Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- 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 5624450
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am happy to respond. There is a contradiction where, on the one hand, I am criticised for drawing on my education experience but, on the other hand, am asked questions about that. I have no problem with that. I will be happy to provide some of those statistics to the Member who has raised them. The broader point that the Member has made is whether I believe that the most effective way to tackle those behavioural issues in our schools is through the criminal justice system: no, I do not. Do I want those young people to get a criminal record? No, I do not. I believe that young people should get not only one, two or three chances but multiple chances to make sure that they do not become embroiled with a criminal record, because that can be harmful. However, we should, in cases of extremity and where there are repeat offences, have access to the criminal justice system. The Youth Justice Agency engages with some of those young people in a school setting, and it is effective in helping us. However, where an offence that is committed is so egregious, it is only right that, in those circumstances, the victim should have recourse to the criminal justice system. As a norm and a rule of thumb, I do not want our young people being criminalised, whether that is in schools or in wider society.
The broader point is that raising the age of criminal responsibility risks reducing the deterrent effect that is associated with the most harmful behaviours. While most children are not motivated by legal consequences, it is important that clear boundaries and accountability frameworks exist. That matters, particularly for a very small cohort of young people whose behaviour can have a disproportionate impact on others.
300 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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.63 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.20 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.10 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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.