly expect that they will be dealt with in a meaningful and consistent way. I am sorry; I indicated that I would give way to Miss McAllister.

539 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