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 5624464
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have made the point about the prematurity of legislating without having alternatives in place. The Minister has made her point about not making unnecessary preparation for something that may not materialise. I understand that. However, if we were to take the provision forward, it would have been better to do so through primary legislation, albeit the Minister would not have been able to do that because, as she rightly said, we did not support it at the Executive. An amendment on something as significant as this is not the way to do it. Removing too early the backstop of a minimum age of 10 risks sending an unintended signal that there are limited consequences for serious wrongdoing. In practical terms, it has a direct implication for what happens in our schools. Without access to the existing framework of policing and youth justice, schools may be left to manage serious incidents internally. Unfortunately, that includes assaults, threats and other harmful behaviour, which would place a considerable burden on teachers and school leaders who are neither trained nor resourced to operate as a substitute for the justice system. I caution Members: it is not for us here in the comfort of the Assembly Chamber to hand down what many regard as idealistic policies that would result in the consequences of the amendments that are proposed. Teachers and other children and their rights are most important to me. The amendments would also limit the range of responses available. While suspension or expulsion are sometimes necessary, they do not address the root causes of behaviour, and nor do they reliably prevent recurrence. Indeed, increased reliance on exclusion risks displacing the problem, placing vulnerable young people outside the protective structure of school and increasing the likelihood of further harm in the community.
I will continue making progress. If I were to give way to the Member, she would continue to embarrass herself. I will save her from that behaviour. I do not want the Member to be a repeat offender when it comes to what she has contributed to the debate. There are also important considerations around safety and confidence. If serious behaviour were not seen to be met with appropriate consequence and intervention, that could erode trust. Victims may feel unsupported; staff may feel exposed; and parents may question whether their children are safe. Those perceptions matter. They impact on attendance, well-being and educational outcomes. I accept that the current system is not perfect, but it enables schools to draw on vital multi-agency support. Engagement with the PSNI and the Youth Justice Agency is not simply about accountability; it provides structured intervention, risk assessment, support for victims and a means of reducing reoffending. Schools also benefit from wider safeguarding and youth justice partnerships that assist in managing risk and addressing harmful behaviour in a coordinated way. Any proposal to raise the age of criminal responsibility must therefore demonstrate clearly how those important functions would continue to be delivered and must show how victims would be protected, how harmful behaviour would be addressed effectively and how schools would be supported to maintain safe environments.
520 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | 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 | 0.47 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.30 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.19 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| 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.